jungophile's Reviews

The Razor's Edge (1946)

7/10

Great if you like lots of talking in cafes, restaurants, and other similarly sized rooms

29 October 2023

That title is a bit much, I confess, but the fact of the matter is (and many astute reviewers here have caught it) that the source novel of this film is only slightly better than average. Maughum hampers himself and the unfolding of his narrative arc by choosing to write in the first person, and he ends up tying himself up in knots trying to set up conversations with Larry, the protagonist, played by Tyrone Power, so Larry can fill him in on what he's been doing and Maughum can plausibly continue with the story, which isn't even particularly engaging. It seems to me like the author was more intent on working himself into his Great American novel, rather than just letting his story stand on its own two feet.

Daryl Zanuck's production is quite faithful to the novel, and even made some money despite a very non-commercial theme and being arguably overlong at 160 minutes. Most of the scenes are lavishly produced except for those taking place in India, which have a "tacked on" quality with painted backdrops and vacuous dialogue between Larry and some bearded "Wise Old Man" at the monastery.

As another reviewer pointed out, Hollywood wasn't exactly "deep" in the '30s; they just wanted their films to make big profits and get more Oscars and media attention than their studio competitors. "The Razor's Edge" wants so badly to be profound, but it ends up looking like a very expensive soap opera with delusions of grandeur; this is not Zanuck's fault, or Trotti's, the screenwriter; the problem is at the root: the novel itself.

Still, the performances, photography, and direction are quite good, even if the more cynical Holden Caufield types would probably find the characters and their existential prattle "phony". Whether you enjoy this film or not comes down to the title of this review because most of this film is just characters talking.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gonjiam: Haunted Asylum (2018)

5/10

Second half has a few chilling moments, but still kind of a waste of time

14 September 2020

The challenge of making a film like this is that any average horror film fan pretty much knows what to expect going in, so the quality of the viewing experience depends a lot on the execution of a well-worn plot line and the professionalism of the ensemble cast. On the plus side, we have a suitably creepy and foreboding atmosphere of a long-defunct mental institution after midnight, and the actors sell the scares pretty well, too. On the negative side, the viewer has to be very patient before the inevitable ghost shenanigans get rolling.

Call me impatient, but I was frustrated by the long set up and character development. Frankly, I couldn't wait for these annoying 20-somethings to get their comeuppance, so consequently, I was rooting for the ghosts by the half way point. Since my sympathy for the characters was practically nil when the horror elements were finally unveiled, I actually chuckled when the "scariest" moments finally made their entrance.

I think the film would have been much more powerful if it was a bit more tightly edited; even just lopping off ten minutes from the first act would have been an improvement. Still, for a low budget Asian horror film, not bad.

9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pulse (2001)

2/10

Great if you want to fall asleep

12 September 2020

I found out about this film from watching a youtube video entitled "10 Asian Horror Films You Must See" or some such. I had already seen four of them, all of which I had liked or loved, so I figured maybe the other six were as good.

I downloaded five of them, watched three, and one out of the three was fantastic (not actually on the list; this one was a title recommended in the comments), one was just OK (not very scary), and the other one wasn't really a horror film. Then I came to Pulse.

This movie was so slow and boring, I kept nodding out. I just didn't get what was supposed to be scary about it; it seemed like a very dated movie that was produced when the internet was just starting to go mainstream, and the director capitalized on the novelty of the world wide web to make a silly, low budget nonsense film about ghosts invading the world of the living through the internet.

This "end of the world" scenario didn't make any sense; it was just a gimmick kind of idea gussied up with cheap ghost effects and cheesy images of the spirits intoning various cryptic messages about eternal loneliness. This is supposed to be scary? It was more like a "Blair Witch Project" kind of deal, which some people were frightened by and others, like myself, who thought it just a bore and waste of time.

By the time the lame ending finally rolled around, I was left feeling like a sucker for bothering to make it to the credits. Very frustrating experience and I hope I have convinced you to not bother with this piece of crap.

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Polyester (1981)

4/10

Quite a come down from the Dreamland period

2 July 2018

I hadn't seen "Polyester" since its initial release, and was curious about it after having just viewed the recent Criterion Blu-Ray of one of John Waters' earlier independent productions "Female Trouble" (1974). I honestly couldn't remember "Polyester" at all, or whether or not I had liked it, so I gave it another look today.

I couldn't even finish watching it; what a wretched, unfunny mess of a movie. I guess Waters figured it was time to sell out for the Reagan era, which was probably a savvy business decision, but the way in which he did it, by doing a broad satire of a Douglas Sirk melodrama using trashy characters and a "reformed" Divine as the pathetic (rather than monstrous, as he played in "Pink Flamingos" and "Female Trouble") character of Francine Fishpaw comes off as a cheap, slapstick betrayal of his earlier anti-aesthetic. Perhaps Waters is even satirizing himself by having his heroine be a pro-life Christian, to show how "sick and twisted" heterosexual family life is in surburban America; recall that Edith Massey, playing Aunt Ida in "Female Trouble," states this explicitly in one of her scenes with her son Gator.

I guess after realizing he couldn't "go home again" and had to do something totally different (his next film after this one, "Crybaby", was pretty iffy, too), Waters hit upon the goldmine idea of doing a musical, "Hairspray," which ended up rejuvenating his career and was later successfully produced as a Broadway smash. Waters didn't give up on his old "bad taste" aesthetic, however; his later film releases that hearken back to his Dreamland period, "Serial Mom", "Cecil B. Demented," and "Pecker", while all ultimately unsatisfying for one reason or another, are all superior to "Polyester".

It is truly sad that Waters' last film with his star Divine was so lame, but it certainly wasn't because of Divine's acting. He gives it his all, but the script suffers from not having any sympathetic characters except maybe for Edith Massey. The casting of has-been Tab Hunter was probably a huge mistake, too, since he and Divine don't really have any chemistry onscreen. "Polyester" hasn't aged well at all, and should be considered a transitional misfire in Waters' career that he was, thankfully, able to put behind him.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.: The Sort of Do-It-Yourself Dreadful Affair (1966)

Season 3, Episode 2

3/10

Harlan Ellison actually wrote some really dreadful TV

6 May 2017

Yes, believe it or not, the great Harlan Ellison, who wrote the classic Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever" , as well as the unforgettable "Demon with a Glass Hand" from The Outer Limits wrote this pitifully cheesy Man From U.N.C.L.E. episode. I guess he was trying to attain that campy Batman type vibe with this quotidian exercise in mediocrity.

All the "funny" scenes don't work, the dialogue is campy and forced, and the whole premise is just plain silly. I only watched this stupid show because I thought Ellison had higher standards and would not disappoint, even with a spy spoof show like Man From U.N.C.L.E. Well, I was soooo wrong.

Give Harlan some credit where it is definitely due, however; the episode title is perfect!

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Trip to Bountiful (1985)

9/10

Did anybody notice....?

6 June 2016

I have read the first few pages of the reviews for this wonderful movie, and no one seems to notice a little touch that Geraldine Page, or perhaps the director, made at the end of this movie that made me smile.

First off, though, let me just say I found out about "The Trip to Bountiful" when I was going through some old Siskel and Ebert shows on youtube to find something new to watch I hadn't heard of. I miss these reviewers so much these days; it was always a pleasure to hear them give a glowing review, to argue intelligently about some film, or to stab an awful movie with cutting remarks that always made me laugh.

Anyway, as you can imagine, "Bountiful" got a two thumbs up rave review, and the clips they previewed looked amazing. I knew immediately I had to see Geraldine Page in this movie, and I was not disappointed. She nailed this part so beautifully I was just awestruck. (Another movie Horton Foote is associated with, "Tender Mercies," has this same quiet force of pure emotion and three dimensional characters that burst with life and spontaneity, and Robert Duvall deservedly won an Oscar for his performance as Mack Sledge).

Now here's the kicker I mentioned earlier. Watch closely at the end when Page has her fingers in the dirt and you will see her put the government check on the ground, but fail to pick it up when she retrieves her purse and gets up to go back to the car. Isn't that a subtle piece of mischief? I bet Jessie Mae had a heart attack herself when she found out she wasn't going to be able to get those new shoes she was no doubt already scheming to buy.

One final note: "A Trip to Bountiful" was remade in 2014 with Cicely Tyson in the lead role. I haven't seen this version, but it also received very strong praise. I'm not surprised; the script is flawless.

9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dead of Night (1945)

7/10

Ingenious cinematic Moebius strip of the supernatural

7 May 2016

Warning: Spoilers

This British anthology film of "Twilight Zone" type stories (15 years before that famous TV series debuted) is one of Martin Scorcese's favorite scary films. After just viewing it this morning, I must say it is very odd that this quite effective and occasionally chilling horror anthology is the solitary attempt by Ealing Studios to make a scary movie.

The trick of the movie (and if you haven't seen it, stop reading here if you don't want the magic of the film spoiled) is that it ends where the story begins; a perpetual reoccurring dream of an architect ensnared in its sinister clutches. However, once you examine the narrative, an obvious fallacy reveals itself.

The nut of the matter is this: in order for the dream (and presumably, the film) to start up again in what we would consider "normal" reality, the architect, Mr. Craig, has to fall asleep in his bed back at home with his wife. However, during the course of the story's unfolding at Pilgrim Farm where all the house guests relate their tales of the supernatural, there is the sticky question of when it is that Mr. Craig falls asleep, and an even stickier question of how his body would be returned to his bedroom in the city.

Therefore, the only feasible explanation left for us is that Mr. Craig never wakes up. In fact, when we see him waking up near the end of the movie, he is actually still asleep and only dreaming that he is waking up. But even this explanation seems wanting; why would this architect dream about all these strangers at a country farm he's never been to in the first place?

Here is where the argumentative dialogue between the characters needs to be examined. With the exception of the psychiatrist, who represents the voice of reason and Newtonian cause-and-effect governing our reality, all of the other characters defend the architect's view that supernatural events sometimes impinge on our mundane reality.

The only premise that makes sense to me, therefore, is that the film itself is holding itself up as a mirror to this pro-supernatural view, with the skeptical psychiatrist acting as a foil to generate the necessary tension. In sum, the key to opening this Chinese puzzle box is in recognizing that we the viewers, due to our willingness to suspend disbelief, automatically presume that Mr. Craig is an actual character. He is not. In a sly way, in his role as the "architect," he represents the film itself.

As a post script, let me add that I think Stanley Kubrick must have seen "Dead of Night" and enjoyed it, for there is more than a bit of this dynamic psychological tension generated in his adaptation of Stephen King's "The Shining" (1980). For example, in "Dead of Night," one of the scarier tales concerns a mirror holding a separate spatio-temporal reality within its frame, a portal to another dimension; a narrative device Kubrick and his co-writer Diane Johnson make ample use of in imbuing the Overlook Hotel with a treacherous ambiance that ensnares its doomed protagonist Jack Torrance.

Speculation on this film's influence on Mr. Kubrick aside, however, "Dead of Night" is wonderful entertainment and remarkably ingenious. My only regret is that I didn't get to see it late at night on TV as a boy, as many of the fortunate reviewers here on IMDb have delightfully related; I'm sure it would have scared the crap out of me, too.

Mr. Scorcese, if you ever happen to read this, thank you for turning me on to this thought-provoking film!

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Revelation: Dawn of Global Government (2016)

4/10

Amateur hour

17 April 2016

Just to be forthright about my political position, I agree that yes, a New World Order of a global nature is being sought by a moneyed elite, but I do not agree as the filmmakers do that faith in Christianity, conservatism, and restoring the Constitution are the answers to this encroachment of tyranny and slavery.

In my view, a world with no rulers or masters, anarchy by its root definition, is the answer, as the Constitution has been subverted for over a century (as the film even points out). Let's not forget, too, that Jesus was, at bottom, an anarchist. If you're a true Christian (I'm not, but I respect people who choose this path), you're an anarchist, not statist reformers as most of the talking heads in this film ironically seem to be.

If the filmmakers genuinely believe that restoring the Constitution is the answer, why don't they even mention Article 5 which is about calling for a Constitutional convention? Obviously they can't because Alex Jones is in the film, and he's on record for being against it. So they trot out Charlie Daniels to spout cornball catch phrases, and occasional scenes with a second rate George Washington who can't even muster a passable Virginia dialect.

The photography is OK, and the sound mix is above average, but it's all talking heads with fast editing cuts to keep it from getting too boring, which it still is. They should have cut at least 15 minutes from this turkey; it was interminably long and a lot of the interviews are of negligible value (Debra Medina? C'mon, who outside of Texas knows who SHE is?).

I learned about this film showing in my neighborhood via an Oath Keepers email blast, and I think it is ironic that Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers and much more of a can-do heavy weight than at least half the people giving interviews here, only got two segments at about seven or eight seconds each. I guess the filmmakers snuck him in at the last second for the extra free advertising that the Oath Keepers mailing list would provide.

In brief, this film has its heart in the right place, but it's amateur hour all around. "Revelation: Dawn of Global Governance" will likely do very little to rouse people from their slumber. So-called patriots will feel good about watching it, maybe snatching a moment of quiescence or two while doing so, as they subsequently return to being slaves and obedient order-followers.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fahrenheit 451 (1966)

7/10

Captures the essential essence of Bradbury's classic SF novel

15 February 2016

Warning: Spoilers

I just viewed the Blu-Ray version of "Fahrenheit 451" last night, and by coincidence, I just finished with the audiobook version read by Bradbury himself a few weeks ago. My initial impression is that Truffaut did his best to do what Bradbury most certainly accomplished; to instill a love and enduring respect for the written word, and by natural extension, ideas and thoughts that you, the reader, may not be too comfortable with, but realize must stand for thought to remain free.

That being said, substantial cuts had to be made. Fabre, the old craven professor and Montag's "silent partner" from the book is gone, as is the sinister and ruthless Mechanical Hound. Clarisse, killed off early in the novel, lives right up until the end, and the apocalyptic war which is the climax of the novel is dispensed with. The most glaring shortfall, perhaps, is in the manhunt for Montag; a pulse-pounding, suspenseful fifth of the novel, it is here shrunk down to approximately three minutes of screen time, if that. Even more regrettable, Truffaut resorts to some cheesy green-screen effects of flying policeman to try to cough up a tiny bit of that excitement.

But give Truffaut his due. He had the good sense to hire Herrmann for the soundtrack, which, IMHO, is probably one of the Maestro's best; he had just gotten fired from Hitchcock for his dissonant and rejected score for "Torn Curtain," and no doubt Herrmann wanted to prove to the world he still had the goods. Sumptuous and international in flavor, Herrmann delivers brilliance which really helps the visuals come alive.

Truffaut's visual sense, OTOH, is economical, but effective, particularly in the scene where Clarisse's aunt defiantly dies with her precious pile of books when the firemen come calling. His presentation of the ubiquitous and mind-controlling tele-screen is scaled down from Bradbury's description, but eerily prescient, looking just like the flat screen TVs we are now using in 2016.

In the Blu-Ray version, saturated colors leap off the screen in the outdoor sequences, and are muted for interiors. The extra definition is especially appreciated for the book burning scenes; you can read the text right off the page, and you may even spy a MAD paperback with Alfred E. Neumann's infamous face if you keep a sharp eye out.

Bottom line: the book is much better and a more powerful experience, but watching Truffaut's version of "Fahrenheit 451" today, you may feel a wee bit uncomfortable that Bradbury's warning has not been sufficiently heeded. When is the last time YOU have read a book cover to cover, particularly of an author's ideas you don't particularly agree with?

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jamaica Inn (1939)

10/10

BFI restoration -- spectacular!!

5 February 2016

I am only giving "Jamaica Inn" a ten star rating here on the basis of the recent restoration commissioned by the British Film Institute. I have no intention of reviewing the film itself.

This is one of the most spectacular B & W restorations I have ever seen; the Criterion Hitch Blu-Rays, for example, pale in comparison.

I just watched "The 39 Steps" on Blu-Ray and it was somewhat disappointing due to how stunning "Jamaica Inn" looks.

Whatever you think of the film, if you have any interest at all in Hitchcock or Laughton (or even Maureen O'Hara), give it a look. "Jamaica Inn" took my breath away at how detailed and clean the picture is, and that doesn't happen too often.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Limelight (1952)

7/10

Chaplain's last song, offered "his way" without apology

23 May 2015

Most ordinary people fall into a role and a persona in their lives, and tend to not veer very far from it if it provides for them. Perhaps, due to extreme situations, they may find it necessary to reinvent themselves once or twice and rise to the occasion or fall into dissolution.

An artist like Chaplain had to reinvent himself over and over again over four decades, particularly in a medium that was changing every few years. That's probably why he had so many failed marriages with younger woman; he had to feel like a "player" to keep the flow going and fight back the doubt and anxiety (and the terror of becoming irrelevant) that inevitably begins to haunt creative men in their twilight years. Don't underestimate the power of sex magic!

Limelight is a film about those demons, and the immense courage (and yes, the love of a much younger woman, too, doesn't hurt), that is required to triumph over them. Still, everyone knows there is one specter that no man can outrun -- Death. Chaplain masks this existential dimension in layers of sentimental melodrama which you will have to decide for yourself is effective, but I think he does this intentionally to smuggle in some deep and darker themes that filmmakers like Bergman would become famous for continually exploring masterfully.

I found myself going back and forth with Limelight; there are times when the melodrama overpowers the film, and the pedestrian cinematography doesn't help matters. A few times I felt like I was watching the old Abbot and Costello TV show, particularly the apartment scenes. However, Chaplain is such an immense presence you can't help be engaged and encouraged to keep watching because you want so much for his character Calvero to triumph. His co-star, Claire Bloom, is quite effective, too, and she has several "looks" in this film to contrast and mirror the ongoing struggle the old comedian in having internally.

Getting on in years myself, and feeling washed up and without hope and purpose, Calvero's plight and faltering desire to once again command the Limelight was quite cathartic. I was amazed by his final performance with Keaton; when Calvero starts rocking that violin like Eddie Van Halen in his prime, I was in a state of sublime fascination. Here was a true artist giving everything up for his audience, feeling the peak thrill of having the audience at his command once again for a few fleeting moments; a thrill that, tragically, he will pay dearly for.

We can only hope that we, too, can earn such an exalted death as Calvero's. Perhaps that is Chaplain's hidden message in this film; that life is, in the final analysis, about striving for a death that ennobles those you leave behind.

17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Where Danger Lives (1950)

6/10

Plot contrivances on parade

25 April 2015

By the time 1950 rolled around, I guess the film noir genre was getting a bit mannered in its delivery. "Where Danger Lives" is a classic example of hack work, albeit with a touch of style, and with Mitchum in the lead, it is, of course, eminently watchable. Claude Rains is superb as well, but unlike Mitchum, he has the good sense to make his contribution a cameo role. (I guess he knows "where danger lives," eh?)

Even Mitchum can't save this turkey, however, although he appears to be trying his best. The contrived and rudimentary plot doesn't help; star-crossed lovers on the run, trying to escape a murder rap and get across the border. On the positive side of the ledger, along with Mitchum, this film attains a generally nightmarish atmosphere of pervasive doom which is occasionally effective; it reminded me of Jim Thompson's novel "The Getaway" which was eventually made into a movie with Steve McQueen. In essence, it is a morality play, with Mitchum the noble doctor having the hots for this crazy psychopath, betraying his "good woman"(Maureen O'Sullivan), and paying for his carnal transgression again and again; this is probably the movie's main ace in the hole.

This nifty part of the movie is hamstrung by absurd plot contrivances and lazy screen writing, unfortunately. Three examples: every time a radio is turned on, you can bet you are about to get another prime nugget of expository information, perfectly timed and delivered on a silver platter. The "Whiskers Week" plot device is even more comically ridiculous, and lastly, with the amount of cops looking for these two, you would suspect that they murdered an entire classroom of small children or something. (Don't get me started on the "mewing cat" or you might get your eyes scratched out.)

Thankfully, this uneven and sloppy movie clocks in at an efficient 82 minutes, so no serious harm done. If you're a Mitchum fan like me, you'll probably want to give it a look; just don't expect too much, and you'll probably find it mildly diverting.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Gilda (1946)

5/10

A cinematic version of Strawberry fields, where nothing is real.

24 April 2015

J.D. Salinger's famous protagonist, Holden Caufield, from Catcher in the Rye, would have hated this movie and for good reason; it is replete with tawdry phoniness. You might as well classify "Gilda" as science fiction rather than film noir since none of it has any resemblance to reality.

The characters are fake, the South American locale is fake, and the casino where most of the action takes place looks like something the Wizard of Oz's interior decorator came up with. And wait until you get a load of Macready's make up job; whoo, brother! Ballin Munson? What kind of ridiculous name is that? (Maybe to suggest Ballin' Munson?).

Welcome to Gilda's alternative universe, my friend, one which succeeds on an anthropological plane of investigation; helping we poor mortals of the 21st century determine what kind of escapist entertainment our ancestors found amusing.

In sum, "Gilda" is just a vehicle for Rita Hayworth to strut and dance around inher glittering designer gowns, waving her gorgeous locks of hair, and uttering lines of dialogue she would never be clever enough to come upwith on her own. And her guitar playing? Ha! Hayworth doesn't even bother trying to fake it, merely putting all four fingers over the strings and sliding them up and down like a spastic paralytic.

You may as well throw your suspension of disbelief out the window if you have any hope of getting through this overrated piece of schlock. Film noir? The only black thing about this movie is that so many reviewers here on IMDb.com are fooled by its utter submission to Hollywood studio period narrative conventions.

I can't help musing what John Garfield or Humphrey Bogart would have done with this "Johnny Farrel" character. Then again, THOSE leading men would never consent to playing a pussy-whipped simp as Ford does. Yessiree, ol' Glenn knows who the REAL star is in THIS picture; that's why he GOT this part. No mere man or mortal is going to upstage the bankable queen bee Rita Hayworth.

But by all means, "turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream" if you could care less about having an engaging story to sink your teeth into and just want an injection of dazzling, but ultimately vacuous, Hollywood glitz. It's well-produced for what it is, so I'll be generous and give it five stars; let's be charitable as well, and say it probably looked fantastic on the big screen. And for those of you who think I'm being a pedantic snob, I will be the first to cheer that "Gilda" is magnificent compared to the hyper-sexualized tripe being produced for the silver screen these days.

One final note: the copy I viewed from a torrent site had been been restored by the UCLA Film Archive, and it appears they put quite a bit of effort into their work. Such a pity they wasted their time and money on the cinematic equivalent of cotton candy.

10 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Servant (1963)

6/10

Fifty years later, The Servant comes off as rather dull and dreary

31 March 2015

Based on a Robert Maugham novella from 1948, and adapted by Harold Pinter with the American ex-pat Joseph Losey directing, "The Servant" is on BFI's Top 100 British Film list. It is also on Cahiers du Cinema's Top Ten list for 1964 (although it premiered here in the US one week or so before the JFK assassination). So with such a rather distinguished pedigree I was curious and decided to check it out.

Since we're talking about a film over a half century old, let's get some context out of the way. I myself am 56 years old, and I get the whole "crumbling class distinctions" that was so revolutionary and trenchant for the time. Ditto on the sexual tides churning and turning right before the whole "Mod Carnaby St." trend hit two years later. So even before the movie started, I was ready to give this independent film some props for being prescient and taking on adult issues of social import. I soon discovered that the cinematography is great, and Losey's direction is very dynamic even given the mostly claustrophobic surroundings.

The only problem is there is not one likable character in this movie. They are all grotesque in one way or another, like Sherwood Anderson's "Winesburg, Ohio". Tony (James Fox) is an effete upper class twit, Hugo Barrett, the titular servant played by Dirk Bogarde, is a smoldering cauldron of class resentment and spiteful subterranean shenanigans, Susan (Wendy Craig), is Tony's bitchy and frigid girlfriend, Vera (Susan Miles), is a two-faced slut, etc. You get the idea.

Granted the plot line was ripe with possibilities (you surely know what it is by now if you've read this far down the thread), but the execution here is wanting. The characters, being so grotesque, aren't very believable. Nicholas Roeg would take the same basic idea and do it much better with "Performance" a few years later, and that film has aged a lot better in my humble opinion.

So what if this film was all the rage in 1963; here in 2015, it's just a dreary pretentious bore. It looks great, the performances are substantive, but the themes have been done to death and "The Servant" no longer surprises and just doesn't carry that much dramatic weight anymore. There are literally dozens of films that are much older than this that I find exciting to watch again, but I'll never bother torturing myself with this dated dinosaur.

But if you're a British art house stuff completest, by all means, check it out; it is an historically important film in that regard.

9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Spirit of the Beehive (1973)

8/10

Personally a challenging film for me, but glad I stuck with it

4 November 2014

First off, I was watching this film because I decided to go through the Sight and Sound poll of best films and check out a few I hadn't seen. "Spirit of the Beehive" didn't really grab me that much in the description, but I thought the slow pacing might bring to mind the kind of art house style created by Michaelangelo Antonioni in his "ennui trilogy" which I am consistently fascinated by even after several repeat viewings.

I'll be honest, I was bored throughout the first 45 minutes or so. However, Ana Torrent, the primary child actor, has an amazing face that Erice's camera just adores, so I hung in. Gradually, I came to a more open-hearted way of seeing this film just for what it is, rather than having any expectations of it having to "do" something to draw me in.

This film graciously asks you to open up to it, and if you aren't willing to do that; well, perhaps you've seen the kind of reviews here saying how this film is dull and pretentious.

There are sublime gifts to be had in the experience of viewing "Beehive," but it does ask you to expand your perceptual awareness in a way I feel helpless in trying to elucidate precisely. All I can say is three-quarters of the way in, I surrendered to it with humility, and it started feeling like a work of art.

I'm sure the situation is similar with people who find Antonioni's films dull and pretentious. His critically acclaimed trilogy (two of which made the best of list) can seem excruciatingly boring to some, but in my case, I totally "got" where Antonioni was coming from and felt right at home in an instant, just like many of the positive reviewers here have described with Erice's film.

This is why I love viewing foreign films of distinction; they really compel me to imagine a wider, inter-dimensional plane of perception.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ides of March (2011)

The paucity of the left/right paradigm is not much basis for an intriguing film

16 October 2011

I'll keep this short and sweet. Don't bother with "Ides of March" unless you're a Gosling fan who has to see everything he's in; it's just not worth what they're charging these days at the theaters.

I'll admit my expectations were high with the star firepower of Gosling, Clooney, and Hoffman all in one film, which, of course, led to inevitable disappointment. While I fidgeted in my seat, I kept being drawn back to my experience of seeing "Primary Colors" and the bad taste that silly film left in my mouth. Here we are in 2011 with dozens of cities being occupied as I type this, with thousands of disenfranchised Americans sleeping on cardboard in wet, chilly weather, and we're supposed to enjoy being told for 100 + minutes how corrupt our electoral system is?

Bad timing, George.

But beyond this cognitive disjunction is a starker problem: how all these characters with their obsession with poll numbers, or what Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are saying on cable shows that generally average much less viewership than talk radio has listeners--we all know it's the Emperor's New Clothes mind control. Corporate media is as dead as the two party, left/right paradigm BS that Americans have finally awoken to.

It's difficult to willingly disbelieve otherwise in order to con yourself into liking this movie, and so Clooney tries to milk all the dramatic tension in "The Ides of March" around the repercussions of sexual politics. Thanks to the skill of the acting, this ploy almost works, but not quite because you can't help disliking or even hating these characters for choosing to waste their lives pushing this propaganda paradigm down our throats every four years.

So I will slip on my Guy Fawkes mask now, taking on my role as "Anonymous," and beg you to skip this movie. It's a better movie than "Primary Colors," but that's not saying much. If you must see it for the acting, wait until Thanksgiving and get it off a torrent site.

1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (2011)

4/10

Stripped down to bare essentials; a version worthy of Starnesville

16 April 2011

If you've read a number of reviews already, you're probably confused. The mix is fairly broad, due to the fact that a lot of objectivists probably want to see parts 2 and 3, and so they're here write overly positive reviews (like those that can be found on the Atlasphere website devoted to Rand's philosophy).

First off, full disclosure. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now, and I have about 180 pages to go. My opinion of the book is generally positive, or obviously I wouldn't have gotten this far into it. So I went into the movie theater hoping that the film version wouldn't suck given that the budget was tight and the production somewhat rushed.

Generally, Part One doesn't suck, but just barely. The script is cut to the bare essentials, and the following important pieces of the "Non-Contradiction" part of the novel, which this version purports to show, are left out: Flashback sequence of Dagney and Francisco's romance, Dagney's interaction with the bums and the money cigarettes (Dagney doesn't smoke here), Starnesville section, a lot of the meat of the State Science Institute and Dr. Stadler's background, Hank Rearden's guilt regarding his affair with Dagney (a crucial section since it establishes the foundation of Rearden's moral transformation later in the novel), Halley's concerto, Betty Pope character, and the romance between Cheryl and Jim Taggart.

Speaking of James Taggart, he is entirely miscast here, IMHO. He is simply too young (he is older than Dagney in the novel), too buff, and his hair is all wrong. He is supposed to be a grotesque like Wesley Mouch, yet he looks like a male model or a Chippendale dancer. Lillian Rearden and Dagney are great, the rest of the cast is serviceable (i.e. they don't suck, but that's about the best you can say). Francisco's role is so cut from the novel, it's hard to say whether the performance works or not; guess I'll have to reserve judgment until Part 2 is released. Hank Rearden is slightly better than average, but as I suggested before, this is mostly due to the screenplay deficiencies. If the production hadn't been so rushed, perhaps they could've gone another twenty minutes and made a much more substantial adaptation.

Bottom line: if you're a fan of the book, you'll probably give it a grudging thumbs up, but if you know nothing of the novel, you'll probably feel like you wasted your money. I saw Atlas Shrugged in Tukwila, WA, and the theater was close to two-thirds full for a 3 PM showing, so if that's any indication, maybe the Rand fans will generate enough first weekend revenue for the rest of the novel to be better (note to production team: hire another writer... please!)

Update: Atlas Shrugged only made 1.7 million on the first weekend, so I doubt they'll be the proposed sequels. Looks like John Galt's motor will stay dead just like in the novel.

Update 2: Producer says he will not do sequels; https://www.readability.com/articles/r4dnqduj?legacy_bookmarklet=1

9 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Call of the Wild (1992 TV Movie)

2/10

Pitifully bad writing, atrocious score, and hackneyed acting

25 October 2009

When I saw the "Alan Smithee" credit for director, I knew I was in for a hard ride into the Yukon. London's classic novel is butchered mercilessly, and Rick Schroeder's voice over narration is often unintentionally hilarious. I had to wonder if the screenplay was the project of a round robin high school drama club; just absolutely turgid, predictable clichés at every turn.

The sets, which are supposed to be based on turn of the 20th century decor, are often way off, especially in one of the opening scenes at a mansion. I guess they figured conservative Christians would be watching and wouldn't notice such things (see other review from OK).

I'm only giving it two stars for the workmanlike, but sometimes nominally effective cinematography. This movie shouldn't happen to a dog.

3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Organ (1996)

5/10

A Yakuza gang running a black market organ slaughterhouse operation managed by a one-eyed harridan and her brother , are infiltrated by the police.

24 May 2009

I just watched this movie last night, and I didn't understand it until I read the Mondo Macabro entry on it by Pete Tombs, and some of the reviews here (evidently, I'm not alone in thinking this film loses power by sacrificing narrative clarity for thematic integrity). The fact that the film is low budget and shot in 16mm (somewhat grainy; it would be great to see a Blu-Ray version with better subtitles) adds to the viewer's frustration. Still, Kei Fujiwara has undoubtedly created a nightmarish alternate universe and managed to get it on film which is at least worth five stars.

Organ is really more of an avant garde art film than straight horror, but then again, if you watch a lot of Japanese horror, you've probably noticed that this island culture takes the genre more seriously than in the west (which tends to see it as a more exploitive, money-making, freshman-director type genre). I can't say I enjoyed watching Organ much, but I do respect the director's unflinching vision and daring in bringing such a brutally dark tale to fruition.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Abar (1977)

6/10

Ahead of its time

20 August 2008

This is a bicameral movie, of sorts. The first two thirds is an examination of the problem of middle class blacks (Dr. Kincaide and his family) wanting to move out of his black neighborhood for security and class consciousness concerns. Abar, a vigilante type character running a kind of rogue chapter of something akin to the Black Panthers (but unarmed), challenges Dr. Kincaide to consider raising up those among his race that he is leaving behind.

At this stage, the viewer may be somewhat confused, as the title makes one think they are going to see a genre superhero film, but that doesn't really happen until the last act. The first two acts flesh out the class conflict between the two main characters and their mutual enemy, the white bigots of the neighborhood who want to force Dr. Kincaide to move.

To me, this was the novel and more engaging part of the movie. The last act, when Abar becomes a psycho-telekinetic "superman" is rather amusing, but it is pure fantasy rather than science fiction as it claims ("The first Black science fiction film!"). The goal seems to have been to have this catharsis for black audiences to howl over in the theaters.

I think most of the reviewers here on IMDb have been too hard on this film. Sure, there are technical deficiencies and so forth, but taken on its own terms, "Abar" deserves praise for attempting to tackle a tough subject like class struggle which most blacks would prefer to slough off erroneously as a race question.

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Urbanissimo (1967)

6/10

Prescient, though somewhat inscrutable, take on urban reform

5 February 2006

The Hubleys were commissioned to make this film for some sort of urban housing reform. As usual, they got some great musicians to do the soundtrack like Benny Carter and Maynard Ferguson. The plot concerns a feisty battle between a city with legs and a farmer. Some of the issues that are touched on in this battle are resource management and how the city's needs sometimes conflict with the people in the country who supply the city with resources. At least I THINK that's what it's about as you have to read a lot into the fast moving images in "Urbanissimo" to try and figure out what the "message" is. But the film is so short it really doesn't matter, and it comes off as a mildly diverting oddity.

4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Eggs (1971)

8/10

One of the Hubleys' better efforts

5 February 2006

The scenario is that a fertility goddess and Death are riding together in a car. The fertility goddess throws eggs/seeds all over and creates life, while Death complains she is overdoing it and that he can't keep up. Then there are two subplots, the first involving an artistic, middle class couple in the future trying to be approved for getting a birth permit, the second involves a 200+ year old man reflecting on his first transplant. The film ends with a whimsical appearance by "God" to end the dispute between Death and the fertility goddess. The main reason to hunt around your library for the VHS version of this film is that it features music by Quincy Jones. Happy hunting!

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Naughty Stewardesses (1973)

3/10

Sam Sherman's multi-genre mess

13 August 2005

From the start, you know this is a Sam Sherman film more than an Al Adamson film because as the credits roll, "A Sam Sherman Production" appears in letters as big as the title credit. Not only that, Mr. Sherman co-wrote the screenplay and it was his idea to use Bob Livingstone, a washed-up, 69 year old Western star of the old Hollywood era to be his male lead in a picture that Sherman thought would capitalize on the recent success of "Swinging Stewardesses".

Now why would you want to have a wrinkled old man as your male lead in what is supposed to be a soft-core exploitation feature? It defies explanation, but that is Sam Sherman for you. His obsession with old Hollywood colored a lot of his films for Independent International Pictures, and he and Al Adamson frequently tried to get has-been actors for their films (e.g. J. Carrol Naish, Russ Tamblyn, Lon Chaney Jr.,etc.). But Bob Livingstone? Tell me the drive-in demographic knew who this '40's second-rater was; it's ridiculous!

But then again, "Naughty Stewardesses" was a successful picture for them, so we can't just write this off as a Sherman fiasco. Still, by any aesthetic standard, it's an incoherent mess. Al Adamson wanted out of this picture, and it is easy to see why. First off, it has no genre focus at all and drifts around from super soft core (tits and ass/simulated sex only) to a kidnapping thriller (shades of Steckler's "Rat Pfink and Boo Boo"!) In between, we get subjected to painfully boring sequences of the stewardesses traipsing around Vegas to the hackneyed music of Sparrow, or Richard Smedley and Connie Hoffmann on a photo shoot in San Francisco. Worst of all, we get Bob Livingstone as a Jack LaLanne wannabe in a blue jumpsuit trying to be sexy...gag! (Thankfully, his big sex scene with Connie Hoffmann was deleted, but you can catch him slurping on her titties on the DVD in the Special Features section. Creepy.)

This is a terrible, terrible movie, but I'll give it three stars for Gary Graver's photography and out of sympathy to Connie Hoffmann for having to make it with "Wrinkles" Livingstone. "Naughty Stewardesses" is for Al Adamson completists and/or scholars of exploitation film as Sam Sherman's commentary offers vital inside info. All others, BEWARE.

10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

3 Women (1977)

8/10

Altman's commentary is riveting

20 April 2005

I don't feel I can add anything to the excellent commentary by the other reviewers for "3 Women"; I just want to urge film lovers of all stripes to check out Altman't commentary on the Criterion DVD. In the liner notes, they refer to it as "wide-ranging;" it IS that, and expansive, too. It is almost as if Altman was saying to himself, "Well, I'm not going to be around much longer, so I am going to speak my peace about how I feel about film-making and let it all hang out". For the true aficionado, this is as good as it gets. You'll want to savor it in chunks it is so thought-provoking. Not only does Altman reveal all the hidden meanings of the film, he explains at length (with copious examples) the philosophy of his art. It shed light on my previous encounters with Altman's "difficult" style; highly recommended.

21 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fear Chamber (1968)

7/10

Rock monster feeds on fear-drenched blood with Boris as the semi-mad scientist.

19 February 2005

Warning: Spoilers

With all due respect to the review above, I found this psychotronic classic delightfully fun. This is a Mexican-American co-production with the usual bad dubbing and cheesy sets, but if you love late '60's drive-in horror trash in the Joe Bob Briggs mold, you will NOT be disappointed! See! A rock monster who communicates in Moog noises! See! A goofy lug named Roland display his talents as a Tor Johnson wannabe! See! A Vegas style big band strip tease with breasts and bare white walls for a backdrop! See! Boris Karloff do his level best to bring some class to this low budget, bloody romp...and succeed!

One final note of warning...this film is currently offered as part two of a double feature DVD that RetroMedia has put out (it's also available for rent on Netflix); the first flick, "Island Monster," (1954) is absolutely terrible. Do NOT watch "Island Monster"!! It has NO redeeming value WHATSOEVER! You have been duly warned.

9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

jungophile

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed