Reviews

There are so many plot holes and just plain stupid parts to this movie it's hard to know where to begin. But I'll try:

1. So Tommy Lee Jones is a mad bomber IRA terrorist. He is able to make a bomb - while in a maximum security prison - blow up his maximum security cell in Ireland, escape, get across the Atlantic Ocean and get into the United States completely undetected by any law enforcement or national security agencies. And apparently he can freely move all around Boston, planting bombs all over town, completely undetected by any police force of law enforcement agencies. Right....

2. The Mad Bomber is able to take a can of soda pop, pour it into a glass, add a metal fork or spoon, add a pinch of table salt and then hook it up to an electric current and make a bomb strong enough to blow up Yankee Stadium. Yeah, right....

3. Jeff Bridges' character was once friends with the Mad Bomber/terrorist, yet he is able to get a job with the Boston PD without any background checks or security clearances picking this up. Okay...

4. The opening scene is so ridiculous as to be absolutely comical. There is a bomb planted in an office building; the entire Boston PD Bomb Squad is cowering behind desks and tables like a bunch of four-year-olds, not knowing what to do, while a bound and gagged secretary who looks like a supermodel from the cover of Cosmo stares wide-eyed at everyone. So Jeff rides in on his Harley, hair blowing in the wind, strolls right into the building by himself, unarmed and with no tools, defuses the bomb and rescues the sexy girl. Right....

5. Oh, and the film is set in Boston, which means that every bar scene has to feature Irish songs, jigs, and dances, since everyone in Boston is of Irish descent, right?

To be fair, Tommy Lee Jones rises above the level of the script, and gives a convincing, although somewhat over-the-top performance.

Save your time and skip this turkey, unless you are looking for a good laugh from a film not meant to be a comedy.

Okay, I realize that to criticize The Big Country borders on sacrilege, but -- as a movie fan who LOVES Westerns -- this movie is WAY overrated. I have my reasons:

1. It is way too long and, frankly. A slow-moving, boring tale.

2 For the most part, the acting is stiff and uninspired. Yes, I know that Burl Ives won a Best Supporting Oscar for his performance, and that's okay (I do not know who the other nominees in that category were that year); his performance did show some depth and emotion even if it was a bit "over the top."

3,. My biggest pet peeve: That absolutely ridiculous dueling scene between Gregory Peck and Chuck Connors. Okay, it's the Old West and I realize in 1950's Westerns "anything goes." But really, we're supposed to believe that two guys are going to have an 18th Century-style duel, complete with dueling pistols? Really? That scene was almost comical.

There were some positives, most notably Chuck Connors (who I thought gave the best overall performance of the entire cast), and of course, that magnificent musical score which truly says "Western Epic" and SHOULD have won the Oscar for Best Score.

But overall, a bore...you'll be checking your watch. I did.

I have watched Monte Walsh (the 2003 remade version with Tom Selleck, although I have also seen the original with Lee Marvin), multiple times, and as you can see from my 9 Stars rating I think it is an outstanding piece of work. I was then motivated to read Jack Schaefer's excellent book, of the same title, that is the basis for the movie.

WARNING: From here forward, there will be SPOILERS, so if you have not read the book nor seen the movie, read further at your own risk.

If you have seen the movie but not read the book, THERE WILL BE BOOK SPOILERS following.

If you have read the book but not yet seen the movie, THERE WILL BE MOVIE SPOILERS ahead, so YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED; read on at your own risk.

First, an obvious comment: The movie is much shorter than the book. Nothing too controversial about that; almost all movie adaptations have to be shorter than the book, for time and production considerations. The movie with Tom Selleck starts in the year 1890 and ends in the early years of the 20th Century, covering maybe the last 10-12 years of Monte's life. The book begins in the early 1870's when Monte is a little boy and follows his many adventures as a cowboy through his 20's, 30's and 40's, through the 1870's, 1880's, and 1890's. Also, unlike the movie, which is set entirely in Wyoming, the book is set primarily in New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona.

Second, Monte's best friend Chet Rollins is indeed a major character in the book as well as in the movie, but MAJOR SPOILER ALERT FOLLOWING -- DO NOT READ PAST HERE IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE MOVIE, OR READ THE BOOK!

SPOILER: In the book, Chet does indeed marry the widow and become a businessman, but he is NOT gunned down by Shorty in a robbery attempt. In the book, Chet becomes a successful and well-respected businessman and even becomes an elected official. Shorty murdering Chet and then Monte avenging Chet's death by killing Shorty is in the movie ONLY; not in the book.

Third, the "Countess" character played by Isabella Rossellini appears nowhere in the book. Monte does become enamored with a young prostitute in the book, and sees her on and off throughout the years, and she does indeed die, but -- unlike in the movie -- the young prostitute in the book was not from Europe, Monte does not call her "Countess," and she does not leave Monte her belongings when she dies.

Just like the movie, the last part of the book does cover the end of the cowboy era and the cowboys know that their way of life is ending. But the book also covers the "heyday" of the cowboy era that existed for decades before where the movie picks up.

The endings are completely different also, but I will not even attempt to write about that here.

My bottom line: Both the 2003 made for TV movie and the book are worthwhile. The movie is beautifully filmed and well-acted, and Tom Selleck and Keith Carradine are perfect in their roles, as are William Devane and the rest of the class. The film captures the end of the cowboys' way of life sympathetically, with pathos and nostalgia mixed with humor and sadness. Watch the movie and read Jack Schaefer's excellent book. Enjoy them both; just don't be too shocked at the differences.

Coming Home is a gritty, tightly-written drama that features superb acting and directing. Even the simple, seedy-looking sets add to the drama.

Veteran actors Crahan Denton and Jeanette Nolan carry the story as two torn, lost souls whose lives are going nowhere. Denton, as Harry Beggs, is released from a long prison sentence, and yearns to return home to his wife even though has never contacted him during his 20 years in prison. Beggs stops at a bar on the way home, which is the source of his new problems.

Clearly being set-up, he loses all of his hard-earned money in the bar to a young seductive woman, played by the exceptionally good-looking Susan Silo, who is clearly working with the bartender. Stunned and despondent, Beggs returns to his tiny, run-down apartment to confess all to his wife. This long scene, with just the two of them, is filled with pathos and the two veterans carry it off beautifully. It comprises the heart of the story.

There is the classic Henry Slesar twist at the end, which is somewhat predictable and not quite up to some of Slesar's other episodes, but it still works, ending the story on a note of despair.

Overall, another Alfred Hitchcock Presents winner featuring exceptional acting, writing and directing.

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir is one of those films I never get tired of watching, no matter how many times I have seen it.

The acting is superb: Gene Tierney is outstanding, projecting the perfect amount of strength, vulnerability and pathos at each key moment of the film. Rex Harrison is more than her equal, and the two project an instant on-screen chemistry without being over the top. Harrison's soliloquy to Tierney, where she is asleep and he whispers to her that he is a dream, is masterful.

Even George Saunders, as the smarmy married author, plays his part perfectly.

Beautifully filmed on the central California coast, this film is a complete joy from start to finish, and will leave you touched with its beauty and sensitivity. A true Hollywood classic that actually gets better as the years go on.

This episode features a classic Alfred Hitchcock Presents plot line: Philandering, handsome business executive husband with a loyal, long-suffering wife at home and a sexy girlfriend on the side. Wife finds out about the girlfriend and demands he stop seeing her; girlfriend wants boyfriend to get a divorce. So the husband is getting pulled in opposite directions.

His answer to both is "just give me some time to work it out," which satisfies no one.

The story takes an ominous turn when the wife has had enough and decides to act. Several plot twists ensue, with a satisfying, although not completely surprising, ending.

This could be the absolute worst episode of the entire series -- not just Season 6, but of the entire Leave it to Beaver series. The rapidly deteriorating quality of the writing, plots, and Jerry Mathers' acting skills are readily apparent in this one.

It's a simple premise: Ward scores a couple of tickets to the upcoming baseball game, but of course it's not any game, this is the "big" game, the B-I-G game, get it? The Big Game, one everyone in town cannot stop talking about. The BIG Game.

But what to do? Only two tickets.

June dutifully announces that she is not interested in gonig. Just like the good, loyal 1960's housewife she represents, she tells Ward that "sports are for you boys."

So that leaves Wally and Beaver, but who goes? Well, Beaver gets Ward off the hook by announcing that he and his friend Gilbert Bates have plans to go to the movies the night of the game, so "..sure Dad, take Wally!"

Problem solved, right?

Wrong. Gilbert then tells the Beaver that his parents are making him go away for the weekend to visit some relatives, and that he cannot go to the movies with him.

Beaver then cheerfully tells his Dad, "Hey Dad, guess what?I can go to the ballgame now." Sure, Beaver, right, like Dad is supposed to just magically come up with another ticket just for you at the last minute. To be fair, Ward does try: He goes down to the ballpark ticket office to try to get another ticket, but of course the game is completely sold out. (This is the BIG GAME, remember?). Not a ticket to be had anywhere. NOTE: Even if there WERE a ticket still available, what are the odds that it would be in the same section of the ballpark as the tickets Ward got originally? So someone would have to sit by himself anyway. But of course this isn't mentioned anywhere.

So that leaves Beaver out in the cold. So what does he do? Stay home and watch TV with Mom? Just figure that "that's life" and he'll get to go to the next game? Hey Beav, how about asking one of your other 25 friends to go to the movies with you instead of Gilbert? THAT idea ever cross your mind -- or the writers' minds?

Nope, not a chance. Instead, Beaver acts like a little four-year-old: pouting and moping and whining about the "unfairness" of life and feeling sorry for himself., with a "Wally this" and a "Wally that" and a never-ending stream of whining and moping to the point that you're ready to punch him in the mouth if he doesn't shut up. And this AFTER he tells his dad that he already had plans to go the movies with a friend that night.

Jerry Mathers' deteriorating acting skills really show here, as do the horrible plot and writing. Don't get me wrong: I LOVE Leave it to Beaver, I'm a BIG fan, but even an appearance by the legendary Eddie Haskell could not have saved this lame episode.

The premise of this strange little episode is highly unrealistic, but solid performances by the veteran John Qualen and an almost creepy Lorne Greene carry the story. That, plus the trademark Hitchcock plot twist at the end makes it worth watching. One of my favorite episodes.

Just as "Time Enough at Last" might be the best and most memorable Twilight Zone episode ever, so "Incident in a Small Jail" might be the best and most memorable of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Written by the peerless master, Henry Slesar, this episode features a spine-chilling double twist of plot at the end, played perfectly by John Fielder. The end will blow you away.

Anyone who has a good feel for Western movies -- or knows anything about the history of the Old West -- will absolutely love The Ballad of Buster Scruggs. How this collection of six beautifully-crafted and superbly acted stories escaped me when it was released, I'll never know.

The first segment, The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, is absolutely hilarious, and intentionally so. It is a no-holds-barred spoof on the Hollywood Grade B Western of decades past, complete with the singing cowboy wandering aimlessly through the desert, happily singing and strumming his guitar. Played brilliantly by Tim Blake Nelson, this segment is by far the funniest of the six and is a total spoof on Old West movies from the 1940's-1950's.

The second story, Near Aldgones, starring James Franco as a down-on-his-luck bank robber, is just plain weird with a big dose of humor thrown in. It's the shortest segment of the six, but the story moves quickly and is completely enjoyable.

The third segment, The Meal Ticket, is touching and beautifully written and acted. It stars Liam Neeson as a traveling impressario and captures the harshness of life in the Old West as he travels from town to town, eking out a living with an unusual entertainment, and ends with a painfully tragic, ironic twist.

All Golds Canyon is of interest as much for the story as it is for an almost tutorial on gold prospecting and how prospectors worked to find the mother lode. It's as much an education as it is a dramatic story.

The fifth segment, The Gal Who Got Rattled, was my personal favorite of the six stories and could almost stand on its own as a short movie. It captures the dangers and difficulties of pioneers traveling by wagon train through the Great Plains, and is told against the backdrop of the budding relationship between Alice Longabaugh, who is traveling to Oregon after her brother dies on the trail, and Billy Knapp, one of the wagon masters. Their growing relationship is conveyed with sensitivity and comes across as completely believable. I still relive the surprise, tragic ending over and over again after watching this twice.

The sixth and last story, the Mortal Remains, is, in my opinion, the weakest of the lot. Although superbly acted, it rambles, and the ending does not nearly have the drama, humor or pathos of the first five stories.

The cinematography is absolutely beautiful and captures much of the unspoiled natural beauty of the Western U.S.

Overall, this compilation is an outstanding example of film making and is 100% worthwhile. It's clear that the Coen brothers are not only masterful storytellers, but they know their Westerns. The Ballad of Buster Scruggs is their homage to Hollywood Westerns of the 1940'-1950's, and to the legacy of the American West itself.

This was a film that had the potential to be an epic. It falls far short of that label, but it is still at least a "good" film -- well above average (hence my "7" rating) -- and worth watching.

The opening scenes capture in vivid detail the horrors of mid-19th warfare, where lines of troops got ripped to shreds walking in long rows directly into the enemy's musket and cannon fire. The horror continued for the wounded, who were subjected to the barbaric battlefield hospitals and surgical techniques of the day, which included no anesthesia and filthy conditions. All of this is captured vividly and in great detail in the opening scenes of the film.

What I really appreciated about The Free State of Jones is that it brings to light a piece of American history that I think few Americans have ever heard about, especially if you are not from a Deep South state. The story of Newt Knight's "secession within a secession" movement was a real eye-opener. In some ways, the Confederacy itself was responsible for generating much of this secessionist sentiment, first by the passage of the so-called "Twenty Negros Law," which clearly favored the large plantation owners over the small, subsistence farmers -- many of whom owned no slaves at all -- and then by the continued taking of the small farmers' food and supplies by the Southern army troops. You would expect the Northern troops to confiscate everything from the Southern farmers; you would not expect the same treatment from your own soldiers who were ostensibly fighting on your behalf. Legally, the Southern troops and the tax agents were authorized to take 10% of food and other property in lieu of payment of taxes. In reality, there was no oversight and the soldiers took whatever they wanted, often leaving the small farm families destitute and facing starvation.

The film inserts flash forwards to a great-grandson of Newt Knight being tried for an interracial marriage in 1960's Mississippi. These scenes were awkwardly inserted and disrupted the flow of the 1860's - 1870's part of the story.

This is a good, but not great movie, but worth watching, especially if you are a devotee of American history. It prompted me to do more research on this little- known part of American Civil War history.