This independent film is a daring break from the typical messages sent from Hollywood. Hollywood's messages often confound the American viewer with their slant towards their understanding what our freedoms are, and how they are acceptably given up for causes that only certain liberal elitists agree with. Not so, with the "Last Ounce Of Courage". This film depicts the emotional struggle between a Vietnam veteran and a representative from Washington D.C. sent to "advise" the veteran he cannot set up Christmas decorations on the court house lawn in his small town. The plot tracks through some other controversial issues, such as understanding what freedom is, how those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom are often ignored, and the true meaning of Christmas. Admittedly, there are flaws with this low budget film that have to do more with how the characters are developed, and the sometimes overly saccharine and heavy handed way the actors are portrayed in this drama. My greatest criticisms are, why was the Washington D.C. representative portrayed by an African American,and why was the Vietnam War veteran (highly decorated for valor) "suddenly" called a fraud? Aside from these flaws, the film still boasts a potential in its message that, in my opinion, no American should turn away from. I recommend everyone see this film, if for no other reason than to witness what an underfunded independent can do to shame Hollywood in the political awareness arena.
Reviews
24 Reviews
Last Ounce of Courage
(2012)
Powerful, and daring...NOT from Hollywood!
14 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The Incredible Shrinking Man
(1957)
Size does NOT matter.
28 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Grant Williams plays Scott Carey, a man who is accidentally exposed to a bizarre cloud of radiation when lounging on deck of his brother's Cabin Cruiser during a vacation voyage. His wife, Louise (Randy Stuart) escapes this fate as she goes below deck for refreshments. As the story unfolds, we see how Scott gradually starts to become smaller and smaller. A victim of a weird mutation which causes his molecular structure to reduce in size, Scott must first grapple with the social implications of his changing state, then his psychological battle for acceptance by his peers. He also fears losing what matters to him most- Louise's love and acceptance. Scott's whole world suddenly becomes a fate worse than death, when, after escaping from an attack by his pet cat, is accidentally plummeted into the basement. The rest of the film deals with his continuing shrinking, and his fight for survival for food, shelter and against a spider which has become his single nemesis. Scott ultimately accepts the fact that his infinitesimal size actually intersects with the infinite, that to God, size does not matter. This is one of the rare sci-fi films that can be enjoyed from its mere perspective (a LOT of hard work, thanks to director Jack Arnold) and to an intelligent script (among many from Richard Matheson). Still as inspirational today, as the first time I watched it 40 years ago!
The Terminator
(1984)
A Classic that will continue grow
12 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I recently saw "The Terminator" on a movie channel after at least a 10 year hiatus. I'm happy to report that James Cameron's plot,and direction, and the gritty acting by Schwarzenegger, Hamilton and Biehn have NOT faded on the screen after all these years. Despite improvements in CGI, etc., the mesmerizing force of the titanium endoskeleton wrapped in synthetic tissue still causes the sci-fi fanatic in me to rejoice! It is also refreshing to see that no film has touched upon the idea of sending an agent back in time to destroy the creator of the future as well as this film does. Not only did this film come off as a huge success, but the following two sequels fell into place in a satisfying way. I can see that this film will continue to grow in its cult status over the years, based on its simplicity, thrills and suspense, and sheer action value. I've GOT to get the entire collection of all three films someday, so I won't have to "stumble" upon it by chance on a movie channel.
Robinson Crusoe on Mars
(1964)
As Good A View of Mars as the '60s Could Allow
3 October 2008
This marvelous gem of a film works on many levels- scientific appreciation of the facts we had in the early '60s, a plot that doesn't go over the top extraterrestrial-wise, and a fair devotion to Daniel Defoe's classic of a sailor marooned on an island. Combine these elements with the competent direction of Byron Haskin and Van Cleave's stirring soundtrack, and you get Robinson Crusoe On Mars.
Yes,nearly all of the facts we know about Mars TODAY make the film fairly dated. But when all is said and done,the scientific community around 1964 ( release date of the film ) had limited data, and therefore ( what they had to go on ) lent a level of credibility you simply didn't find in your typical sci-fi flick of the late fifties and early sixties.
The film centers around an astronaut marooned on the planet's surface, after making evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision course with a large meteor. His constant fight for survival makes up the largest part of the plot, but like Defoe's novel, he befriends a slave from another foreign place, and learns to communicate with him.
Both must learn to depend upon one another, even though one hopes against hope in being rescued, the other hopes against hope from being recaptured. I saw this film when it first came out, and now that it has finally been made into a DVD (with excellent technical re-recording values and extra highlights never before made known), I can honestly say that I felt as though I was right there on Mars with our astronaut hero.
Yes,nearly all of the facts we know about Mars TODAY make the film fairly dated. But when all is said and done,the scientific community around 1964 ( release date of the film ) had limited data, and therefore ( what they had to go on ) lent a level of credibility you simply didn't find in your typical sci-fi flick of the late fifties and early sixties.
The film centers around an astronaut marooned on the planet's surface, after making evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision course with a large meteor. His constant fight for survival makes up the largest part of the plot, but like Defoe's novel, he befriends a slave from another foreign place, and learns to communicate with him.
Both must learn to depend upon one another, even though one hopes against hope in being rescued, the other hopes against hope from being recaptured. I saw this film when it first came out, and now that it has finally been made into a DVD (with excellent technical re-recording values and extra highlights never before made known), I can honestly say that I felt as though I was right there on Mars with our astronaut hero.
The Reaping
(2007)
Tagline should have been, "What Hath God Rot?"
13 April 2007
"The Reaping" is supposed to be this year's entry into the horror/thriller/lost faith genre, but doesn't quite know where to go. Should it be just a horror flick? No. How about a "lost faith" story? Nah. But it does qualify for being a thriller, in my opinion.
Carey and Chad Hayes' yarn about a miracle investigator (Hilary Swank) and her assistant (Idris Elba) trudging through some Louisiana bayou in search of a "plague" problem is kinda sketchy in the long run. But, in the short run, the film succeeds in generating some decent suspense and old-fashioned thriller values. The pair get involved with helping a small backwater come to terms with a series of bizarre events. The events are very reminiscent of the Old Testament variety, so, the locals feel God is punishing them for something. Swank gets somewhat involved with a townie named Doug (David Morrissey) while she attempts to prove that science can better explain the "plagues" than the die-hard religious believers.
Unfortunately, there are many flashbacks to Swank's past, and confusion reigns supreme by the end of the film. The story could have been developed better, and despite Hilary Swank's honest attempt to save the scenes, I was left with an overall sense of "HUH?"
However, IF you can suspend belief for a while, and IF you don't get too distracted by the ruse of Satanic cults, you are sure to get an eyeful of special effects, all paced at a rapid-pulse rate.
The film cries out for what could have, or should have happened, as far as the purists might want. The rest of us "regular" viewers, however, may find "The Reaping" worthwhile for chomping on the popcorn, and the occasional fingernail. I give it a 5. However, it IS better than the bottomed-out responses from some of the reviewers here.
Carey and Chad Hayes' yarn about a miracle investigator (Hilary Swank) and her assistant (Idris Elba) trudging through some Louisiana bayou in search of a "plague" problem is kinda sketchy in the long run. But, in the short run, the film succeeds in generating some decent suspense and old-fashioned thriller values. The pair get involved with helping a small backwater come to terms with a series of bizarre events. The events are very reminiscent of the Old Testament variety, so, the locals feel God is punishing them for something. Swank gets somewhat involved with a townie named Doug (David Morrissey) while she attempts to prove that science can better explain the "plagues" than the die-hard religious believers.
Unfortunately, there are many flashbacks to Swank's past, and confusion reigns supreme by the end of the film. The story could have been developed better, and despite Hilary Swank's honest attempt to save the scenes, I was left with an overall sense of "HUH?"
However, IF you can suspend belief for a while, and IF you don't get too distracted by the ruse of Satanic cults, you are sure to get an eyeful of special effects, all paced at a rapid-pulse rate.
The film cries out for what could have, or should have happened, as far as the purists might want. The rest of us "regular" viewers, however, may find "The Reaping" worthwhile for chomping on the popcorn, and the occasional fingernail. I give it a 5. However, it IS better than the bottomed-out responses from some of the reviewers here.
Little Otik
(2000)
You Gotta Czech This One Out!
9 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
My wife and I missed the beginning of the movie, and truthfully, the only reason she called me in to see it was so I could determine the language the characters were speaking. I figured it to be Czech, Yugoslavian, or some Eastern European country. I only knew it was NOT Russian.
However, three minutes into the movie, I was hooked by the bizarre visuals, camera close-ups and acting ALONG with the language. It suddenly dawned on me that this was a strange, Czech Republic "black comedy", and since I was unfamiliar with Jan Svankmajer's works, I became absorbed by the story of a young couple who yearn to have a baby. In an attempt to lessen his wife's severe maternal needs, the husband provides her with a tree root that is shaped roughly like an infant. From there, I thought this was going to be a psychological treatise on the barren woman syndrome. How surprised I was to find out that she actually treats her "baby" as if it were human!
At that point onward, I kept chuckling, laughing and cringing much the same way I did in "Little Shop of Horrors". I was kept on the edge of suspense, as the couple try to hide the "baby" from their apartment building neighbors. This becomes a complete disaster when it is discovered what a HUGE appetite the "baby" has, and leads to comic misunderstandings,and macabre ideas alike.
The ending, which in my opinion was too long in coming,was fairly well anticipated... but a weird relief just the same.
These actors were solid and likable, and the culture and living conditions of the "typical" Eastern European middle class were very interesting. With a little bit of horror, and a lot of laughs, "Little Otik" kept itself remarkably buoyant!
However, three minutes into the movie, I was hooked by the bizarre visuals, camera close-ups and acting ALONG with the language. It suddenly dawned on me that this was a strange, Czech Republic "black comedy", and since I was unfamiliar with Jan Svankmajer's works, I became absorbed by the story of a young couple who yearn to have a baby. In an attempt to lessen his wife's severe maternal needs, the husband provides her with a tree root that is shaped roughly like an infant. From there, I thought this was going to be a psychological treatise on the barren woman syndrome. How surprised I was to find out that she actually treats her "baby" as if it were human!
At that point onward, I kept chuckling, laughing and cringing much the same way I did in "Little Shop of Horrors". I was kept on the edge of suspense, as the couple try to hide the "baby" from their apartment building neighbors. This becomes a complete disaster when it is discovered what a HUGE appetite the "baby" has, and leads to comic misunderstandings,and macabre ideas alike.
The ending, which in my opinion was too long in coming,was fairly well anticipated... but a weird relief just the same.
These actors were solid and likable, and the culture and living conditions of the "typical" Eastern European middle class were very interesting. With a little bit of horror, and a lot of laughs, "Little Otik" kept itself remarkably buoyant!
Far from Heaven
(2002)
Lavish, melodramatic, but makes its point
16 March 2006
When I first saw this film on DVD, I thought,
"This borders on being a bit too contrived. The story, dialogue and scenery seemed to be too forced upon us. It is as if the artist paints a still-life with heavy gobs of paint, and forces me to question the credibility of the film."
However, I let the scenes settle in my mind, and after a while, I started to wonder, "Is this direction style deliberate? If so, maybe I should take another look at it."
I'm glad I did. I did a little research, and found out director Todd Hayne's handling of the story was akin to Douglas Sirk. Sirk was best remembered in the 1950's for his melodramatic portrayals of ordinary people caught in circumstances that proved to be ahead of his time.
In other words, Sirk introduced us to certain social dilemmas that simply could not be ignored. Alas, these were the '50s, and what posed for social commentary veiled in "soap box" melodrama then, would be considered ahead of his time.
I apologize for rambling in my review, but after doing this small bit of research,I was able to better understand "Far From Heaven". Yes, the dialogue appears stilted at times,and the decor and clothing oozing off the screen at you in their vibrant colors. It then occurred to me that Haynes might be paying a sort of homage to Sirk.
The story involves the lives of a wealthy Hartford,Connecticut family in 1957 whose surface appearance of harmony, grace and social propriety belie a darker existence behind closed doors. The topics of bigotry and social abhorrence of race and homosexuality are what make the story dark. Indeed, the relationships between the lily-white Whitakers, their stuffy self- righteous community and a black family all collide into a mass of emotionally charged reality. This reality (not well received in the '50s,to say the least),was that of racial tension and gay love.
However, Cathy Whitaker (Juliette Moore) and her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) turn in sterling performances as an upright couple suddenly facing chaos due to Frank's gay disclosure. As the marriage crumbles, Cathy reaches out to the hired gardener (Dennis Haysbert) for solace. As she does so, she unwittingly brings upon her the scorn of her peers, who are shocked at the interracial meetings of the two. Cathy is betrayed by her husband, her best friend, and must reconcile herself to the fact that she cannot have any future with a black man as well.
Although many "heart strings" are pulled throughout the film, I can't say I was not touched by this lavish melodrama. It is curious to point out that Douglas Sirk's 1955 "All That Heaven Allows" and this film have haunting similarities. Nevertheless, "Far From Heaven" makes its point, and does so without being preachy.
"This borders on being a bit too contrived. The story, dialogue and scenery seemed to be too forced upon us. It is as if the artist paints a still-life with heavy gobs of paint, and forces me to question the credibility of the film."
However, I let the scenes settle in my mind, and after a while, I started to wonder, "Is this direction style deliberate? If so, maybe I should take another look at it."
I'm glad I did. I did a little research, and found out director Todd Hayne's handling of the story was akin to Douglas Sirk. Sirk was best remembered in the 1950's for his melodramatic portrayals of ordinary people caught in circumstances that proved to be ahead of his time.
In other words, Sirk introduced us to certain social dilemmas that simply could not be ignored. Alas, these were the '50s, and what posed for social commentary veiled in "soap box" melodrama then, would be considered ahead of his time.
I apologize for rambling in my review, but after doing this small bit of research,I was able to better understand "Far From Heaven". Yes, the dialogue appears stilted at times,and the decor and clothing oozing off the screen at you in their vibrant colors. It then occurred to me that Haynes might be paying a sort of homage to Sirk.
The story involves the lives of a wealthy Hartford,Connecticut family in 1957 whose surface appearance of harmony, grace and social propriety belie a darker existence behind closed doors. The topics of bigotry and social abhorrence of race and homosexuality are what make the story dark. Indeed, the relationships between the lily-white Whitakers, their stuffy self- righteous community and a black family all collide into a mass of emotionally charged reality. This reality (not well received in the '50s,to say the least),was that of racial tension and gay love.
However, Cathy Whitaker (Juliette Moore) and her husband Frank (Dennis Quaid) turn in sterling performances as an upright couple suddenly facing chaos due to Frank's gay disclosure. As the marriage crumbles, Cathy reaches out to the hired gardener (Dennis Haysbert) for solace. As she does so, she unwittingly brings upon her the scorn of her peers, who are shocked at the interracial meetings of the two. Cathy is betrayed by her husband, her best friend, and must reconcile herself to the fact that she cannot have any future with a black man as well.
Although many "heart strings" are pulled throughout the film, I can't say I was not touched by this lavish melodrama. It is curious to point out that Douglas Sirk's 1955 "All That Heaven Allows" and this film have haunting similarities. Nevertheless, "Far From Heaven" makes its point, and does so without being preachy.
The Constant Gardener
(2005)
Better PRAY this is not happening...
7 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
"The Constant Gardener", kept me riveted throughout. This fictional thriller, based on John LeCarre's novel, could easily have been taken from real life.
Rachel Weisz is the wife of a British diplomat (Ralph Fiennes) stationed in Kenya. While the diplomat keeps himself busy with the mundane government functions, his humanitarian wife uncovers a conspiracy of global proportions.
When she threatens to blow the whistle on a large international drug firm for unethical practices on the Africans, she is assassinated by corporation thugs. Ultimately, the diplomat pieces together the puzzle of her death, and must confront both Governmental and corporate collusion in this believable conspiracy.
Weisz and Fiennes are remarkable in this film, but kudos to John LeCarre for his story. The implications of biomedical experimentation carried out on a "disposable" population are IMMENSE, and should not be taken lightly!
Both Weisz and Fiennes portrayed very intense, but different characters. Under the direction by Fernando Meirelles, these characters not only made a major political statement, but an enormous "wake-up call" to the possibility of what COULD be happening in Africa right now. No wonder it is Oscar material!
Rachel Weisz is the wife of a British diplomat (Ralph Fiennes) stationed in Kenya. While the diplomat keeps himself busy with the mundane government functions, his humanitarian wife uncovers a conspiracy of global proportions.
When she threatens to blow the whistle on a large international drug firm for unethical practices on the Africans, she is assassinated by corporation thugs. Ultimately, the diplomat pieces together the puzzle of her death, and must confront both Governmental and corporate collusion in this believable conspiracy.
Weisz and Fiennes are remarkable in this film, but kudos to John LeCarre for his story. The implications of biomedical experimentation carried out on a "disposable" population are IMMENSE, and should not be taken lightly!
Both Weisz and Fiennes portrayed very intense, but different characters. Under the direction by Fernando Meirelles, these characters not only made a major political statement, but an enormous "wake-up call" to the possibility of what COULD be happening in Africa right now. No wonder it is Oscar material!
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
(2005)
Very engaging, yet questions abound
3 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This film attempts to raise the possibility of demonic forces lurking just outside our sphere of reality. It also showcases the legal drama that unfolds as a lawyer (Laura Linney) defends a priest (Tom Wilkinson)accused of causing the death of a young woman by way of an exorcism "gone bad".
The premise is good, and being based on a true story, I rented the film thinking it was going to be a sort of "Inherit The Wind" sort of thing.
What I got was a surprisingly disturbing thriller that went beyond the courtroom to that possibility of demonic forces. The main part of the story was very engaging, yet there are questions that abound.
For example, why didn't the writers and director flesh out the character of Emily Rose more? Why were we not exposed to more evil manifestations in the heroine before her death? Did the other family members witness ANY sort of strange occurrences going on? (That is, apart from the live hornet's nest shown at the film's beginning on a winter's day) Why didn't the prosecution pursue the psychotic break theory more vigorously? The film did have moments of sheer suspense and graphic acting out of demon possession WITHOUT the gore, feces, vomit, etc. popular in other movies of this type. The heroine, played by Jennifer Carpenter, made my spine tingle during her moments of anguish- her contortions were so realistic. The voice overdubbing during the possessions was chilling, although a bit too loud in my opinion.
Both Wilkenson and Linney gave sturdy performances. I'm sure if director Scott Derrickson paid a little more attention to plot details, this film would have fared better. Nonetheless... I won't be able to sleep anymore when the clock strikes 3 in the morning!
The premise is good, and being based on a true story, I rented the film thinking it was going to be a sort of "Inherit The Wind" sort of thing.
What I got was a surprisingly disturbing thriller that went beyond the courtroom to that possibility of demonic forces. The main part of the story was very engaging, yet there are questions that abound.
For example, why didn't the writers and director flesh out the character of Emily Rose more? Why were we not exposed to more evil manifestations in the heroine before her death? Did the other family members witness ANY sort of strange occurrences going on? (That is, apart from the live hornet's nest shown at the film's beginning on a winter's day) Why didn't the prosecution pursue the psychotic break theory more vigorously? The film did have moments of sheer suspense and graphic acting out of demon possession WITHOUT the gore, feces, vomit, etc. popular in other movies of this type. The heroine, played by Jennifer Carpenter, made my spine tingle during her moments of anguish- her contortions were so realistic. The voice overdubbing during the possessions was chilling, although a bit too loud in my opinion.
Both Wilkenson and Linney gave sturdy performances. I'm sure if director Scott Derrickson paid a little more attention to plot details, this film would have fared better. Nonetheless... I won't be able to sleep anymore when the clock strikes 3 in the morning!
Trapped in Paradise
(1994)
Taken For A Ride
10 January 2006
I'm sure "Trapped In Paradise" was MEANT to be a full fledged comedy, and WANTED to have a heart-warming message to it... perhaps even HOPED it would capture the holiday spirit-seeking audiences that paid hard money to see this. But, I'm afraid it failed on all three counts. Not that Nicolas Cage, Jon Lovitz and Dana Carvey aren't ordinarily funny, by all means, no. They are wonderful in their own rights.
It's just that THIS storyline, script and direction lost its punch very early in the film, and the three main characters simply could not save it. Yes, I laughed out loud several times, and liked the madcap interaction between Cage, Lovitz and Carvey. But I think I could have written a BETTER ending, one befitting that of "The Blues Brothers", or something like it. Perhaps the next time these three guys get together in a comedy, they'll find a better writer and director. Otherwise, they will remain "trapped" in (fill in the blank).
It's just that THIS storyline, script and direction lost its punch very early in the film, and the three main characters simply could not save it. Yes, I laughed out loud several times, and liked the madcap interaction between Cage, Lovitz and Carvey. But I think I could have written a BETTER ending, one befitting that of "The Blues Brothers", or something like it. Perhaps the next time these three guys get together in a comedy, they'll find a better writer and director. Otherwise, they will remain "trapped" in (fill in the blank).
Final
(2001)
alternate title: "One Who Flew BEYOND The Cuckoo's Nest
9 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
In this off-beat psycho-drama, Denis Leary slowly comes to the realization he is being kept in a state psychiatric institution for reasons that are both confusing to both him AND the audience. Under the watchful eye of Dr. Ann Johnson (Hope Davis), Leary careens from one flashback to another.
He is convinced that his short, ill-fated marriage, the death of his father, and his drinking binges somehow unhinged him. But can those items explain the paranoia he suffers about a coma, cryosurgery, and a conspiracy to keep him under Government control?
The relationship between patient and doctor plods along slowly, and there are some holes in the logic that continue to badger even the most casual film critic. However, in the final analysis, Leary and Davis are appealing as a tragic couple. There is that confrontation with the truth at the end that makes any of us ask, "What is sanity... and to whom should we trust this sanity?"
He is convinced that his short, ill-fated marriage, the death of his father, and his drinking binges somehow unhinged him. But can those items explain the paranoia he suffers about a coma, cryosurgery, and a conspiracy to keep him under Government control?
The relationship between patient and doctor plods along slowly, and there are some holes in the logic that continue to badger even the most casual film critic. However, in the final analysis, Leary and Davis are appealing as a tragic couple. There is that confrontation with the truth at the end that makes any of us ask, "What is sanity... and to whom should we trust this sanity?"
The Boys Next Door
(1996 TV Movie)
Wonderful film; but I'd REALLY like to see the play.
28 May 2005
This Hallmark Hall Of Fame film lives up to its usual mark of excellence for the T.V. audiences. Based on a play by Tom Griffin ( which I have not yet seen), it describes the sometimes comedic, sometimes tragic lives of four men in a transitional home for those who cannot eke out a "normal" living due to psychiatric and/or developmental disabilities. Norman (Nathan Lane) is moderately mentally challenged, but has the demeanor of a 10 year old. Lucien (Courtney B. Vance) is severely developmentally disabled, and although he's perhaps in his late twenties, has a mind of a 4 year old. Arnold (Michael Jeter) is both mentally challenged and bipolar, which makes him an interesting, if not unstable character. Barry (Robert Sean Leonard) is a young man in his early to mid twenties, but has trouble dealing with reality due to his schizophrenia. At the helm of this fascinating ship of misfits is Jack (Tony Goldwyn) the social worker and the key to helping these men live as independently as possible. The relationships between these four men with special needs and the social worker with HIS special needs (a neglected marriage) are intertwined with various effect...sometimes hilarious, sometimes painful, but always moving. Although it is always difficult for the movie industry to portray any subject dealing with mental illness/developmental disability, this film does an above average job. However, I can't help but feel that too much material was squashed into the script, that the movie didn't "flesh out" the characters enough. Nathan Lane,though a comic genius and gifted actor, appeared to be a little too caricatured in his role. Courtney B. Vance was far and away the most realistic in his portrayal of the perennial child. Michael Jeter was funny, but he didn't have the essential qualities that a manic person would display on a consistent basis. Robert Sean Leonard is an astute actor, but failed to convince me that he suffered with schizophrenia. Tony Goldwyn was effective as the social worker who is co-dependent with his four charges, but never quite crystallized his sense of marital destruction towards his wife. Despite these shortcomings, "The Boys Next Door" rates as a top-notch film. If nothing else, this off-beat story will compel me to read or watch Griffin's play.
House of Sand and Fog
(2003)
Visual treat, but staggering tragedy nonetheless
24 May 2004
Jennifer Connelly squares off against Ben Kingsley in this morbid cultural clash between an apathetic recovering alcoholic house cleaner and the dutiful and dignified Iranian Air Force colonel over the ownership of the young woman's house.
The question of who's the priveledged land owner vs. the interloper comes into focus when Kathy (Connelly) loses her California oceanside bungalow to the county for non payment of taxes. In the interim, Col. Massoud Behrani (Kingsley), newly immigrated to America with his wife Nadeh and son, Esmail, are teetering on financial crisis of their own. In order to correct this, he buys Kathy's auctioned house for a pittance, moves in and plans to re-sell it for 4 times its purchase price.
Kathy, aided by a deputy sheriff (Ron Eldard), try desperately to get her house back to her, even if it means going outside the legal system. I did say "desperately", didn't I?
The result is a series of gross errors (mainly done on part of Kathy and her deputy sheriff lover, as he leaves his family and marriage in ruin) which culminates in bitter tragedy at the end.
Again, who is the land owner, and who is the interloper? This question is as evasive as the fog that surrounds the house, and the shifting sand that occupies the beach below it.
Connelly, as ever one of the most beautiful actresses to grace Hollywood in a while, is excellent in her character as an American alienated from society and herself. She finds strength in a love tryst with Ron Eldard's deputy sheriff long enough to "fall off the wagon" and become a serious nuisance to the dignified Iranian immigrant who Ben Kingsley portrays to the "n-th" degree. Shohreh Agdashloo is marvelous as Kingsley's wife, and through her, one truly gets to understand that perhaps the wise, hospitable ways of the Old Country is far more likeable than the transient and self gratifying ways of the American life style.
Although I was disappointed in the overly quick development of Connelly's and Eldard's love interest and how that impacted on the plot later in the film, I would give "House of Sand and Fog" 7 out of 10 stars... mainly for the magnificence of Ben Kingsley, Shohreh Agdashloo and Jennifer Connelly- in that order.
The question of who's the priveledged land owner vs. the interloper comes into focus when Kathy (Connelly) loses her California oceanside bungalow to the county for non payment of taxes. In the interim, Col. Massoud Behrani (Kingsley), newly immigrated to America with his wife Nadeh and son, Esmail, are teetering on financial crisis of their own. In order to correct this, he buys Kathy's auctioned house for a pittance, moves in and plans to re-sell it for 4 times its purchase price.
Kathy, aided by a deputy sheriff (Ron Eldard), try desperately to get her house back to her, even if it means going outside the legal system. I did say "desperately", didn't I?
The result is a series of gross errors (mainly done on part of Kathy and her deputy sheriff lover, as he leaves his family and marriage in ruin) which culminates in bitter tragedy at the end.
Again, who is the land owner, and who is the interloper? This question is as evasive as the fog that surrounds the house, and the shifting sand that occupies the beach below it.
Connelly, as ever one of the most beautiful actresses to grace Hollywood in a while, is excellent in her character as an American alienated from society and herself. She finds strength in a love tryst with Ron Eldard's deputy sheriff long enough to "fall off the wagon" and become a serious nuisance to the dignified Iranian immigrant who Ben Kingsley portrays to the "n-th" degree. Shohreh Agdashloo is marvelous as Kingsley's wife, and through her, one truly gets to understand that perhaps the wise, hospitable ways of the Old Country is far more likeable than the transient and self gratifying ways of the American life style.
Although I was disappointed in the overly quick development of Connelly's and Eldard's love interest and how that impacted on the plot later in the film, I would give "House of Sand and Fog" 7 out of 10 stars... mainly for the magnificence of Ben Kingsley, Shohreh Agdashloo and Jennifer Connelly- in that order.
Frequency
(2000)
Is it ham radio, or a quincunx?
26 April 2004
In this unusual suspense yarn that allows a father and son to communicate via a parallel universe, Dennis Quaid and Jim Caviezel discover not only has the impossible occurred, but possible things that DID exist in their time-space continuum CAN be altered.
Try not to ponder the complexities of quantum physics and the existence of a quincunx via an unusual ham radio communication during an intense solar flare. Rather, enjoy the film whose merits are based on the surprisingly well scripted story by Toby Emmerich, and solid acting of Quaid and Caviezel whose destinies are flung together in a way rarely seen in a film.
It is in watching the interplay of these individual destinies, relayed via the ham radio, that will keep you absolutely entertained.
I don't know why this film didn't get better press/critical review upon its release (2000), but it certainly is a cut above the usual sci-fi genre grappling with time-space, parallel universes, and the like.
I highly recommend it.
Try not to ponder the complexities of quantum physics and the existence of a quincunx via an unusual ham radio communication during an intense solar flare. Rather, enjoy the film whose merits are based on the surprisingly well scripted story by Toby Emmerich, and solid acting of Quaid and Caviezel whose destinies are flung together in a way rarely seen in a film.
It is in watching the interplay of these individual destinies, relayed via the ham radio, that will keep you absolutely entertained.
I don't know why this film didn't get better press/critical review upon its release (2000), but it certainly is a cut above the usual sci-fi genre grappling with time-space, parallel universes, and the like.
I highly recommend it.
American Pie
(1999)
What kind of "masterbaker" did this "Pie" come from?
24 March 2004
"American Pie" is a film made from a tired recipe of tasteless sex jokes, cliches, and over-the-top attempts to shock, yet titillate the unsuspecting viewer.
Teen angst is at the center of this Michigan high school romp, which describes the attempts of how four seniors lose their virginity in a short amount of time.
I can plainly see more shortcomings than strengths from this movie (reportedly directed and produced by first-timers Paul and Chris Weitz, and written by the neophyte, Adam Werz).
But, I admit that some of the time spent with these fictional characters made me smile, even chortle to boot. The balance for all of the sexual bufoonery comes in two forms: the attempt by the school "jock" to create a meaningful relationship with a female choir singer, and the attempts by Eugene Levy (as the father) to help his son ( played by Jason Biggs ) come to grips with the youth's burgeoning sexuality...literally.
In contrast to Sophia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides", where the teenage struggle for sexual self identity takes on a grim capacity, "American Pie" is a constant barrage of locker-room innuendo, punctuated by zany stunts performed by four believable boys who have anything BUT school on their minds.
Though not the funniest film I've seen in this genre, I have to hand it to the Brothers Weitz and Adam Werz for turning out such a piece of pastry for their first try.
Teen angst is at the center of this Michigan high school romp, which describes the attempts of how four seniors lose their virginity in a short amount of time.
I can plainly see more shortcomings than strengths from this movie (reportedly directed and produced by first-timers Paul and Chris Weitz, and written by the neophyte, Adam Werz).
But, I admit that some of the time spent with these fictional characters made me smile, even chortle to boot. The balance for all of the sexual bufoonery comes in two forms: the attempt by the school "jock" to create a meaningful relationship with a female choir singer, and the attempts by Eugene Levy (as the father) to help his son ( played by Jason Biggs ) come to grips with the youth's burgeoning sexuality...literally.
In contrast to Sophia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides", where the teenage struggle for sexual self identity takes on a grim capacity, "American Pie" is a constant barrage of locker-room innuendo, punctuated by zany stunts performed by four believable boys who have anything BUT school on their minds.
Though not the funniest film I've seen in this genre, I have to hand it to the Brothers Weitz and Adam Werz for turning out such a piece of pastry for their first try.
Peter Pan
(2003)
As youthful as ever
2 January 2004
I was enchanted by this movie within the first 5 minutes. My 11 year old niece and 7 year old nephew were probably a little "less" enchanted (due to the rather extended length of it), but the set design, CGI effects and humorous scenes made up for it in the long run.
The "sensuality" between Wendy and Peter should not be confused with sexuality (as is often the sorry REALITY in the lives of 12 to 14 year olds these days!).
Wendy was on the verge of discovering the whole universe of a young woman's feelings of love, and thereby, was about to enter adolescence/adulthood. This was the pivotal part in which the original story's author, Sir James Barrie tried to show when he depicts Peter Pan as an immortal boy... without love, and without the ability to re-connect to the "real" world of 1899 London.
That being said, the film was poignant, and showcased the remarkable acting talents of Jeremy Sumpter (Peter Pan) and Rachel Hurd-Wood (Wendy).
The CGI effects and cinematography were stunning for such an "unknown" movie, and I do hope that this film gets the best reviews for its class for 2003.
The "sensuality" between Wendy and Peter should not be confused with sexuality (as is often the sorry REALITY in the lives of 12 to 14 year olds these days!).
Wendy was on the verge of discovering the whole universe of a young woman's feelings of love, and thereby, was about to enter adolescence/adulthood. This was the pivotal part in which the original story's author, Sir James Barrie tried to show when he depicts Peter Pan as an immortal boy... without love, and without the ability to re-connect to the "real" world of 1899 London.
That being said, the film was poignant, and showcased the remarkable acting talents of Jeremy Sumpter (Peter Pan) and Rachel Hurd-Wood (Wendy).
The CGI effects and cinematography were stunning for such an "unknown" movie, and I do hope that this film gets the best reviews for its class for 2003.
The Virgin Suicides
(1999)
Alternate title: "How NOT To Raise Your Children"
1 January 2004
Few "coming of age" films have the sensual, dream-like quality as this 1974 look at upper middle class American suburbia.
Written and directed in 2001 by Sofia Coppola (Francis Ford Coppola's daughter), this mesmerizing account of adolescent sexual socialization (set in the posh suburbs of 1974 Detroit) has a bittersweet quality, yet is tragic as well.
A group of young teenage boys come into contact with five bewitchingly beautiful teenage sisters in their affluent neighborhood. Each savor the short time they have with these girls, who are extremely overprotected by their devout Catholic parents (Woods and Turner).
Humorous, sensual, and highly evocative of "boy-meets-girl awkwardness" as seen through the boys' eyes, this film is a tribute to an American way of life not unlike "American Beauty". However, the dreaminess comes to an abrupt end... an "awakening", if you will... by the boys as they come to grips with a tragedy they are barely able to comprehend
With a memorable original musical score by the group, Air, and a list of the familiar favorites from the rock groups of the seventies, "Virgin Suicides" is a clear winner for anyone who has precious memories of growing up during their early teen years... but may be shocked by the consequences of being kept isolated by one's parents too long.
Written and directed in 2001 by Sofia Coppola (Francis Ford Coppola's daughter), this mesmerizing account of adolescent sexual socialization (set in the posh suburbs of 1974 Detroit) has a bittersweet quality, yet is tragic as well.
A group of young teenage boys come into contact with five bewitchingly beautiful teenage sisters in their affluent neighborhood. Each savor the short time they have with these girls, who are extremely overprotected by their devout Catholic parents (Woods and Turner).
Humorous, sensual, and highly evocative of "boy-meets-girl awkwardness" as seen through the boys' eyes, this film is a tribute to an American way of life not unlike "American Beauty". However, the dreaminess comes to an abrupt end... an "awakening", if you will... by the boys as they come to grips with a tragedy they are barely able to comprehend
With a memorable original musical score by the group, Air, and a list of the familiar favorites from the rock groups of the seventies, "Virgin Suicides" is a clear winner for anyone who has precious memories of growing up during their early teen years... but may be shocked by the consequences of being kept isolated by one's parents too long.
The Thing
(1982)
As graphic as they come!
9 December 2003
John Carpenter takes horror to a new level by thrusting the viewer into the bleak, frigid expanse of the Antarctic, where an American expeditionary research team encounters the unexpected.... a rescue of a sled dog pursued by a pair of Norwegian paramilitary types from their camp miles away. In so doing, the Americans unwittingly provide a safe harbor for what turns out to be a hideous alien creature capable of assuming any life form in close proximity to it- in this case, the Husky.
Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley and Richard Dysart head a cast of scientists, and support personnel who are yanked out of their sheer daily boredom and cabin fever to confront the Thing.
Problem is,WHO is the Thing, and WHO is the genuine human? A bitter battle for survival ensues,complete with the dark paranoia and exhaustion caused by each of the men not trusting each other.
Carpenter follows John Campbell Jr.'s short story, "Who Goes There?" far more closely than Howard Hawks did in the original 1951 release. By doing so, Carpenter was allowed to capitalize on 1982 special effects in order to portray the alien at its goriest splendor. Rob Bottin's latex and mechanical effects are superb, and will still evoke a sense of disgust from even the more seasoned horror movie buff.
The sense of distrust, vulnerability and anxiety mounts among the research staff as they try to figure out how to bring this perfect imitator out into the open... before they are all consumed by It.
Definitely graphic. Definitely claustrophobic. Definitely one of Carpenter's best films. It will leave you trembling in your bed at night, whispering, "who goes there?"
Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley and Richard Dysart head a cast of scientists, and support personnel who are yanked out of their sheer daily boredom and cabin fever to confront the Thing.
Problem is,WHO is the Thing, and WHO is the genuine human? A bitter battle for survival ensues,complete with the dark paranoia and exhaustion caused by each of the men not trusting each other.
Carpenter follows John Campbell Jr.'s short story, "Who Goes There?" far more closely than Howard Hawks did in the original 1951 release. By doing so, Carpenter was allowed to capitalize on 1982 special effects in order to portray the alien at its goriest splendor. Rob Bottin's latex and mechanical effects are superb, and will still evoke a sense of disgust from even the more seasoned horror movie buff.
The sense of distrust, vulnerability and anxiety mounts among the research staff as they try to figure out how to bring this perfect imitator out into the open... before they are all consumed by It.
Definitely graphic. Definitely claustrophobic. Definitely one of Carpenter's best films. It will leave you trembling in your bed at night, whispering, "who goes there?"
Minority Report
(2002)
"Things To Come" a la Steven Spielberg?
8 December 2003
Another look into the future by the fabulous mind of Philip K. Dick is not so fabulously translated to the screen by Steven Spielberg. Although the plot line engrosses you about how law enforcement works in the mid 21st century Washington, D.C., it attempts to rely too much on Tom Cruise's character to pull it all together.
Notable scenes involve how society is portrayed under Big Brother's eye, a la Madison Avenue advertising/capitalism gone mad. If you think crowd conditioned thinking to monopolistic advertising is bad NOW.... wait till you see what lies in store for us!
Overall, an enjoyable film, but I think Steven Spielberg is NOT in his element when dealing with Philip K. Dick's stories of our future. The ending was a bit too predictable, and even though you felt some sympathy for Tom Cruise's character as he races against the clock to prove he is "innocent" of a murder not yet commited, you've got to pay a LOT of attention to what is going on, and what is being said to get anything very meaningful out of the story.
Collin Farrell and Max von Sydow add their charm and mastery of acting in their pivotal roles, and for once, Tom Cruise is not a "hot-shot" glamour type wanting to be the center of attention. In this film noir-ish science fiction movie, he is almost "reluctantly" the center of attention.
Notable scenes involve how society is portrayed under Big Brother's eye, a la Madison Avenue advertising/capitalism gone mad. If you think crowd conditioned thinking to monopolistic advertising is bad NOW.... wait till you see what lies in store for us!
Overall, an enjoyable film, but I think Steven Spielberg is NOT in his element when dealing with Philip K. Dick's stories of our future. The ending was a bit too predictable, and even though you felt some sympathy for Tom Cruise's character as he races against the clock to prove he is "innocent" of a murder not yet commited, you've got to pay a LOT of attention to what is going on, and what is being said to get anything very meaningful out of the story.
Collin Farrell and Max von Sydow add their charm and mastery of acting in their pivotal roles, and for once, Tom Cruise is not a "hot-shot" glamour type wanting to be the center of attention. In this film noir-ish science fiction movie, he is almost "reluctantly" the center of attention.
Quatermass and the Pit
(1967)
Anthropology will never be the same!
8 December 2003
Brought to the cinema in 1967 after a successful British t.v. video series of the 1950's, Quatermass And The Pit (aka 5 Million Years To Earth) has one of the most ingenious story lines I've ever seen in a film.
Andrew Keir is the anti-establishment-acting Dr. Quatermass, who refuses to believe the British military's analysis of a recently unearthed missile-like vessel in a subway construction project as anything else but a Nazi UXB from WWII.
Instead, Quatermass and his associates, Dr. Roney and Barbara Judd theorize that the still intact missile is actually from Mars, and may have had more impact on human anthropology than anything else in our existence!
The very idea that an ancient Martian colonization of the earliest hominids 5 million years ago, resulting in a permanent evolutionary restructuring of their brains, is utterly fantastic. This theory goes on to explain why people have been "possessed by the Devil" throughout recorded time, as the ancient race memory the Martians instilled in the earliest ancestors' brains have been triggered. This same race memory is also responsible for the basic psychological "cleaving" of mankind into two basic groups: those that still possess the most primitive Martian drive to survive, and those who do not.
The film compels the viewer to not only think of these implications, but at the end, wonder if this nightmare is truly over? A fascinating film that, despite some technical FX glitches, will either force you to go to church to pray, throw out Darwin's "Evolution of Man", or both!
Andrew Keir is the anti-establishment-acting Dr. Quatermass, who refuses to believe the British military's analysis of a recently unearthed missile-like vessel in a subway construction project as anything else but a Nazi UXB from WWII.
Instead, Quatermass and his associates, Dr. Roney and Barbara Judd theorize that the still intact missile is actually from Mars, and may have had more impact on human anthropology than anything else in our existence!
The very idea that an ancient Martian colonization of the earliest hominids 5 million years ago, resulting in a permanent evolutionary restructuring of their brains, is utterly fantastic. This theory goes on to explain why people have been "possessed by the Devil" throughout recorded time, as the ancient race memory the Martians instilled in the earliest ancestors' brains have been triggered. This same race memory is also responsible for the basic psychological "cleaving" of mankind into two basic groups: those that still possess the most primitive Martian drive to survive, and those who do not.
The film compels the viewer to not only think of these implications, but at the end, wonder if this nightmare is truly over? A fascinating film that, despite some technical FX glitches, will either force you to go to church to pray, throw out Darwin's "Evolution of Man", or both!
The Thing from Another World
(1951)
Will Mankind Prevail? Or will we all become produce?
8 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This fast paced thriller set in an Arctic research outpost has the familiar elements for the 1950's sci-fi movie: a hideous monster unleashed upon mankind, the U.S. military trying to cope with it, and the ever present scientist who wants a chance to glean the "wonders of the Universe" from said creature, all at the same time.
Howard Hawks' adaptation of John Campbell Jr.'s short story, "Wh o Goes There?" may not be completely faithful, but nonetheless, the suspenseful plot about an Arctic research team's discovery of a recently landed spaceship embedded in the ice, and more importantly, it's lone occupant is still gripping today.
When this frozen alien carcass is accidentally thawed out back inside the research station, all hell breaks loose. As soon as the Air Force contingent(led by Kenneth Tobey) realizes that their visitor from space is bent on "feeding" on the human residents there, a "cat and mouse" situation is set up.The Thing is first repelled out into the Arctic blizzard, giving the lead scientist (Robert Cornthwaite) enough time to theorize that it's a highly evolved vegetable from outer space, and therefore, MUST be advanced enough to impart the answers to all man's questions if given a chance to communicate.
Therein lies a major conflict between the Air Force personnel and this scientist... the military sees The Thing as a threat, and the scientist sees The Thing as a fountain of knowledge in disguise. Some disguise! James Arness plays the E.T. visitor which appears at key moments through the film as a menacing humanoid with unusual claw-like hands, and though it is inferred that it is vegetable rather than animal, you're left to your imagination as to what exactly the creature is composed of. The brief encounters with the Thing as it returns from the unseen depths of the storm to feed on human blood is heralded with the ominous ticking of the crew's Geiger counter. Tension mounts as it draws nearer and nearer to the vulnerable wooden buildings of the outpost.
Once it has been revealed that Science wants to "protect" the Thing (as the Dr. Carrington has planted seedlings from the Thing's tissue remains into their greenhouse lab for an eerie result of reproduction), the military binds together with a plot to destroy It.
Although lacking in modern sophistication and effects, this film allows the viewer to be marooned with the hapless research and Air Force crew to face an Unknown, a common enemy... a theme so highly epitomized by the McCarthy era of anti-Communism that engulfed the nation at that time. I say this will always be a classic unto itself, and though not in any way comparable to John Carpenter's 1982 re-make in terms of gore, horror and psychological perspective, it still carries its own due to the snappy script and sense of foreboding.
Howard Hawks' adaptation of John Campbell Jr.'s short story, "Wh o Goes There?" may not be completely faithful, but nonetheless, the suspenseful plot about an Arctic research team's discovery of a recently landed spaceship embedded in the ice, and more importantly, it's lone occupant is still gripping today.
When this frozen alien carcass is accidentally thawed out back inside the research station, all hell breaks loose. As soon as the Air Force contingent(led by Kenneth Tobey) realizes that their visitor from space is bent on "feeding" on the human residents there, a "cat and mouse" situation is set up.The Thing is first repelled out into the Arctic blizzard, giving the lead scientist (Robert Cornthwaite) enough time to theorize that it's a highly evolved vegetable from outer space, and therefore, MUST be advanced enough to impart the answers to all man's questions if given a chance to communicate.
Therein lies a major conflict between the Air Force personnel and this scientist... the military sees The Thing as a threat, and the scientist sees The Thing as a fountain of knowledge in disguise. Some disguise! James Arness plays the E.T. visitor which appears at key moments through the film as a menacing humanoid with unusual claw-like hands, and though it is inferred that it is vegetable rather than animal, you're left to your imagination as to what exactly the creature is composed of. The brief encounters with the Thing as it returns from the unseen depths of the storm to feed on human blood is heralded with the ominous ticking of the crew's Geiger counter. Tension mounts as it draws nearer and nearer to the vulnerable wooden buildings of the outpost.
Once it has been revealed that Science wants to "protect" the Thing (as the Dr. Carrington has planted seedlings from the Thing's tissue remains into their greenhouse lab for an eerie result of reproduction), the military binds together with a plot to destroy It.
Although lacking in modern sophistication and effects, this film allows the viewer to be marooned with the hapless research and Air Force crew to face an Unknown, a common enemy... a theme so highly epitomized by the McCarthy era of anti-Communism that engulfed the nation at that time. I say this will always be a classic unto itself, and though not in any way comparable to John Carpenter's 1982 re-make in terms of gore, horror and psychological perspective, it still carries its own due to the snappy script and sense of foreboding.
The Dark Half
(1993)
Do two Dark Halves make a Hole?
19 October 2003
Interesting and border-line black comedy yarn about a novelist who inadvertently forces his alter-ego (a murderous character in violent stories) to life. Psychologically, the film fares quite well in the thriller element.
However, George Romero's screenplay (adapted from a Stephen King novel of the same name) gets bogged down with metaphors, and predictable events.
Overall, I'd say it was moderately good, and though I haven't read King's novel, I don't know if it was translated well from print to the screen. Seldom are King's novels fortunate to do so. Timothy Hutton gets a nod for tackling the age old "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" routine.
However, George Romero's screenplay (adapted from a Stephen King novel of the same name) gets bogged down with metaphors, and predictable events.
Overall, I'd say it was moderately good, and though I haven't read King's novel, I don't know if it was translated well from print to the screen. Seldom are King's novels fortunate to do so. Timothy Hutton gets a nod for tackling the age old "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" routine.
Blue Monkey
(1987)
The name shoulda given it away..
19 October 2003
This low budget sci-fi tries to incorporate so many elements from "Alien", "The Thing", "Arachnophobia", "Mimic" and "Them", it should be called "Blue Ripoff"!
I know, I know... this film pre-dates "Arachnophobia" and "Mimic", but the "mutated insect-out-of-control, rampaging-through-a-decrepit hospital" idea provides little chills, little suspense, and a lot of sympathy for health insurance litigation. The casting was erratic at best (c'mon...Joe Flaherty and Robin Duke of SCTV fame?) and though the pace was fairly quick in the right places, you still had the sense that too much was crammed into too little a film all too late. The name, "Blue Monkey"?? What's with that? Probably a red herring only the writer and director are aware of.
I know, I know... this film pre-dates "Arachnophobia" and "Mimic", but the "mutated insect-out-of-control, rampaging-through-a-decrepit hospital" idea provides little chills, little suspense, and a lot of sympathy for health insurance litigation. The casting was erratic at best (c'mon...Joe Flaherty and Robin Duke of SCTV fame?) and though the pace was fairly quick in the right places, you still had the sense that too much was crammed into too little a film all too late. The name, "Blue Monkey"?? What's with that? Probably a red herring only the writer and director are aware of.
Invaders from Mars
(1953)
A gem in the rough
19 October 2003
Invaders From Mars is, arguably, a cult classic. William Cameron Menzies, of "Gone With The Wind" and "The Thief of Baghdad" and "Things to Come" fame puts his artistic expertise to work in creating a world of impending doom, seen through the eyes of an 11 year old boy.
It is because of this point-of-view that lends a nightmarish quality to a struggle this boy encounters when he tries to convince the authorities that a spaceship landed in a sandpit behind his house.
The sense of "something's not right" with Mom and Dad starts as the boy's parents are sucked below the sandpit into the evil arms of the Martians, made into zombie-spies, and returned to the surface. The boy's fear mounts when local police and even high-ranking military fall prey to the Martians' mind control.
Through the assistance of a well trusted astrophysicist and a school psychologist the boy convinces the local Army base to make a beach head in the boy's back yard... and the battle to return the boy's parents and the villagers to normalcy begins. Eventually, the boy and the psychologist confront the Martian intelligence (midget Luce Potter as a convincing body-less head with tentacle-like arms in a glass sphere). In a poor "race against time" sequence in which the little boy and psychologist are rescued from the spaceship before it blows up, the film reaches its climax to the cacophonous din of artillery explosions, and Raoul Kraushaar's eerie, disharmonious a capella choir.
Many criticize the poor production values, the over use of stock footage, the idiotic costumes, and the fact that the film had TWO endings (one popularized in Great Britain, one here in U.S.A.).
Yes, I agree that production and set values were cheap (green condoms to represent molten rock "bubbles" in the tunnels and obvious zippers in the velour-like jump suits of the Martian slaves, to name a few.)
Nevertheless, Menzies applies forced perspective to his sets, and the skillful use of background mattes to lend an unearthly tone to the scene Remember folks, this is 1953... a time when Communism infiltration and subordination of Mr. and Mrs. Joe America was the chief "fear of the day". There are few other films of that period that deftly portrayed this paranoia so aptly as "Invaders From Mars"
If one overlooks the "rough" edges of its obviously low budget, one can still appreciate the helplessness, fear and mistrust the little boy develops as his parents and others are turned into "tools of the Martians". Is it truly a nightmare, or did it actually happen? The viewer is left to make that choice.
It is because of this point-of-view that lends a nightmarish quality to a struggle this boy encounters when he tries to convince the authorities that a spaceship landed in a sandpit behind his house.
The sense of "something's not right" with Mom and Dad starts as the boy's parents are sucked below the sandpit into the evil arms of the Martians, made into zombie-spies, and returned to the surface. The boy's fear mounts when local police and even high-ranking military fall prey to the Martians' mind control.
Through the assistance of a well trusted astrophysicist and a school psychologist the boy convinces the local Army base to make a beach head in the boy's back yard... and the battle to return the boy's parents and the villagers to normalcy begins. Eventually, the boy and the psychologist confront the Martian intelligence (midget Luce Potter as a convincing body-less head with tentacle-like arms in a glass sphere). In a poor "race against time" sequence in which the little boy and psychologist are rescued from the spaceship before it blows up, the film reaches its climax to the cacophonous din of artillery explosions, and Raoul Kraushaar's eerie, disharmonious a capella choir.
Many criticize the poor production values, the over use of stock footage, the idiotic costumes, and the fact that the film had TWO endings (one popularized in Great Britain, one here in U.S.A.).
Yes, I agree that production and set values were cheap (green condoms to represent molten rock "bubbles" in the tunnels and obvious zippers in the velour-like jump suits of the Martian slaves, to name a few.)
Nevertheless, Menzies applies forced perspective to his sets, and the skillful use of background mattes to lend an unearthly tone to the scene Remember folks, this is 1953... a time when Communism infiltration and subordination of Mr. and Mrs. Joe America was the chief "fear of the day". There are few other films of that period that deftly portrayed this paranoia so aptly as "Invaders From Mars"
If one overlooks the "rough" edges of its obviously low budget, one can still appreciate the helplessness, fear and mistrust the little boy develops as his parents and others are turned into "tools of the Martians". Is it truly a nightmare, or did it actually happen? The viewer is left to make that choice.
Tell Your Friends