*Get "An American Dream" on Amazon here*
*Get An American Dream by Norman Mailer on Amazon here*
Norman Mailer's bizarre early novel gets the Hollywood treatment from an entertainment industry that was in a mid-1960s flux of its own.
Stephen Rojack (Stuart Whitman) is a successful television host (on a terrible looking TV show that wouldn't have been broadcast even back in the 1960s) who has a drunk, hateful wife Deborah (Eleanor Parker) waiting for him at her penthouse home after returning from Europe. Their fighting escalates until she falls off the balcony to her death. Stephen is dragged into the police station for questioning, where he hooks up with former flame Cherry (Janet Leigh), now on the arm of a local mob boss. In the most eventful day ever experienced by a celebrity, Stephen is semi-on-the-run from the police and the mob, while trying to bring Cherry back into his life the day after his wife took the big dive, which also seems to have upset Deborah's rich father (Lloyd Nolan).
This film is even more bizarre than the book. Whitman is okay as Rojack, he has a great suave look about him, but then he tries to go into high-strung hysterics that are cringe and unintentionally funny to watch. Parker's performance gets a ton of praise, but I thought she was terrible. Gist directs the police station scenes like it was his first time behind a camera, and all the sets on the film feel stagebound and silly. The mod production design and set decoration are fun to look at, and the supporting cast of recognizable character actors are pretty good, if not similar looking- don't bother trying to remember who is who among Cherry's mafia friends.
I think the film wanted to bring more edge to its story, and it was hampered by the motion picture production code. The overacting and situations are ratcheted up to a nine, but then the blandness creeps in. Deborah's death is shocking but laughable in its violence, as is Stephen's reaction. Gist's camera dwells on the oddest things. The screenplay sounds like a spoof of those old 1940's film noir classics, and doesn't play right with the day-glo cinematography.
Much like the novel, "An American Dream" serves as a curiosity, and not much more. It sure isn't boring, however.
Not Rated- Physical violence, some gun violence, mild profanity, very brief nudity, some sexual references, adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use
Sunday, May 31, 2026
Chernobyl (2019)
*Get "Chernobyl" on Amazon here*
*Get Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster by Adam Higginbotham on Amazon here*
This massive, five hour television mini-series is a combination of disaster film, political thriller, science jargon, and body horror that completely works on all fronts.
In 1988, Valery (Jared Harris) secrets some audio tapes he's made about his role in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster before hanging himself (not a spoiler, this literally happens in the opening minutes). We are then taken back to the night of the accident, and knowing now what we didn't know then, watch as first the USSR, and then the world, deals with a monumental catastrophe that has never occured in the history of man before.
I consider this the best television miniseries ever created. The struggling Soviet Union is portrayed brilliantly, with the Russian cultural sense captured in all its glory. Craig Mazin's script is not anti-nuclear, but anti-nuclear accident. The catastrophe almost affected millions of people, and how we were spared from the greatest manmade disaster of all-time by mere hours and smart brainstorming should give everyone pause. One aspect of the script rarely mentioned in other reviews is a deserved swipe at Communism and Socialism in general. The State is a lumbering, suffocating bureaucracy, with party members and titles being tossed around at an alarming rate, and the non-thankful peons grinding away for no recognition of their own except the thanks of a few higher-ups. Many modern day Socialists would argue that Cold War Communism "wasn't done right," but as the United States deals with its own lumbering, suffocating bureaucracy, I beg to differ.
Ulana (Emily Watson) is a combination of many people who helped Valery and Boris (Stellan Skarsgard) try to figure out how to stop the accident from literally spreading, and finding out why the impossible happened and what to do when it happens again. Mazin's script still carves out Ulana as a well-rounded character, however, and I didn't question that she wasn't a real person until seeing the end coda. The film makers allow forays into supporting character and story arcs, reminding the viewer that there were actual people involved- the young firefighter (Adam Nagaitis) and his wife (Jessie Buckley), the recruit (Barry Keoghan) and his hunting assignment, the coal miners, and harried medical staff all deal with the situation while hampered by the State using an iron fist to control them. They are supported by strong direction from Johan Renck, who helmed all five episodes, so there's is a clear vision that never strays from its intent.
I'm not going to lie, I didn't expect this level of drama, intensity, or wrenching tragedy that I finished in one day. I sat down to a talking head information dump with Liberal elites trying their worst Russian accents, and got the exact opposite. Amazing, and I'm not sure I'll ever see anything like it again.
(TV-MA)- Physical violence, gun violence, strong gore, profanity, nudity, adult situations, strong tobacco use, strong alcohol use
*Get Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster by Adam Higginbotham on Amazon here*
This massive, five hour television mini-series is a combination of disaster film, political thriller, science jargon, and body horror that completely works on all fronts.
In 1988, Valery (Jared Harris) secrets some audio tapes he's made about his role in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster before hanging himself (not a spoiler, this literally happens in the opening minutes). We are then taken back to the night of the accident, and knowing now what we didn't know then, watch as first the USSR, and then the world, deals with a monumental catastrophe that has never occured in the history of man before.
I consider this the best television miniseries ever created. The struggling Soviet Union is portrayed brilliantly, with the Russian cultural sense captured in all its glory. Craig Mazin's script is not anti-nuclear, but anti-nuclear accident. The catastrophe almost affected millions of people, and how we were spared from the greatest manmade disaster of all-time by mere hours and smart brainstorming should give everyone pause. One aspect of the script rarely mentioned in other reviews is a deserved swipe at Communism and Socialism in general. The State is a lumbering, suffocating bureaucracy, with party members and titles being tossed around at an alarming rate, and the non-thankful peons grinding away for no recognition of their own except the thanks of a few higher-ups. Many modern day Socialists would argue that Cold War Communism "wasn't done right," but as the United States deals with its own lumbering, suffocating bureaucracy, I beg to differ.
Ulana (Emily Watson) is a combination of many people who helped Valery and Boris (Stellan Skarsgard) try to figure out how to stop the accident from literally spreading, and finding out why the impossible happened and what to do when it happens again. Mazin's script still carves out Ulana as a well-rounded character, however, and I didn't question that she wasn't a real person until seeing the end coda. The film makers allow forays into supporting character and story arcs, reminding the viewer that there were actual people involved- the young firefighter (Adam Nagaitis) and his wife (Jessie Buckley), the recruit (Barry Keoghan) and his hunting assignment, the coal miners, and harried medical staff all deal with the situation while hampered by the State using an iron fist to control them. They are supported by strong direction from Johan Renck, who helmed all five episodes, so there's is a clear vision that never strays from its intent.
I'm not going to lie, I didn't expect this level of drama, intensity, or wrenching tragedy that I finished in one day. I sat down to a talking head information dump with Liberal elites trying their worst Russian accents, and got the exact opposite. Amazing, and I'm not sure I'll ever see anything like it again.
(TV-MA)- Physical violence, gun violence, strong gore, profanity, nudity, adult situations, strong tobacco use, strong alcohol use
Monday, May 25, 2026
The Dreadful (2026)
*Get "The Dreadful" on Amazon here*
*Get Game of Thrones: A Guide to Westeros and Beyond: The Complete Series by Myles McNutt on Amazon here*
Much excitement was to be had as two cast members of "Game of Thrones" were reunited onscreen in this sloggish Medieval tale. It probably would have meant something to me, as well, if I had ever watched an episode of "Game of Thrones."
Anne (Sophie Tucker) and Morwen (Marcia Gay Harden) wait for Anne's husband/Morwen's son Seamus (Laurence O'Fuarain) to return from war. The two women live together in a small shack, almost starving to death in between trips to church to pray for their loved one. Jago (Kit Harington), who left with Seamus, shows up and tells the women that Seamus was murdered by thieves after the two went AWOL from the fighting and decided to return home. Anne grieves for her husband and the life they were going to build together, but she is then attracted to Jago, who has been in love with her since they were kids. Morwen does not like seeing this new coupling, it is an affront to her deep religious beliefs that she ignores when she stabs and kills innocent men in the name of robbing them and selling their pilfered possessions at the local market in order to survive. And what of that mysterious knight on a white horse who keeps showing up in the woods around the women's cabin?
Writer/director Natasha Kermani has crafted an identity crisis. The cinematography is appropriately dim and beautiful. The intrusive musical score sounds like a late night commercial for Zamfir's greatest hits. The cast tries, but aside from a few shots of a cute baby, I could not come up with one sympathetic character. Watching these cretins go through their nihilistic motions in a story that moves at a crawl makes a ninety-four minute film feel twice as long. Anne goes from crumbling beneath the soft-spoken, murderous cruelty of her mother-in-law to a "I am woman, hear me roar" girlboss moment at the climax of the film that feels out of place and narcissistic in light of what is happening in the story. Good on you, Anne, but can we get back to the knight and his mystical helmet?
There are a few eating scenes in the opening moments of the film that turned my stomach worse than watching New York City mayor Bill de Blasio downing french fries during COVID. It's an odd juxtaposition to watch these seemingly starving women take down men with Morwen's trusty blade, as herds of deer frolic in the forest just a few feet away. Jago is a fisherman, but the women still rely on putrid-looking soup to survive. The film tries unsuccessfully to generate suspense, but we already know what Morwen is going to do everytime she crosses paths with a man. Anne doesn't struggle eternally with her mores and values, she seems to judge herself based on how Morwen or Jago tells her to feel. Morwen is not a flamboyant villain, she is a vile person struggling with mental illness and deep justification issues, but Anne is too ensconsed in "her place" to stand up to her.
The trailer for this film gave it a "The Witch"/"Midsommar" vibe. This served as my first watched release of 2026, and nothing more.
MPA Rated (R)- Physical violence, gore, profanity, some sexual references, adult situations
*Get Game of Thrones: A Guide to Westeros and Beyond: The Complete Series by Myles McNutt on Amazon here*
Much excitement was to be had as two cast members of "Game of Thrones" were reunited onscreen in this sloggish Medieval tale. It probably would have meant something to me, as well, if I had ever watched an episode of "Game of Thrones."
Anne (Sophie Tucker) and Morwen (Marcia Gay Harden) wait for Anne's husband/Morwen's son Seamus (Laurence O'Fuarain) to return from war. The two women live together in a small shack, almost starving to death in between trips to church to pray for their loved one. Jago (Kit Harington), who left with Seamus, shows up and tells the women that Seamus was murdered by thieves after the two went AWOL from the fighting and decided to return home. Anne grieves for her husband and the life they were going to build together, but she is then attracted to Jago, who has been in love with her since they were kids. Morwen does not like seeing this new coupling, it is an affront to her deep religious beliefs that she ignores when she stabs and kills innocent men in the name of robbing them and selling their pilfered possessions at the local market in order to survive. And what of that mysterious knight on a white horse who keeps showing up in the woods around the women's cabin?
Writer/director Natasha Kermani has crafted an identity crisis. The cinematography is appropriately dim and beautiful. The intrusive musical score sounds like a late night commercial for Zamfir's greatest hits. The cast tries, but aside from a few shots of a cute baby, I could not come up with one sympathetic character. Watching these cretins go through their nihilistic motions in a story that moves at a crawl makes a ninety-four minute film feel twice as long. Anne goes from crumbling beneath the soft-spoken, murderous cruelty of her mother-in-law to a "I am woman, hear me roar" girlboss moment at the climax of the film that feels out of place and narcissistic in light of what is happening in the story. Good on you, Anne, but can we get back to the knight and his mystical helmet?
There are a few eating scenes in the opening moments of the film that turned my stomach worse than watching New York City mayor Bill de Blasio downing french fries during COVID. It's an odd juxtaposition to watch these seemingly starving women take down men with Morwen's trusty blade, as herds of deer frolic in the forest just a few feet away. Jago is a fisherman, but the women still rely on putrid-looking soup to survive. The film tries unsuccessfully to generate suspense, but we already know what Morwen is going to do everytime she crosses paths with a man. Anne doesn't struggle eternally with her mores and values, she seems to judge herself based on how Morwen or Jago tells her to feel. Morwen is not a flamboyant villain, she is a vile person struggling with mental illness and deep justification issues, but Anne is too ensconsed in "her place" to stand up to her.
The trailer for this film gave it a "The Witch"/"Midsommar" vibe. This served as my first watched release of 2026, and nothing more.
MPA Rated (R)- Physical violence, gore, profanity, some sexual references, adult situations
Sunday, May 24, 2026
The Later Wittgenstein and Classical Pragmatism: A Critical Appraisal by Dr. William G. Toland (abstract plus bibliography)
In the mid-1960s, my grandfather earned his Doctorate in Philosophy with a thesis that I have since read. I thought it would be interesting to republish the abstract, and the bibliography he used to write it. I am not a student of philosophy by any stretch of the imagination, and I always admired him for being able to wrap his head around these concepts.
WILLIAM GIPSY TOLAND. The Later Wittgenstein and Classical Pragmatism: A Critical Appraisal. (Under the direction of ELIE MAYNARD ADAMS.)
This essay is a critical inquiry into the Later Wittgenstein and Classical Pragmatism with respect to Aim and Method, Theory of Meaning, and Philosophy of Language. Some contemporary philosophers find evidences of pragmatism in the later Wittgenstein’s major work, the Philosophical Investigations, particularly in the areas of meaning and language. This dissertation attempts to show the sense in which such findings are justified.
It is shown that the statements of the aim of Pragmatism are inconsistent and, if realized, would make of philosophy a handmaiden to the sciences. The pragmatic method is a kind of analysis by which the meanings of ideas and beliefs are explicated so that traditional metaphysical problems may be solved or resolved, and so that persons may more effectively make their way about in indeterminate life situations.
An appraisal of the pragmatic theory of meaning reveals that the meaning of ideas, beliefs, concepts, and linguistic expressions is always a function of their use in our language. This is shown to involve the view that the meaning of expression is the experience one has in saying or hearing it.
The aim of the later Wittgenstein is to show the philosopher how to order his knowledge of the uses of our ordinary language so that he may be relieved of endemic philosophical perplexities, confusion, anxieties, and puzzlement. The method by which he attempts to accomplish this aim is categorical analysis. This involves a description of the uses of significant concepts in ordinary language so that be seeing their roles in different regions of language the philosopher will realize that forcing them into other roles constitutes the source of traditional philosophical problems.
Typical of these problems is the “What is the meaning?” question, which suggests that there is one meaning of a word that can be had provided the proper method of analysis is applied. Wittgenstein shows, on the other hand, that in a large number of cases in which the meaning of a word is in question its meaning is its use in our language. Among many uses of ‘use’ Wittgenstein places considerable emphasis on the ‘effective’ or pragmatic use, but it is not enough to justify the view that he has a pragmatic theory of meaning. The meaning of a word in the latter theory is its use to guide behavior in problematic situations and ordinary forms of life, but for Wittgenstein each word has its own logic or use.
Among the differences between Wittgenstein’s view of language and that of the Pragmatists, the following points are central. Peirce felt that philosophy needs a language peculiar to itself, but Wittgenstein’s view is that philosophy can be done within ordinary language. Dewey views language as a broader phenomenon that does Wittgenstein, more akin to the latter’s “language-game.” For Dewey all language is instrumental, whereas Wittgenstein holds that the logic of some sentences does not include an instrumental function. In the Investigations the function of language is not always to convey thought, but for Dewey communication is the factor that determines language as such. The Pragmatists attempt to outline a theory of language, but Wittgenstein does not attempt to advance any kind of theory.
Despite these dissimilarities Wittgenstein’s remarks concerning “language-game” closely resembles Dewey’s discussion points concerning language. Throughout his investigations there are remarks that warrant ascription of a prope-pragmatism to the later Wittgenstein, and there is evidence to justify the view that his work contains a pragmatic philosophy of language.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Adams, Elie Maynard (ed.). Categorial Analysis: Selected Essays of Everett W. Hall. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1964.
Alston, William P. Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1964.
Austin, John Langshaw. How To Do Things With Words. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Carnap, Rudolf. Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947.
Charlesworth, Maxwell John. Philosophy and Linguistics Analysis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1959.
Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic. 2d ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961.
Cornman, James W. Metaphysics, Reference, and Language. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.
Dewey, John. Essays in Experimental Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1916.
Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1958.
Dewey, John. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1938.
Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward. What Is Language? London: Longmans, Green and Company, Ltd., 1965.
Feibleman, James Kern. Inside the Great Mirror. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1958.
Gellner, Ernest. Words and Things. Boston: Beacon Press, 1959.
Haas, William Paul, O. P. The Conception of Law and The Unity of Peirce’s Philosophy. Notre Dame, Indiana: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1964.
Hall, Everett Wesley. Philosophical Systems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Hawkins, Denis John Bernard. Crucial Problems of Modern Philosophy. New York: Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1957.
James, William. Collected Essays and Reviews. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1920.
__________. Pragmatism. New York: Meridian Books, 1955.
__________. Principles of Psychology. 2 vols. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1892.
Katz, Jerrold J. The Philosophy of Language. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966.
Lewis, Clarence Irving. Mind and the World Order. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956.
Mesthene, Emmanuel G. How Language Makes Us Know. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964.
Passmore, John Arthur. A Hundred Years of Philosophy. London: Gerald Duckworth and Company, Ltd., 1958.
Paul, G. A., et al. The Revolution in Philosophy. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1957.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 vols. Edited by Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931-58.
__________. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Edited by Justus Buchler. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1955.
Pitcher, George Willard. The Philosophy of Wittgenstein. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
Pole, David. The Later Philosophy of Wittgenstein. London: The Athlone Press, 1958.
Ramsey, Frank Plumpton. The Foundations of Mathematics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1931.
Russell, Bertrand. Philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton Company, 1927.
Schiller, Ferdinand Canning Scott. Logic for Use. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930.
__________. Studies in Humanism. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., n.d.
Waismann, Friedrich. The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1965.
White, Morton Gabriel. The Age of Analysis. New York: The New American Library of Literature, Inc., 1955.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. 2d ed. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell & Mott, Ltd., 1958.
__________. The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958.
__________. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1922.
Articles and Periodicals
Alston, William Payne. “Meaning and Use,” Philosophical Quarterly, XIII (April, 1963), 107-124.
Balz, Albert G. A., and Dewey, John. “A Letter to Mr. Dewey Concering John Dewey’s Doctrine of Possibility, Published Together With His Reply,” The Journal of Philosophy, XLVI (May, 1949), 313-42.
Chomsky, Noam. “Current Issues in Linguistic Theory,” The Structure of Language. Edited by Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
Cowan, Joseph Lloyd. “Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Logic,” The Philosophical Review, LXX (July, 1961), 362-75.
Evans, J. L. “On Meaning and Verification,” Mind, LXII (January, 1953), 1-19.
Feyerabend, Paul. “Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations,” The Philosophical Review, LXIV (July, 1955), 449-83.
Haas, W. “On Speaking a Language,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., LI (1950-51), 129-66.
Heath, P. L. “Wittgenstein Investigated,” The Philosophical Quarterly, VI (January, 1956), 66-71.
Hook, Sidney. “Pragmatism and Existentialism,” Antioch Review, XIX (Summer, 1959), 151-68.
MacIver, A. M. “The Instrumentality of Language,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., LXII (1961-62), 1-20.
Malcolm, Norman. “Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations,” The Philosophical Review, LXIII (October, 1954), 530-59.
Moore, George Edward. “Wittgenstein’s Lectures in 1930-33,” Mind, LXIII (January; July, 1954), 1-15, 289-316; LXIV (January, 1955), 1-27.
Rorty, Richard. “Pragmatism, Categories, and Language,” The Philosophical Review, LXX (April, 1961), 197-223.
Ryle, Gilbert. “Ordinary Language,” The Philosophical Review, LXII (April, 1953), 167-86.
Stebbing, L. Susan. “Logical Positivism and Analysis,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XIX (1933), 53-87.
__________. “The Method of Analysis in Metaphysics,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., XXXIII (1932-33), 65-94.
Waismann, Friedrich. “Verfiability,” Logic and Language, First and Second Series. Edited by Antony Flew. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965.
Wisdom, John. “Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1934-1937,” Mind, LXI (April, 1952), 258-60.
Unpublished Manuscript
Lanfear, Ray. “An Analysis and Evaluation of Wittgenstein’s Locution: Meaning as ‘Use.’” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Baylor University, 1964.
WILLIAM GIPSY TOLAND. The Later Wittgenstein and Classical Pragmatism: A Critical Appraisal. (Under the direction of ELIE MAYNARD ADAMS.)
This essay is a critical inquiry into the Later Wittgenstein and Classical Pragmatism with respect to Aim and Method, Theory of Meaning, and Philosophy of Language. Some contemporary philosophers find evidences of pragmatism in the later Wittgenstein’s major work, the Philosophical Investigations, particularly in the areas of meaning and language. This dissertation attempts to show the sense in which such findings are justified.
It is shown that the statements of the aim of Pragmatism are inconsistent and, if realized, would make of philosophy a handmaiden to the sciences. The pragmatic method is a kind of analysis by which the meanings of ideas and beliefs are explicated so that traditional metaphysical problems may be solved or resolved, and so that persons may more effectively make their way about in indeterminate life situations.
An appraisal of the pragmatic theory of meaning reveals that the meaning of ideas, beliefs, concepts, and linguistic expressions is always a function of their use in our language. This is shown to involve the view that the meaning of expression is the experience one has in saying or hearing it.
The aim of the later Wittgenstein is to show the philosopher how to order his knowledge of the uses of our ordinary language so that he may be relieved of endemic philosophical perplexities, confusion, anxieties, and puzzlement. The method by which he attempts to accomplish this aim is categorical analysis. This involves a description of the uses of significant concepts in ordinary language so that be seeing their roles in different regions of language the philosopher will realize that forcing them into other roles constitutes the source of traditional philosophical problems.
Typical of these problems is the “What is the meaning?” question, which suggests that there is one meaning of a word that can be had provided the proper method of analysis is applied. Wittgenstein shows, on the other hand, that in a large number of cases in which the meaning of a word is in question its meaning is its use in our language. Among many uses of ‘use’ Wittgenstein places considerable emphasis on the ‘effective’ or pragmatic use, but it is not enough to justify the view that he has a pragmatic theory of meaning. The meaning of a word in the latter theory is its use to guide behavior in problematic situations and ordinary forms of life, but for Wittgenstein each word has its own logic or use.
Among the differences between Wittgenstein’s view of language and that of the Pragmatists, the following points are central. Peirce felt that philosophy needs a language peculiar to itself, but Wittgenstein’s view is that philosophy can be done within ordinary language. Dewey views language as a broader phenomenon that does Wittgenstein, more akin to the latter’s “language-game.” For Dewey all language is instrumental, whereas Wittgenstein holds that the logic of some sentences does not include an instrumental function. In the Investigations the function of language is not always to convey thought, but for Dewey communication is the factor that determines language as such. The Pragmatists attempt to outline a theory of language, but Wittgenstein does not attempt to advance any kind of theory.
Despite these dissimilarities Wittgenstein’s remarks concerning “language-game” closely resembles Dewey’s discussion points concerning language. Throughout his investigations there are remarks that warrant ascription of a prope-pragmatism to the later Wittgenstein, and there is evidence to justify the view that his work contains a pragmatic philosophy of language.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Adams, Elie Maynard (ed.). Categorial Analysis: Selected Essays of Everett W. Hall. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1964.
Alston, William P. Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1964.
Austin, John Langshaw. How To Do Things With Words. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Carnap, Rudolf. Meaning and Necessity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1947.
Charlesworth, Maxwell John. Philosophy and Linguistics Analysis. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1959.
Copi, Irving M. Introduction to Logic. 2d ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1961.
Cornman, James W. Metaphysics, Reference, and Language. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1966.
Dewey, John. Essays in Experimental Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1916.
Dewey, John. Experience and Nature. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1958.
Dewey, John. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1938.
Dixon, Robert Malcom Ward. What Is Language? London: Longmans, Green and Company, Ltd., 1965.
Feibleman, James Kern. Inside the Great Mirror. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1958.
Gellner, Ernest. Words and Things. Boston: Beacon Press, 1959.
Haas, William Paul, O. P. The Conception of Law and The Unity of Peirce’s Philosophy. Notre Dame, Indiana: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1964.
Hall, Everett Wesley. Philosophical Systems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Hawkins, Denis John Bernard. Crucial Problems of Modern Philosophy. New York: Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1957.
James, William. Collected Essays and Reviews. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1920.
__________. Pragmatism. New York: Meridian Books, 1955.
__________. Principles of Psychology. 2 vols. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1892.
Katz, Jerrold J. The Philosophy of Language. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1966.
Lewis, Clarence Irving. Mind and the World Order. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1956.
Mesthene, Emmanuel G. How Language Makes Us Know. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964.
Passmore, John Arthur. A Hundred Years of Philosophy. London: Gerald Duckworth and Company, Ltd., 1958.
Paul, G. A., et al. The Revolution in Philosophy. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1957.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 vols. Edited by Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931-58.
__________. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Edited by Justus Buchler. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1955.
Pitcher, George Willard. The Philosophy of Wittgenstein. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
Pole, David. The Later Philosophy of Wittgenstein. London: The Athlone Press, 1958.
Ramsey, Frank Plumpton. The Foundations of Mathematics. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1931.
Russell, Bertrand. Philosophy. New York: W. W. Norton Company, 1927.
Schiller, Ferdinand Canning Scott. Logic for Use. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930.
__________. Studies in Humanism. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., n.d.
Waismann, Friedrich. The Principles of Linguistic Philosophy. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1965.
White, Morton Gabriel. The Age of Analysis. New York: The New American Library of Literature, Inc., 1955.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. 2d ed. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell & Mott, Ltd., 1958.
__________. The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958.
__________. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1922.
Articles and Periodicals
Alston, William Payne. “Meaning and Use,” Philosophical Quarterly, XIII (April, 1963), 107-124.
Balz, Albert G. A., and Dewey, John. “A Letter to Mr. Dewey Concering John Dewey’s Doctrine of Possibility, Published Together With His Reply,” The Journal of Philosophy, XLVI (May, 1949), 313-42.
Chomsky, Noam. “Current Issues in Linguistic Theory,” The Structure of Language. Edited by Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.
Cowan, Joseph Lloyd. “Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Logic,” The Philosophical Review, LXX (July, 1961), 362-75.
Evans, J. L. “On Meaning and Verification,” Mind, LXII (January, 1953), 1-19.
Feyerabend, Paul. “Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations,” The Philosophical Review, LXIV (July, 1955), 449-83.
Haas, W. “On Speaking a Language,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., LI (1950-51), 129-66.
Heath, P. L. “Wittgenstein Investigated,” The Philosophical Quarterly, VI (January, 1956), 66-71.
Hook, Sidney. “Pragmatism and Existentialism,” Antioch Review, XIX (Summer, 1959), 151-68.
MacIver, A. M. “The Instrumentality of Language,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., LXII (1961-62), 1-20.
Malcolm, Norman. “Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations,” The Philosophical Review, LXIII (October, 1954), 530-59.
Moore, George Edward. “Wittgenstein’s Lectures in 1930-33,” Mind, LXIII (January; July, 1954), 1-15, 289-316; LXIV (January, 1955), 1-27.
Rorty, Richard. “Pragmatism, Categories, and Language,” The Philosophical Review, LXX (April, 1961), 197-223.
Ryle, Gilbert. “Ordinary Language,” The Philosophical Review, LXII (April, 1953), 167-86.
Stebbing, L. Susan. “Logical Positivism and Analysis,” Proceedings of the British Academy, XIX (1933), 53-87.
__________. “The Method of Analysis in Metaphysics,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, N.S., XXXIII (1932-33), 65-94.
Waismann, Friedrich. “Verfiability,” Logic and Language, First and Second Series. Edited by Antony Flew. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965.
Wisdom, John. “Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1934-1937,” Mind, LXI (April, 1952), 258-60.
Unpublished Manuscript
Lanfear, Ray. “An Analysis and Evaluation of Wittgenstein’s Locution: Meaning as ‘Use.’” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Baylor University, 1964.
Saturday, May 9, 2026
Betty White: First Lady of Television (2018)
*Get "First Lady of Television: The Betty White Collection" on Amazon here*
*Get If You Ask Me (And of Course You Won't) by Betty White on Amazon here*
This documentary benefits from its lovable subject.
After almost seventy years on television, and some feature films, Betty White was finally slowing down (a little). Up for interviews are former co-stars, with some clips from her first forays into television, her marriage to Allen Ludden, and her sudden second career that started in the early 2000s.
She was a talented, funny actress, but the film makers don't go for a complete picture of her work and life. Ignored are her other sitcoms besides "Life With Elizabeth," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "The Golden Girls," and "Hot in Cleveland." Some spoiler footage from "The Lost Valentine" is played to show her versatility. Everyone loves Betty, and it comes through in the interviews, which seemed to be shot at different times or taken from other documentaries, and the amount of people who have passed away now is shocking- Betty White was 99 when I screened this.
Funny clips, some interesting biographical information, a lovable subject, but there's got to be more out there than this. Less than an hour is NOT enough time to cover seventy years.
Unrated- Some sexual references, some adult situations
*Get If You Ask Me (And of Course You Won't) by Betty White on Amazon here*
This documentary benefits from its lovable subject.
After almost seventy years on television, and some feature films, Betty White was finally slowing down (a little). Up for interviews are former co-stars, with some clips from her first forays into television, her marriage to Allen Ludden, and her sudden second career that started in the early 2000s.
She was a talented, funny actress, but the film makers don't go for a complete picture of her work and life. Ignored are her other sitcoms besides "Life With Elizabeth," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "The Golden Girls," and "Hot in Cleveland." Some spoiler footage from "The Lost Valentine" is played to show her versatility. Everyone loves Betty, and it comes through in the interviews, which seemed to be shot at different times or taken from other documentaries, and the amount of people who have passed away now is shocking- Betty White was 99 when I screened this.
Funny clips, some interesting biographical information, a lovable subject, but there's got to be more out there than this. Less than an hour is NOT enough time to cover seventy years.
Unrated- Some sexual references, some adult situations
Holiday in Handcuffs (2007)
*Get "Holiday in Handcuffs" on Amazon here*
*Get Melissa Explains It All: Tales from My Abnormally Normal Life by Melissa Joan Hart on Amazon here*
Despite the title, NOT an adult film, and oh, how the mighty have fallen! I don't mean the medium-name cast, I'm talking about director Ron Underwood, who helmed the cult classic "Tremors," as well as "City Slickers," "Heart and Souls," "Speechless," "Mighty Joe Young," and, oh, yeah..."The Adventures of Pluto Nash"...okay, I understand now.
Melissa Joan Hart plays a quirky artist Trudie, whose jerk Wall Street boyfriend (this film is VERY anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalism, etc.) breaks up with her. She kidnaps David (Mario Lopez), who has his own awful but rich girlfriend, and presents him as her beau at the family gathering at a conveniently isolated cabin in the woods. Assorted family secrets eventually come out, as Trudie and David grow closer. June Lockhart fails miserably in the wild grandma role probably written for Betty White, and the plot is preposterous and predictable. Hart has a few funny scenes, but unless you've never seen a Hallmark Channel film before (this debuted on the old ABC Family Channel, hence it's mild edginess), this can run dull.
*Get Melissa Explains It All: Tales from My Abnormally Normal Life by Melissa Joan Hart on Amazon here*
Despite the title, NOT an adult film, and oh, how the mighty have fallen! I don't mean the medium-name cast, I'm talking about director Ron Underwood, who helmed the cult classic "Tremors," as well as "City Slickers," "Heart and Souls," "Speechless," "Mighty Joe Young," and, oh, yeah..."The Adventures of Pluto Nash"...okay, I understand now.
Melissa Joan Hart plays a quirky artist Trudie, whose jerk Wall Street boyfriend (this film is VERY anti-Wall Street, anti-capitalism, etc.) breaks up with her. She kidnaps David (Mario Lopez), who has his own awful but rich girlfriend, and presents him as her beau at the family gathering at a conveniently isolated cabin in the woods. Assorted family secrets eventually come out, as Trudie and David grow closer. June Lockhart fails miserably in the wild grandma role probably written for Betty White, and the plot is preposterous and predictable. Hart has a few funny scenes, but unless you've never seen a Hallmark Channel film before (this debuted on the old ABC Family Channel, hence it's mild edginess), this can run dull.
Serviced with a Smile (1979)
*Get The Death of Porn: Men of Integrity Building a World of Nobility by Ray Ortlund on Amazon here*
*Get Brigitte Lahaie: A Pictorial Biography by Dominique Malacarne on Amazon here*
This is a French porno badly dubbed into English, and released on an unsuspecting grindhouse crowd.
Bored and beautiful housewife Barbara (Brigitte Lahaie) and her husband take in a mysterious butler, who promptly turns their household upside down sexually. The film is also a bore, despite Lahaie being easy on the eyes. Yeah, nothing more bourgeois than a loving monogamous relationship! Lahaie, as opposed to many adult film performers (I refuse to use the term "star"), is still around and mystified by the fascination with her early films. Honestly, there is nothing sadder than the pornography industry, a topic that is both taboo but also pulling in billions of dollars every year. Performers' careers are short-lived, but the effect on their bodies and mental state are lifetime sentences. You rarely see performers who handled their choices well, with many of them turning to alcohol, drugs, and suffering early deaths.
I pity the performers here, and their inability to lead normal lives- you can't commit this kind of intimacy to film and not experience some kind of shame and guilt no matter how actors, actresses, and crew have justified it over the past few decades; with many having to explain what they did to their own children- I cannot even imagine what that would do to any offspring- child or adult. Also known as "Couple Cherche Esclave Sexuel."
*Get Brigitte Lahaie: A Pictorial Biography by Dominique Malacarne on Amazon here*
This is a French porno badly dubbed into English, and released on an unsuspecting grindhouse crowd.
Bored and beautiful housewife Barbara (Brigitte Lahaie) and her husband take in a mysterious butler, who promptly turns their household upside down sexually. The film is also a bore, despite Lahaie being easy on the eyes. Yeah, nothing more bourgeois than a loving monogamous relationship! Lahaie, as opposed to many adult film performers (I refuse to use the term "star"), is still around and mystified by the fascination with her early films. Honestly, there is nothing sadder than the pornography industry, a topic that is both taboo but also pulling in billions of dollars every year. Performers' careers are short-lived, but the effect on their bodies and mental state are lifetime sentences. You rarely see performers who handled their choices well, with many of them turning to alcohol, drugs, and suffering early deaths.
I pity the performers here, and their inability to lead normal lives- you can't commit this kind of intimacy to film and not experience some kind of shame and guilt no matter how actors, actresses, and crew have justified it over the past few decades; with many having to explain what they did to their own children- I cannot even imagine what that would do to any offspring- child or adult. Also known as "Couple Cherche Esclave Sexuel."
"Bonanza" {"A Passion for Justice" #5.2} (1963)
*Get "Bonanza: The Official Fifth Season, Volume 1" on Amazon here*
*Get Great Expectations by Charles Dickens on Amazon here*
Jonathan Harris brings his Dr. Smith character from "Lost in Space" out to the Ponderosa, portraying author Charles Dickens as a mincing snob in this badly written episode.
Ben (Lorne Greene) and a Virginia City literary society invite Charles Dickens (Jonathan Harris) out west to give a presentation of his works. The ruffians in town surprisingly know Dickens' works, thanks to their publication by Sam Walker (Frank Albertson) in the local newspaper. What the townspeople don't know is that Dickens never authorized the American serialization of his novels, and soon browbeats the townsfolk for stealing from him. Walker's printing equipment is destroyed, Dickens is implicated, and soon a trial is on with absolutely no suspense in its outcome and repercussions.
This misstep in the series feels off-kilter from the beginning. Instead of portraying Dickens as slightly haughty or even a little snobbish, Harris portrays him as an ass of the highest order, turning off the townspeople and the audience. No one is concerned that this child inmate of a debtors' prison is getting cheated out of money that is rightfully his, I saw no motivation why he doesn't defend himself in his trial- telling people the real reason he was in Walker's office when the damage was found (the screenwriter also dropped the ball here, as the real culprit is made more than obvious). Harris' final scene as Dickens is fantastic, he does a 180 and plays him as he should have been playing him for the last forty-eight minutes, with the exception of another nicely done bit with Dickens working with Hoss (Dan Blocker).
Of course, the Cartwrights know better than everyone else all along, but this episode is such a turn-off, I was thankful when it ended. I still love Dickens' work, Great Expectations is one of my favorite novels, but based on this episode alone, Dickens is a jerk.
Not Rated- Very mild physical violence, very mild gun violence, mild alcohol use
*Get Great Expectations by Charles Dickens on Amazon here*
Jonathan Harris brings his Dr. Smith character from "Lost in Space" out to the Ponderosa, portraying author Charles Dickens as a mincing snob in this badly written episode.
Ben (Lorne Greene) and a Virginia City literary society invite Charles Dickens (Jonathan Harris) out west to give a presentation of his works. The ruffians in town surprisingly know Dickens' works, thanks to their publication by Sam Walker (Frank Albertson) in the local newspaper. What the townspeople don't know is that Dickens never authorized the American serialization of his novels, and soon browbeats the townsfolk for stealing from him. Walker's printing equipment is destroyed, Dickens is implicated, and soon a trial is on with absolutely no suspense in its outcome and repercussions.
This misstep in the series feels off-kilter from the beginning. Instead of portraying Dickens as slightly haughty or even a little snobbish, Harris portrays him as an ass of the highest order, turning off the townspeople and the audience. No one is concerned that this child inmate of a debtors' prison is getting cheated out of money that is rightfully his, I saw no motivation why he doesn't defend himself in his trial- telling people the real reason he was in Walker's office when the damage was found (the screenwriter also dropped the ball here, as the real culprit is made more than obvious). Harris' final scene as Dickens is fantastic, he does a 180 and plays him as he should have been playing him for the last forty-eight minutes, with the exception of another nicely done bit with Dickens working with Hoss (Dan Blocker).
Of course, the Cartwrights know better than everyone else all along, but this episode is such a turn-off, I was thankful when it ended. I still love Dickens' work, Great Expectations is one of my favorite novels, but based on this episode alone, Dickens is a jerk.
Not Rated- Very mild physical violence, very mild gun violence, mild alcohol use
Book Review: "Kops and Custards: The Legend of Keystone Films" by Kalton C. Lahue and Terry Brewer
*Get Mack Sennett's Keystone: The Man, the Myth, and the Comedies by Kalton C. Lahue on Amazon here*
*Get "Krazy Keystone Komedies" on Amazon here*
"Kops and Custards" is a history of Mack Sennett's Keystone Films. It recounts a little bit of Sennett's background and how he founded Keystone Pictures, and how he eventually lost his fun factory through shady financial dealings. While the book is effective in recounting how Sennett had to work hard to convince others that his comedy theories would work on film, it does tend to confuse the reader by throwing in too many facts and figures concerning the finances of Keystone Corporation.
Half of the book concerns who bought what, financed this, then sold it for less to others. The amount of names brought up is dizzying, and not very enlightening. The other half of the book concerns the daily running of the studio, and the many comedians who passed in and out of Keystone's doors. Sennett's relationship with Mabel Normand is touched upon, although no explored thoroughly. Charlie Chaplin is not mentioned as often as he should have been. He is treated as just another actor who left the studio for broader horizons. One interesting fact that came out of the book was the rising film career of Charlie's brother, Sydney Chaplin, at Keystone. Sydney's career could have been very successful if he hadn't turned his sights on his brother.
Another problem with the book is the arrogant attitude it takes toward its subjects. Authors Lahue and Brewer constantly discount stories Sennett and Chaplin told in their autobiographies. The authors make many of the major players of that era as simple-minded buffoons whose only concern was money. I do not think I can recommend this book. For studying Charlie Chaplin, it doesn't cover any new ground. If you are interested in the financial goings-on of Keystone, then this book would be helpful. The book's text is just 134 pages. The book features a very impressive appendix listing all the known Keystone comedies from September 1912 through September 1917. Also listed is a bibliography, titles index, and a general index.
*Get "Krazy Keystone Komedies" on Amazon here*
"Kops and Custards" is a history of Mack Sennett's Keystone Films. It recounts a little bit of Sennett's background and how he founded Keystone Pictures, and how he eventually lost his fun factory through shady financial dealings. While the book is effective in recounting how Sennett had to work hard to convince others that his comedy theories would work on film, it does tend to confuse the reader by throwing in too many facts and figures concerning the finances of Keystone Corporation.
Half of the book concerns who bought what, financed this, then sold it for less to others. The amount of names brought up is dizzying, and not very enlightening. The other half of the book concerns the daily running of the studio, and the many comedians who passed in and out of Keystone's doors. Sennett's relationship with Mabel Normand is touched upon, although no explored thoroughly. Charlie Chaplin is not mentioned as often as he should have been. He is treated as just another actor who left the studio for broader horizons. One interesting fact that came out of the book was the rising film career of Charlie's brother, Sydney Chaplin, at Keystone. Sydney's career could have been very successful if he hadn't turned his sights on his brother.
Another problem with the book is the arrogant attitude it takes toward its subjects. Authors Lahue and Brewer constantly discount stories Sennett and Chaplin told in their autobiographies. The authors make many of the major players of that era as simple-minded buffoons whose only concern was money. I do not think I can recommend this book. For studying Charlie Chaplin, it doesn't cover any new ground. If you are interested in the financial goings-on of Keystone, then this book would be helpful. The book's text is just 134 pages. The book features a very impressive appendix listing all the known Keystone comedies from September 1912 through September 1917. Also listed is a bibliography, titles index, and a general index.
"Bonanza" {"Rain from Heaven" #5.3} (1963)
*Get "Bonanza: The Official Fifth Season, Volume 1" on Amazon here*
*Get Bonanza: A Viewer's Guide to the TV Legend by Dan R. Greenland on Amazon here*
Another misstep in the season finds the Cartwrights hosting a rainmaker during a terrible drought.
Tulsa Weems (John Anderson) and his family arrive in Virginia City, and for a couple of hundred dollars, will make it rain again. In tow are his wife ('60's TV mainstay Claudia Bryar), uppity son Jube (Mickey Sholdar), and his sick daughter Mary Beth (Eileen Chesis). Ben (Lorne Greene) is the only person in town who doesn't kick in money for Weems' services, and Tulsa is infuriated with him since rainmaking is doing the Lord's work (in many an embarrassing scene). Ben offers the family his home after Tulsa is locked up for a half-hearted attack on Ben, but they don't take charity. They eventually break into the Cartwright barn, sure, they don't take charity, but they do what they need to to survive.
As the family waits outside, still not taking charity, Hoss (Dan Blocker) brings Mary Beth into the house and locks her up in a bedroom. She has typhoid fever, and Hoss believes that some itchy cold compresses will cure her of the disease. Tulsa begins his rainmaking ceremony as his family still don't take charity, and his actions may or may not work. Oh, and his family don't take charity.
This misfire is very padded, with repetitious lines and situations. I was sick to death of hearing the family's justification for not taking charity, despite Anderson's good performance. Pernell Roberts has just one line and ducks out of the episode after the first two minutes. Another mistake made is dubbing in Mary Beth's moaning, which is unintentionally hilarious. Tulsa's rainmaking efforts, involving a teeny cannon and stock footage of fireworks, also runs too long. Hoss locking himself in a bedroom with a ten year old girl is a little weird, as well. The episode feels forced and stale, and the abrupt conclusion wraps everything up in a couple of minutes, with no consequences, or word from Roberts' Adam.
A definite letdown, I hope the rest of the season improves from this.
Not Rated- Very mild physical violence, very mild gun violence, alcohol use
*Get Bonanza: A Viewer's Guide to the TV Legend by Dan R. Greenland on Amazon here*
Another misstep in the season finds the Cartwrights hosting a rainmaker during a terrible drought.
Tulsa Weems (John Anderson) and his family arrive in Virginia City, and for a couple of hundred dollars, will make it rain again. In tow are his wife ('60's TV mainstay Claudia Bryar), uppity son Jube (Mickey Sholdar), and his sick daughter Mary Beth (Eileen Chesis). Ben (Lorne Greene) is the only person in town who doesn't kick in money for Weems' services, and Tulsa is infuriated with him since rainmaking is doing the Lord's work (in many an embarrassing scene). Ben offers the family his home after Tulsa is locked up for a half-hearted attack on Ben, but they don't take charity. They eventually break into the Cartwright barn, sure, they don't take charity, but they do what they need to to survive.
As the family waits outside, still not taking charity, Hoss (Dan Blocker) brings Mary Beth into the house and locks her up in a bedroom. She has typhoid fever, and Hoss believes that some itchy cold compresses will cure her of the disease. Tulsa begins his rainmaking ceremony as his family still don't take charity, and his actions may or may not work. Oh, and his family don't take charity.
This misfire is very padded, with repetitious lines and situations. I was sick to death of hearing the family's justification for not taking charity, despite Anderson's good performance. Pernell Roberts has just one line and ducks out of the episode after the first two minutes. Another mistake made is dubbing in Mary Beth's moaning, which is unintentionally hilarious. Tulsa's rainmaking efforts, involving a teeny cannon and stock footage of fireworks, also runs too long. Hoss locking himself in a bedroom with a ten year old girl is a little weird, as well. The episode feels forced and stale, and the abrupt conclusion wraps everything up in a couple of minutes, with no consequences, or word from Roberts' Adam.
A definite letdown, I hope the rest of the season improves from this.
Not Rated- Very mild physical violence, very mild gun violence, alcohol use
The Croods: A New Age (2020)
*Get "The Croods: A New Age" on Amazon here*
*Get A Field Guide to The Croods: A New Age by Iain R. Morris on Amazon here*
Audiences were finally (after seven long years) treated to a sequel to the original film about a family of cavemen, and while not as good as "The Croods," we'll take what we can get.
After all the events of the first film, which was a fantastic combination of action and comedy, the Croods are still looking for their perfect "Tomorrow" to call home. Dad Grug (voiced by Nicolas Cage) remains a brute, with understanding wife Ugga (voiced by Catherine Keener) in tow. Gran (voiced by the late Cloris Leachman) hasn't changed much, and neither have the kids Thunk (voiced by Clark Duke) and Sandy (voiced by Kailey Crawford). However, Guy (voiced by Ryan Reynolds) and Eep (voiced by Emma Stone, who brings so much to her character) are in the throes of teenage love, being overly cutesy and annoying under the watchful eye of Grug.
The family runs across a walled Eden run by the Bettermans, Phil (voiced by an absolutely fantastic Peter Dinklage), his wife Hope (voiced by Leslie Mann), and their teenage daughter Dawn (voiced by Kelly Marie Tran). The Bettermans have built their own oasis with amazing inventions like elevators and indoor plumbing, and all the Croods, with the exception of Grug, are enamored with the place. The Bettermans were the best friends of Guy's now deceased parents, and have designs on the lad for their own Dawn. All is not what it seems behind the walled Utopia, and as the two families clash, there's something outside the wall that will eventually bring them together.
This sequel falls a little shy of the first film, but not due to the voice talent. Peter Dinklage's Phil had me laughing the hardest. His New Age-ish approach to fathering and relationships with his family and the Croods had me rolling. The screen is so full of vibrant colors, they almost singe the retinas. I'm not kidding, the neon colors are nearly blinding. The overall look of the Croods has changed as well, maybe thanks to newer technology? Facial features seem smoother, but once in a while director Crawford (or the SIX credited writers involved) add a touch that we didn't see before- the film makers contort the facial features of the cast in a few scenes that are a little unsettling, and a lot creepy. Some new running gags work (Gran sleeping with her eyes open), and some don't (Gran's hair), but the action-packed climax falls well short of any of the action set pieces of the first film. Younger kids might be bored with a lot of the social commentary humor, not getting the bromance or empowered women gags. The screenplay doesn't play it as "woke" as some other recent films, but it does try some stuff here and there that doesn't work. I did like the couple of musical choices, with some fun Jack Black/Tenacious D songs over the end credits.
Throw in a rather startling amount of violence (the constant sticks in eyes had my own eyes watering), and I appreciated this film for what it tried to do but it falls on the lower end of "good" in the grand scheme of things. I hope we don't have to wait another seven years for a sequel, I would love to see the Croods and Bettermans a lot sooner than that.
Rated (PG)- Physical violence, adult situations
*Get A Field Guide to The Croods: A New Age by Iain R. Morris on Amazon here*
Audiences were finally (after seven long years) treated to a sequel to the original film about a family of cavemen, and while not as good as "The Croods," we'll take what we can get.
After all the events of the first film, which was a fantastic combination of action and comedy, the Croods are still looking for their perfect "Tomorrow" to call home. Dad Grug (voiced by Nicolas Cage) remains a brute, with understanding wife Ugga (voiced by Catherine Keener) in tow. Gran (voiced by the late Cloris Leachman) hasn't changed much, and neither have the kids Thunk (voiced by Clark Duke) and Sandy (voiced by Kailey Crawford). However, Guy (voiced by Ryan Reynolds) and Eep (voiced by Emma Stone, who brings so much to her character) are in the throes of teenage love, being overly cutesy and annoying under the watchful eye of Grug.
The family runs across a walled Eden run by the Bettermans, Phil (voiced by an absolutely fantastic Peter Dinklage), his wife Hope (voiced by Leslie Mann), and their teenage daughter Dawn (voiced by Kelly Marie Tran). The Bettermans have built their own oasis with amazing inventions like elevators and indoor plumbing, and all the Croods, with the exception of Grug, are enamored with the place. The Bettermans were the best friends of Guy's now deceased parents, and have designs on the lad for their own Dawn. All is not what it seems behind the walled Utopia, and as the two families clash, there's something outside the wall that will eventually bring them together.
This sequel falls a little shy of the first film, but not due to the voice talent. Peter Dinklage's Phil had me laughing the hardest. His New Age-ish approach to fathering and relationships with his family and the Croods had me rolling. The screen is so full of vibrant colors, they almost singe the retinas. I'm not kidding, the neon colors are nearly blinding. The overall look of the Croods has changed as well, maybe thanks to newer technology? Facial features seem smoother, but once in a while director Crawford (or the SIX credited writers involved) add a touch that we didn't see before- the film makers contort the facial features of the cast in a few scenes that are a little unsettling, and a lot creepy. Some new running gags work (Gran sleeping with her eyes open), and some don't (Gran's hair), but the action-packed climax falls well short of any of the action set pieces of the first film. Younger kids might be bored with a lot of the social commentary humor, not getting the bromance or empowered women gags. The screenplay doesn't play it as "woke" as some other recent films, but it does try some stuff here and there that doesn't work. I did like the couple of musical choices, with some fun Jack Black/Tenacious D songs over the end credits.
Throw in a rather startling amount of violence (the constant sticks in eyes had my own eyes watering), and I appreciated this film for what it tried to do but it falls on the lower end of "good" in the grand scheme of things. I hope we don't have to wait another seven years for a sequel, I would love to see the Croods and Bettermans a lot sooner than that.
Rated (PG)- Physical violence, adult situations
Pornocracy (2017)
*Get "Pornocracy" on Amazon here*
*Get The Death of Porn: Men of Integrity Building a World of Nobility by Ray Ortlund on Amazon here*
This short but effective documentary follows a former porn star as she investigates how free pornography sites online are doing more than just killing her former profession.
Ovidie appeared in pornographic films for well over a decade. While not a pornographic film per se, I did recognize her from the 2001 French film "The Pornographer," where she did hardcore material onscreen in an otherwise okay fictional look at a former porn film maker in decline. Ovidie is now on a crusade, looking into how and why pornography has gone from a physical medium that could be viewed in the privacy of your own home (or murky theaters) to a multi-billion dollar business that caters to a humanity that only needs their smart phones and internet service. What she finds is a subculture of desperation. Young women are selling their bodies, and risking both disease and actual physical damage due to a demand for rougher and more harmful sexual acts in order to one up the competition. Behind the scenes, the women are not "empowered" by their appearances online, as hundreds of millions of dollars are being bounced around the world in a giant money laundering scheme, with some performers not even being paid for their "services."
While Ovidie proceeds through her investigation, following the money, I was never sure how she wanted things to turn out. Did she miss her glory days in front of the camera, or was she an anti-porn activist altogether? Watching what some of these young women go through was tough, shattering the illusion that they were raking in tons of money and living the high life. As of this writing, most of the footage is close to five years old, and I hope the people here are no longer in the industry since a career in this business is very short. When you view porn online, or in any form, you're feeding a giant shady corporate monster. You may not be paying any money on a free site, but that view and traffic you trigger is then bought and sold, and the beast runs on those hits and eventual memberships on other sites. Women from poor countries are debasing themselves for the watching pleasure of men, who ask them to do the most horrendous things imaginable onscreen, including sexual acts that they never have done before in the privacy of a monogamous relationship. We learn one Chinese live webcam model literally ingests human waste if the customer wants her to, and still may not make any money for an eight or ten hour day of work. These women are being trafficked, but not on the streets. They live in a fantasy facade (the webcam house in Romania is gross), with handlers at the ready to cater to their sense of importance before they come to their senses, or get too old, and are released back into the real world to have a normal life again. One model talks about opening a business, and starting a family, and it's sad to think her future children might stumble upon this someday. Another woman has five siblings at home, her mother is a cook, and she has only laid eyes on her father once in her life...the thought that he might someday be watching his own flesh and blood humiliate themselves like this is creepy.
If you are a purveyor of pornography, wondering "what harm can it do?," then Ovidie's documentary is the answer. She doesn't even go into how viewing this can have a detrimental effect on the patron's relationships, but that is a conclusion you can draw on your own. Turn off your screens, and think for yourself. When you punch up a streaming site or look at the latest "hacked" pics of your favorite celebrity, you are damaging more lives than just your own. I used to review older adult films like I would regular films, and always marvelled at a lot of the cast's early deaths through suicide and drug overdoses. Maybe it's time we stop contributing to this industry and let it die out? Just a suggestion. This is a slightly flawed but still powerful documentary.
Unrated- Nudity, sexual content, very strong sexual references, very strong adult situations, tobacco use
*Get The Death of Porn: Men of Integrity Building a World of Nobility by Ray Ortlund on Amazon here*
This short but effective documentary follows a former porn star as she investigates how free pornography sites online are doing more than just killing her former profession.
Ovidie appeared in pornographic films for well over a decade. While not a pornographic film per se, I did recognize her from the 2001 French film "The Pornographer," where she did hardcore material onscreen in an otherwise okay fictional look at a former porn film maker in decline. Ovidie is now on a crusade, looking into how and why pornography has gone from a physical medium that could be viewed in the privacy of your own home (or murky theaters) to a multi-billion dollar business that caters to a humanity that only needs their smart phones and internet service. What she finds is a subculture of desperation. Young women are selling their bodies, and risking both disease and actual physical damage due to a demand for rougher and more harmful sexual acts in order to one up the competition. Behind the scenes, the women are not "empowered" by their appearances online, as hundreds of millions of dollars are being bounced around the world in a giant money laundering scheme, with some performers not even being paid for their "services."
While Ovidie proceeds through her investigation, following the money, I was never sure how she wanted things to turn out. Did she miss her glory days in front of the camera, or was she an anti-porn activist altogether? Watching what some of these young women go through was tough, shattering the illusion that they were raking in tons of money and living the high life. As of this writing, most of the footage is close to five years old, and I hope the people here are no longer in the industry since a career in this business is very short. When you view porn online, or in any form, you're feeding a giant shady corporate monster. You may not be paying any money on a free site, but that view and traffic you trigger is then bought and sold, and the beast runs on those hits and eventual memberships on other sites. Women from poor countries are debasing themselves for the watching pleasure of men, who ask them to do the most horrendous things imaginable onscreen, including sexual acts that they never have done before in the privacy of a monogamous relationship. We learn one Chinese live webcam model literally ingests human waste if the customer wants her to, and still may not make any money for an eight or ten hour day of work. These women are being trafficked, but not on the streets. They live in a fantasy facade (the webcam house in Romania is gross), with handlers at the ready to cater to their sense of importance before they come to their senses, or get too old, and are released back into the real world to have a normal life again. One model talks about opening a business, and starting a family, and it's sad to think her future children might stumble upon this someday. Another woman has five siblings at home, her mother is a cook, and she has only laid eyes on her father once in her life...the thought that he might someday be watching his own flesh and blood humiliate themselves like this is creepy.
If you are a purveyor of pornography, wondering "what harm can it do?," then Ovidie's documentary is the answer. She doesn't even go into how viewing this can have a detrimental effect on the patron's relationships, but that is a conclusion you can draw on your own. Turn off your screens, and think for yourself. When you punch up a streaming site or look at the latest "hacked" pics of your favorite celebrity, you are damaging more lives than just your own. I used to review older adult films like I would regular films, and always marvelled at a lot of the cast's early deaths through suicide and drug overdoses. Maybe it's time we stop contributing to this industry and let it die out? Just a suggestion. This is a slightly flawed but still powerful documentary.
Unrated- Nudity, sexual content, very strong sexual references, very strong adult situations, tobacco use
Night of Terror (1933)
*Get "The Bela Lugosi Double Feature: Night of Terror & Spooks Run Wild" on Amazon here*
*Get Bela Lugosi: The Man Behind the Cape by Robert Cremer on Amazon here*
Oh, it's a night of terror, alright. The script is a terror, the performances are a terror, but the running time is thankfully brief.
A crazed maniac (Edwin Maxwell) is skulking around the countryside, stabbing random people to death and leaving his calling card- newspaper clippings of his own murders. He begins stalking around the Rinehart mansion, where Arthur (George Meeker) has invented a fluid that renders oxygen unnecessary for life (after one hysterical near-attack by the maniac, he should have invented a potion to improve his peripheral vision). He plans to inject it into himself, be buried, and then dug up and brought back to life with a serum. Arthur's benefactor, Richard (Tully Marshall) has reservations about the young scientist. Arthur's fiancee Mary (Sally Blane) thinks he's dreamy if not a little distracted, as she fights off the romantic overtures of jerk reporter Tom (an always annoying Wallace Ford), who basically forces himself on her every chance he gets.
Arthur goes through with his experiment, despite Richard's eventual murder at the hands of the maniac. Richard's will splits his money evenly between his greedy brother John (Bryant Washburn), John's wife (Gertrude Michael), and the help- exotic Degar (Bela Lugosi in a turban) and his wife Sika (Mary Frey), who, as luck would have it, is capable of communicating with the dead. The bodies begin piling up when it's found out that when an heir dies, the money is then split between the other heirs.
First of all, the art direction and set decoration are awesome. The dark old house setting is flawless, and Joseph A. Valentine's cinematography is full of shadows and gray. Stoloff directs a simple but crowded film, with more than enough red herrings to fill the screen. The acting is alright across the board with the exception of the cast's only African-American, driver Martin (an uncredited Oscar Smith). Checking Smith's filmography, he was relegated to porter, shoeshine, and waiter roles through his entire career, and his scared servant shtick is embarrassing. Also embarrassing is Ford's character Tom, who was probably supposed to be flippant and fun, but comes off as a creepy lecher who keeps kissing Mary when she least expects it. I know Ford from a role he had on "The Andy Griffith Show" almost thirty years after this was made, and his demeanor rubbed me the wrong way in that episode as well. The screenplay is strictly on the level of Ed Wood, with Mary seemingly screaming every three minutes, in direct opposition to everyone else's lackadaisical reactions to the bloodshed, and there are a lot of murders here. The last names are similar to each other, confusing me as to who was who- the Rinehart family, reporter Tom Hartley, and professor Arthur Hornsby.
This was considered a lost film for a while, not receiving a home video release, and maybe it should have stayed that way. Definitely for Lugosi completists only, who may be disappointed that he might have top billing, but his role is only supporting.
Not Rated- Physical violence, some adult situations, tobacco use
*Get Bela Lugosi: The Man Behind the Cape by Robert Cremer on Amazon here*
Oh, it's a night of terror, alright. The script is a terror, the performances are a terror, but the running time is thankfully brief.
A crazed maniac (Edwin Maxwell) is skulking around the countryside, stabbing random people to death and leaving his calling card- newspaper clippings of his own murders. He begins stalking around the Rinehart mansion, where Arthur (George Meeker) has invented a fluid that renders oxygen unnecessary for life (after one hysterical near-attack by the maniac, he should have invented a potion to improve his peripheral vision). He plans to inject it into himself, be buried, and then dug up and brought back to life with a serum. Arthur's benefactor, Richard (Tully Marshall) has reservations about the young scientist. Arthur's fiancee Mary (Sally Blane) thinks he's dreamy if not a little distracted, as she fights off the romantic overtures of jerk reporter Tom (an always annoying Wallace Ford), who basically forces himself on her every chance he gets.
Arthur goes through with his experiment, despite Richard's eventual murder at the hands of the maniac. Richard's will splits his money evenly between his greedy brother John (Bryant Washburn), John's wife (Gertrude Michael), and the help- exotic Degar (Bela Lugosi in a turban) and his wife Sika (Mary Frey), who, as luck would have it, is capable of communicating with the dead. The bodies begin piling up when it's found out that when an heir dies, the money is then split between the other heirs.
First of all, the art direction and set decoration are awesome. The dark old house setting is flawless, and Joseph A. Valentine's cinematography is full of shadows and gray. Stoloff directs a simple but crowded film, with more than enough red herrings to fill the screen. The acting is alright across the board with the exception of the cast's only African-American, driver Martin (an uncredited Oscar Smith). Checking Smith's filmography, he was relegated to porter, shoeshine, and waiter roles through his entire career, and his scared servant shtick is embarrassing. Also embarrassing is Ford's character Tom, who was probably supposed to be flippant and fun, but comes off as a creepy lecher who keeps kissing Mary when she least expects it. I know Ford from a role he had on "The Andy Griffith Show" almost thirty years after this was made, and his demeanor rubbed me the wrong way in that episode as well. The screenplay is strictly on the level of Ed Wood, with Mary seemingly screaming every three minutes, in direct opposition to everyone else's lackadaisical reactions to the bloodshed, and there are a lot of murders here. The last names are similar to each other, confusing me as to who was who- the Rinehart family, reporter Tom Hartley, and professor Arthur Hornsby.
This was considered a lost film for a while, not receiving a home video release, and maybe it should have stayed that way. Definitely for Lugosi completists only, who may be disappointed that he might have top billing, but his role is only supporting.
Not Rated- Physical violence, some adult situations, tobacco use
Friday, May 8, 2026
Halston (2019)
*Get "Halston" on Amazon here*
*Get Halston: Inventing American Fashion by Leslie Frowick on Amazon here*
This odd film decides to play with the conventions of the documentary genre, before seemingly getting bored by its bold choice. The film is supposed to be about Halston, the design icon (and one of the few personalities I know of since the world of fashion bores me stupid) but between this and the equally blah "Ultrasuede: In Search of Halston," why can't anyone get this right?
Roy Halston Frowick exploded on the fashion scene out of nowhere (in this case, Iowa) with Jackie Kennedy's pillbox hat. He was as flamboyant as his designs, which he made for the "common" folk; dresses that could be worn by everyday people who don't have an army of stylists and assistants to help them dress in the morning. His ambitions got the better of him, as he fell in with corporate America, and after a disastrous spell with JCPenney, this household name from the 1960s, '70s, and '80s faded from view and died of AIDS in California in 1990.
There is an odd framing device where actress Tavi Gevinson is a narrator playing some sort of researcher looking through old videotapes of Halston in his prime. Some of the interviewees are portrayed by actors, and the entire idea is weird. Tcheng didn't need it. In "The Arbor," actors were brought in to mouth the interviews of the friends and family of the late playwright Andrea Dunbar, and that documentary was compelling and perfect. Here, it felt like the film makers had some footage from a biopic that they decided to incorporate into a documentary instead of dumping the project altogether. There's currently a miniseries out there somewhere, with Ewan McGregor miscast as the designer, that I might seek out someday. Halston was a force to be reckoned with, but between this film and "Ultrasuede: In Search of Halston" (a jokey documentary that works a little better with the man's life), it's strange that no one can quite capture this subject well. Some one needs to sit down with Liza Minnelli and record everything she can remember about her friends and life, because her interview and quips are a highlight here. She's tough and funny about her best friend, and she has lived through a hundred lifetimes of success and heartache.
Roy Halston Frowick seemed to be torn about his Midwest upbringing, which is also unfortunate. He glosses over his childhood in interviews, yet called his mother every week. He went back home once to reminisce, but without calling attention to himself or telling anyone. He had a suite of offices in the middle of New York City, literally looking down on the little person, but tried to get his designs into the hands of middle America through partnerships with corporations like JCPenney. He was an interesting character, with an interesting life, but can no one find anybody in Flyover Country who grew up with him and wants to share some stories? Has anyone tried? Come on out, we don't bite.
Finally, a couple of decades ago, I found a necktie in a thrift store in Minot, North Dakota and bought it for a dollar. It was faded pink, and a little ratty from age, and since I rarely wore neckties, I donated it back to the same thrift store years later when I was readying to move. The Halston name was on the necktie, and now I wish I had kept it. Halston deserved better, both in life and afterward.
-Unrated- Some profanity, brief nudity, some sexual references, some adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use, drug references
*Get Halston: Inventing American Fashion by Leslie Frowick on Amazon here*
This odd film decides to play with the conventions of the documentary genre, before seemingly getting bored by its bold choice. The film is supposed to be about Halston, the design icon (and one of the few personalities I know of since the world of fashion bores me stupid) but between this and the equally blah "Ultrasuede: In Search of Halston," why can't anyone get this right?
Roy Halston Frowick exploded on the fashion scene out of nowhere (in this case, Iowa) with Jackie Kennedy's pillbox hat. He was as flamboyant as his designs, which he made for the "common" folk; dresses that could be worn by everyday people who don't have an army of stylists and assistants to help them dress in the morning. His ambitions got the better of him, as he fell in with corporate America, and after a disastrous spell with JCPenney, this household name from the 1960s, '70s, and '80s faded from view and died of AIDS in California in 1990.
There is an odd framing device where actress Tavi Gevinson is a narrator playing some sort of researcher looking through old videotapes of Halston in his prime. Some of the interviewees are portrayed by actors, and the entire idea is weird. Tcheng didn't need it. In "The Arbor," actors were brought in to mouth the interviews of the friends and family of the late playwright Andrea Dunbar, and that documentary was compelling and perfect. Here, it felt like the film makers had some footage from a biopic that they decided to incorporate into a documentary instead of dumping the project altogether. There's currently a miniseries out there somewhere, with Ewan McGregor miscast as the designer, that I might seek out someday. Halston was a force to be reckoned with, but between this film and "Ultrasuede: In Search of Halston" (a jokey documentary that works a little better with the man's life), it's strange that no one can quite capture this subject well. Some one needs to sit down with Liza Minnelli and record everything she can remember about her friends and life, because her interview and quips are a highlight here. She's tough and funny about her best friend, and she has lived through a hundred lifetimes of success and heartache.
Roy Halston Frowick seemed to be torn about his Midwest upbringing, which is also unfortunate. He glosses over his childhood in interviews, yet called his mother every week. He went back home once to reminisce, but without calling attention to himself or telling anyone. He had a suite of offices in the middle of New York City, literally looking down on the little person, but tried to get his designs into the hands of middle America through partnerships with corporations like JCPenney. He was an interesting character, with an interesting life, but can no one find anybody in Flyover Country who grew up with him and wants to share some stories? Has anyone tried? Come on out, we don't bite.
Finally, a couple of decades ago, I found a necktie in a thrift store in Minot, North Dakota and bought it for a dollar. It was faded pink, and a little ratty from age, and since I rarely wore neckties, I donated it back to the same thrift store years later when I was readying to move. The Halston name was on the necktie, and now I wish I had kept it. Halston deserved better, both in life and afterward.
-Unrated- Some profanity, brief nudity, some sexual references, some adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use, drug references
306 Hollywood (2018)
*Get "306 Hollywood" on Amazon here*
*Get The Gentle Art of Swedish Death Cleaning by Margareta Magnusson on Amazon here*
Another documentary where the film makers play with the genre conventions, and once again, this angle doesn't work.
Elan and Jonathan Bogarin's grandmother has just passed away at the age of 93, and their family is tasked with going through the house to get it ready to sell. The siblings, being incredibly weird, decide to get to know their beloved family member better by going through her possessions and cataloging them, analyzing why she or her late husband held onto innocuous items as band-aid dispensers, false teeth, and new toothbrushs.
Unfortunately, the Bogarins' efforts to put a positive, "fun" spin on the house clean-out backfires. They stage dance numbers, overanalyze their own emotions at the loss (which seems to mostly be detachment), and even humiliate the poor old woman. Grandma was a fashion designer, and they show video of her stripped to her underwear as they try to get her into one of her dresses. This isn't an episode of "Hoarders," but the Bogarins make the loss of Grandma about them, instead of celebrating the woman's life. Losing a loved one is something we can all associate with (when I wrote this, my father was in hospice and the family was in an uproar), but I felt the siblings weren't facing the cold hard truth of grief and loss, and instead they deal with it by keeping it at a distance, while quirking up the screen.
I wanted to like this film, and admire the Bogarins' bravery, but by the end, I was annoyed. Save the wacky, cold detachment for your thesis mumblecore screenplay. It's okay to love and miss your grandma.
Unrated- Profanity, some sexual references, some adult situations
*Get The Gentle Art of Swedish Death Cleaning by Margareta Magnusson on Amazon here*
Another documentary where the film makers play with the genre conventions, and once again, this angle doesn't work.
Elan and Jonathan Bogarin's grandmother has just passed away at the age of 93, and their family is tasked with going through the house to get it ready to sell. The siblings, being incredibly weird, decide to get to know their beloved family member better by going through her possessions and cataloging them, analyzing why she or her late husband held onto innocuous items as band-aid dispensers, false teeth, and new toothbrushs.
Unfortunately, the Bogarins' efforts to put a positive, "fun" spin on the house clean-out backfires. They stage dance numbers, overanalyze their own emotions at the loss (which seems to mostly be detachment), and even humiliate the poor old woman. Grandma was a fashion designer, and they show video of her stripped to her underwear as they try to get her into one of her dresses. This isn't an episode of "Hoarders," but the Bogarins make the loss of Grandma about them, instead of celebrating the woman's life. Losing a loved one is something we can all associate with (when I wrote this, my father was in hospice and the family was in an uproar), but I felt the siblings weren't facing the cold hard truth of grief and loss, and instead they deal with it by keeping it at a distance, while quirking up the screen.
I wanted to like this film, and admire the Bogarins' bravery, but by the end, I was annoyed. Save the wacky, cold detachment for your thesis mumblecore screenplay. It's okay to love and miss your grandma.
Unrated- Profanity, some sexual references, some adult situations
John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise (2021)
*Get "John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise" on Amazon here*
*Get Boys Enter the House: The Victims of John Wayne Gacy and the Lives They Left Behind by David Nelson on Amazon here*
The crimes of John Wayne Gacy are finally given the documentary mini-series treatment, with both frustrating and heartwrenching results.
Gacy was a construction contractor in the Chicago area, active in local community causes. He was also a closeted homosexual who took his self-loathing to extremes by picking up "young men and boys" (a phrase you will hear ad nauseum throughout) and taking them back to his home where they would be raped and murdered. Because he was active in the 1970s, there was no internet and not a lot of cooperation between the myriad of police stations in the Chicago suburbs. A teenager disappearing was probably a runaway, so not a lot of attention was paid. Eventually, Gacy's last victim was a kid who would never have run away from home, detectives tailed and eventually arrested Gacy after a troubling confession to his lawyer, and the full extent of his crimes became known. Almost thirty bodies were found buried in the crawlspace underneath his suburban home, and when he ran out of room there, some were dumped in a local river.
Bookending all the talking heads and recounting of his crimes are clips from a jailhouse interview between Gacy and FBI profiler Robert Ressler. Gacy maintains his innocence, yet talks matter-of-factly about his various sexual leanings. He was a blowhard, a narcissist, and a liar. Even after Gacy's execution in 1994, the documentary explores a property in Chicago where Gacy may have buried more victims. He was charged with 33 murders, but hinted the number could be as high as 45, and then the viewer must witness the red tape and bureaucracy behind possible victim mis-identification and police again butting heads with families who want closure. Also frustrating is that as of this writing, six of Gacy's victims are unidentified. Because of Gacy's sexuality, could there be a stigma attached to his victims that would keep a family from coming forward? And if so, how awful is that?
I wrote John Wayne Gacy in the early 1990s while he was in prison, and got a questionnaire back, asking about my sexual preferences and outlook on his crimes. I was looking to write a screenplay about his crimes (a decent film had not been made at that point), but his form response creeped me out so much, I dropped the project and tossed the letter. He did sign it, and I guess it might be worth some money today, but I was very uncomfortable about the situation. I am a victim of childhood abuse, and my abuser once used John Wayne Gacy as a boogeyman when threatening me not to tell what happened. Growing up, I read all I could find about the case, since I was twelve and thirteen years old, and had no clue who this man was.
Bringing in Gacy's sister, and family members of some of his victims, is long overdue. All are not only sympathetic, but proof that those young men and boys were not the only ones harmed. Gacy ruined hundreds of lives. He has two children out there somewhere who have never come forward. One of his surviving victims, and another former employee, would both end up committing suicide. Even today, over forty years after the murders, Chicago is still reeling from the John Wayne Gacy case.
I could nitpick certain aspects of the documentary, we spend too much time with the crusading reporter who covered the story and not enough time watching the Gacy/Ressler interview, but this miniseries should be required viewing, especially for the ridiculous "serial killer culture" fans who are out there. I would have liked to see much more about his victims. I don't know if the pain of the past has stopped many families from coming forward and talking, but five hours could easily be done on the lives of these young men and boys, whether they were honor students or troubled youth who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There shouldn't be a stigma attached to losing a family member to a sexual sadist, and I hope this documentary will prompt more people to come forward and tell their story. Their silence only bolsters Gacy's continued hold over their lives.
-Rated TV-14, contains strong sexual references, strong adult situations
*Get Boys Enter the House: The Victims of John Wayne Gacy and the Lives They Left Behind by David Nelson on Amazon here*
The crimes of John Wayne Gacy are finally given the documentary mini-series treatment, with both frustrating and heartwrenching results.
Gacy was a construction contractor in the Chicago area, active in local community causes. He was also a closeted homosexual who took his self-loathing to extremes by picking up "young men and boys" (a phrase you will hear ad nauseum throughout) and taking them back to his home where they would be raped and murdered. Because he was active in the 1970s, there was no internet and not a lot of cooperation between the myriad of police stations in the Chicago suburbs. A teenager disappearing was probably a runaway, so not a lot of attention was paid. Eventually, Gacy's last victim was a kid who would never have run away from home, detectives tailed and eventually arrested Gacy after a troubling confession to his lawyer, and the full extent of his crimes became known. Almost thirty bodies were found buried in the crawlspace underneath his suburban home, and when he ran out of room there, some were dumped in a local river.
Bookending all the talking heads and recounting of his crimes are clips from a jailhouse interview between Gacy and FBI profiler Robert Ressler. Gacy maintains his innocence, yet talks matter-of-factly about his various sexual leanings. He was a blowhard, a narcissist, and a liar. Even after Gacy's execution in 1994, the documentary explores a property in Chicago where Gacy may have buried more victims. He was charged with 33 murders, but hinted the number could be as high as 45, and then the viewer must witness the red tape and bureaucracy behind possible victim mis-identification and police again butting heads with families who want closure. Also frustrating is that as of this writing, six of Gacy's victims are unidentified. Because of Gacy's sexuality, could there be a stigma attached to his victims that would keep a family from coming forward? And if so, how awful is that?
I wrote John Wayne Gacy in the early 1990s while he was in prison, and got a questionnaire back, asking about my sexual preferences and outlook on his crimes. I was looking to write a screenplay about his crimes (a decent film had not been made at that point), but his form response creeped me out so much, I dropped the project and tossed the letter. He did sign it, and I guess it might be worth some money today, but I was very uncomfortable about the situation. I am a victim of childhood abuse, and my abuser once used John Wayne Gacy as a boogeyman when threatening me not to tell what happened. Growing up, I read all I could find about the case, since I was twelve and thirteen years old, and had no clue who this man was.
Bringing in Gacy's sister, and family members of some of his victims, is long overdue. All are not only sympathetic, but proof that those young men and boys were not the only ones harmed. Gacy ruined hundreds of lives. He has two children out there somewhere who have never come forward. One of his surviving victims, and another former employee, would both end up committing suicide. Even today, over forty years after the murders, Chicago is still reeling from the John Wayne Gacy case.
I could nitpick certain aspects of the documentary, we spend too much time with the crusading reporter who covered the story and not enough time watching the Gacy/Ressler interview, but this miniseries should be required viewing, especially for the ridiculous "serial killer culture" fans who are out there. I would have liked to see much more about his victims. I don't know if the pain of the past has stopped many families from coming forward and talking, but five hours could easily be done on the lives of these young men and boys, whether they were honor students or troubled youth who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. There shouldn't be a stigma attached to losing a family member to a sexual sadist, and I hope this documentary will prompt more people to come forward and tell their story. Their silence only bolsters Gacy's continued hold over their lives.
-Rated TV-14, contains strong sexual references, strong adult situations
Ted Bundy: Falling for a Killer (2020)
*Get "Ted Bundy: Falling for a Killer" on Amazon here*
*Get The Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy by Elizabeth Kendall on Amazon here*
Yet another true crime mini-series arrives on a streaming platform, chronicling the story of a serial killer's romantic relationship with a woman who is still scarred by the experience. Oh yeah, and feminism stuff.
Single mother Elizabeth Kendall brought home a very nice man named Ted Bundy after meeting him in a bar one night. He got along great with her daughter, Molly, and would often bring his brother Rich on outings. Elizabeth and Ted become an item, Ted is welcomed into her family, but then he began to change. Young women were being attacked and disappearing around the area, but this dream man couldn't be responsible, could he?
While director Trish Wood directs the hell out of this thing, punctuating the generic talking heads interviews with family photos and shots of a car similar to Bundy's winding around the countryside, a mistake is made from the beginning by lumping partial blame for one of this country's most infamous killers at the feet of Republicans and the patriarchy. Interviews with heartbroken family members and women who somehow survived Bundy's murderous attempts are interspersed with footage and backhanded comments about Bundy's political leanings and the women's liberation movement, all of which have very little to do with the subject at hand. You have the long term girlfriend of Ted Bundy, but you focus on how female reporters and cops had to fight the good-ol'-boys system in order to cover his crimes? Elizabeth and Molly are the rightful focus of the miniseries, the film takes a similar approach to "John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise" by getting important interviews with people besides the usual investigators and lawyers, but oh here's another clip about how hard it was to cover the trial. Can we call a moratorium on reporter interviews in these things?
While I can appreciate what the women in the documentary suffered through, the tangents became distracting. How dare I, a white male, question the focus of this, you might be thinking. As a victim of childhood abuse, and a Broadcasting major in college, I can and do question it. I didn't see liberal progressive politics get blamed for Chicago local Democratic politician John Wayne Gacy's murders. Gacy had his picture taken with the First Lady of the United States, for goodness' sake, but hey remember Watergate? With no irony whatsoever, women defend their "right" to have an abortion yet speak of the loss of these women and what they could have been if this MAN hadn't come along and killed them. Wood doesn't delve too deeply into the more grisly aspects of Bundy's crimes, or his sex life with Kendall, either. Some reporters are seen fawning over the murderer during the trial, but one cop is criticized for the reading of an indictment in front of Bundy and media cameras- a power play that completely worked yet he's still catching grief for it. No fawning reporters were forthcoming with apologies after Bundy was found guilty and eventually executed, they just moved on to the next trial of the century and their personal bias on it. Don't ever think mainstream media is there to disseminate information for the good of the many. They want your eyeballs on their commercials in between show segments, or watching an ad before a story online.
I'm not making light of the impact Bundy had on hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. The fact that we may never know how many people he killed, and how many families will never know closure, is awful. But don't blame "society" or "men" for the actions of one. Casting aspersions like that, without knowing an individual's (like myself) story, only drives people away, not bring them into a community of similar experiences.
-Rated TV-MA, contains gore, profanity, sexual references, strong adult situations
*Get The Phantom Prince: My Life with Ted Bundy by Elizabeth Kendall on Amazon here*
Yet another true crime mini-series arrives on a streaming platform, chronicling the story of a serial killer's romantic relationship with a woman who is still scarred by the experience. Oh yeah, and feminism stuff.
Single mother Elizabeth Kendall brought home a very nice man named Ted Bundy after meeting him in a bar one night. He got along great with her daughter, Molly, and would often bring his brother Rich on outings. Elizabeth and Ted become an item, Ted is welcomed into her family, but then he began to change. Young women were being attacked and disappearing around the area, but this dream man couldn't be responsible, could he?
While director Trish Wood directs the hell out of this thing, punctuating the generic talking heads interviews with family photos and shots of a car similar to Bundy's winding around the countryside, a mistake is made from the beginning by lumping partial blame for one of this country's most infamous killers at the feet of Republicans and the patriarchy. Interviews with heartbroken family members and women who somehow survived Bundy's murderous attempts are interspersed with footage and backhanded comments about Bundy's political leanings and the women's liberation movement, all of which have very little to do with the subject at hand. You have the long term girlfriend of Ted Bundy, but you focus on how female reporters and cops had to fight the good-ol'-boys system in order to cover his crimes? Elizabeth and Molly are the rightful focus of the miniseries, the film takes a similar approach to "John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise" by getting important interviews with people besides the usual investigators and lawyers, but oh here's another clip about how hard it was to cover the trial. Can we call a moratorium on reporter interviews in these things?
While I can appreciate what the women in the documentary suffered through, the tangents became distracting. How dare I, a white male, question the focus of this, you might be thinking. As a victim of childhood abuse, and a Broadcasting major in college, I can and do question it. I didn't see liberal progressive politics get blamed for Chicago local Democratic politician John Wayne Gacy's murders. Gacy had his picture taken with the First Lady of the United States, for goodness' sake, but hey remember Watergate? With no irony whatsoever, women defend their "right" to have an abortion yet speak of the loss of these women and what they could have been if this MAN hadn't come along and killed them. Wood doesn't delve too deeply into the more grisly aspects of Bundy's crimes, or his sex life with Kendall, either. Some reporters are seen fawning over the murderer during the trial, but one cop is criticized for the reading of an indictment in front of Bundy and media cameras- a power play that completely worked yet he's still catching grief for it. No fawning reporters were forthcoming with apologies after Bundy was found guilty and eventually executed, they just moved on to the next trial of the century and their personal bias on it. Don't ever think mainstream media is there to disseminate information for the good of the many. They want your eyeballs on their commercials in between show segments, or watching an ad before a story online.
I'm not making light of the impact Bundy had on hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. The fact that we may never know how many people he killed, and how many families will never know closure, is awful. But don't blame "society" or "men" for the actions of one. Casting aspersions like that, without knowing an individual's (like myself) story, only drives people away, not bring them into a community of similar experiences.
-Rated TV-MA, contains gore, profanity, sexual references, strong adult situations
Happy Birthday, Marsha! (2018)
*Get "Happy Birthday, Marsha!" on Amazon here*
*Get Marsha: The Joy and Defiance of Marsha P. Johnson by Tourmaline on Amazon here*
Mya Taylor takes on the role of LGBT icon Marsha P. Johnson in this unfocused short film that wants to be more.
Johnson was a mysterious drag queen who may or may not have sparked the 1969 Stonewall riots that ushered in the gay liberation movement. I had to do a little research on her, since the film was not very forthcoming with the facts. Johnson is seen getting accosted by the NYPD, and eventually landing at Stonewall to celebrate her birthday when cops show up to close the place down. The fictionalized version of events are intercut with black and white footage of the real Johnson, laughing and talking in an interview that seems to have gone awry.
Taylor is fine has Marsha, and should be considered for her role if Johnson's life story is ever filmed. It certainly wouldn't be a boring film- apparently drag queens were looked down upon by much of the LGBT community before being accepted, and Johnson's death has never been resolved. Johnson had a history of mental problems as well, ending up on harsh drugs and being hospitalized on occasion. What performer wouldn't want to sink their teeth into this role? However, this short film plays like an extended trailer to try and raise more money for a feature-length biopic. Gossett and Wortzel have a nice small bite here, but again, I had to do some research to find out what exactly was happening.
"Happy Birthday, Marsha!" is middling with just as much to admire as there are detriments. Marsha P. Johnson's story needs to be told soon, and in this age of woke, Hollywood needs to put its money where its mouth is.
-Unrated, contains mild physical violence, some profanity, mild sexual references, adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use
*Get Marsha: The Joy and Defiance of Marsha P. Johnson by Tourmaline on Amazon here*
Mya Taylor takes on the role of LGBT icon Marsha P. Johnson in this unfocused short film that wants to be more.
Johnson was a mysterious drag queen who may or may not have sparked the 1969 Stonewall riots that ushered in the gay liberation movement. I had to do a little research on her, since the film was not very forthcoming with the facts. Johnson is seen getting accosted by the NYPD, and eventually landing at Stonewall to celebrate her birthday when cops show up to close the place down. The fictionalized version of events are intercut with black and white footage of the real Johnson, laughing and talking in an interview that seems to have gone awry.
Taylor is fine has Marsha, and should be considered for her role if Johnson's life story is ever filmed. It certainly wouldn't be a boring film- apparently drag queens were looked down upon by much of the LGBT community before being accepted, and Johnson's death has never been resolved. Johnson had a history of mental problems as well, ending up on harsh drugs and being hospitalized on occasion. What performer wouldn't want to sink their teeth into this role? However, this short film plays like an extended trailer to try and raise more money for a feature-length biopic. Gossett and Wortzel have a nice small bite here, but again, I had to do some research to find out what exactly was happening.
"Happy Birthday, Marsha!" is middling with just as much to admire as there are detriments. Marsha P. Johnson's story needs to be told soon, and in this age of woke, Hollywood needs to put its money where its mouth is.
-Unrated, contains mild physical violence, some profanity, mild sexual references, adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use
"The Twilight Zone" {"The After Hours" #1.34} (1960)
*Get "The Twilight Zone: The After Hours" on Amazon here*
*Get The Twilight Zone: The After Hours by Mark Kneece and Rod Serling, illustrated by Rebekah Isaacs from Amazon here*
Marsha White (Anne Francis) goes into a large department store seeking a gold thimble as a gift for her mother, and never leaves the building.
She is ushered into a waiting elevator, the operator (John Conwell) runs an express lift that drops her off on the ninth floor. The floor seems abandoned, with the exception of a strange saleswoman (the always great, and rather menacing, Elizabeth Allen) who has no other merchandise in the sales displays except for the item Marsha is looking for. Marsha goes back down in the elevator, spooked by the encounter with the saleswoman and the abandoned floor, and discovers the thimble is damaged. Seeking out the complaints department, she is told that the building she is shopping in doesn't have a ninth floor, and without a receipt they cannot do anything with the thimble...
Douglas Heyes directs Rod Serling's tight little script, with some fantastic makeup and cinematography. The cast is wonderful, capturing the retail world that hasn't changed that much in the ensuing six decades or so (I should know, I spent almost twenty years working at two Target stores). One drawback I had was Heyes' playing the episode as a tense and horrific tale that the twist explanation couldn't live up to. The finale and climax are fine, but the preceding minutes had me geared up for something more wrenching than what played out.
-Rated TV-PG, contains mild adult situations
*Get The Twilight Zone: The After Hours by Mark Kneece and Rod Serling, illustrated by Rebekah Isaacs from Amazon here*
Marsha White (Anne Francis) goes into a large department store seeking a gold thimble as a gift for her mother, and never leaves the building.
She is ushered into a waiting elevator, the operator (John Conwell) runs an express lift that drops her off on the ninth floor. The floor seems abandoned, with the exception of a strange saleswoman (the always great, and rather menacing, Elizabeth Allen) who has no other merchandise in the sales displays except for the item Marsha is looking for. Marsha goes back down in the elevator, spooked by the encounter with the saleswoman and the abandoned floor, and discovers the thimble is damaged. Seeking out the complaints department, she is told that the building she is shopping in doesn't have a ninth floor, and without a receipt they cannot do anything with the thimble...
Douglas Heyes directs Rod Serling's tight little script, with some fantastic makeup and cinematography. The cast is wonderful, capturing the retail world that hasn't changed that much in the ensuing six decades or so (I should know, I spent almost twenty years working at two Target stores). One drawback I had was Heyes' playing the episode as a tense and horrific tale that the twist explanation couldn't live up to. The finale and climax are fine, but the preceding minutes had me geared up for something more wrenching than what played out.
-Rated TV-PG, contains mild adult situations
Zodiac (2007)
*Get "Zodiac" on Amazon here*
*Get Zodiac: The Shocking True Story of the Hunt for the Nation's Most Elusive Serial Killer by Robert Graysmith on Amazon here*
It's hard to make a suspenseful film about a true life series of infamous unsolved murders. Investigators comb through evidence, reporters cover the story, but in the end, we know how it's going to turn out- they don't catch the guy. Director David Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt take Robert Graysmith's book and turn it into one of the best films of the 2000's.
Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a political cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle in the late 1960's. A few murders pop up here and there, nothing out of the ordinary, until the killer contacts the newspaper, sending a cipher and egging on the police. Jaded crime reporter Paul Avery (a great Robert Downey, Jr.) begins coverage, and inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo, in one of his few roles I can stomach) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) are brought in to investigate. The self-named Zodiac killer begins making outlandish threats, and continues his attacks, as Graysmith becomes obsessed with the case that would eventually affect his family life and career.
I want to say that Fincher shoots this in a straightforward manner, but his direction is by no means simplistic. He avoids the camera acrobatics that rendered "Panic Room" silly at times, but every shot is awash in detail and meaning. Nonchalant scenes like Avery going to visit a source, or Graysmith in a basement with a stranger, are turned into cringeing suspense by Fincher, Vanderbilt, cinematographer Harris Savides, and editor Angus Wall. Every scene is rich, there is nothing wasted or any lull (and I have not viewed the extended version of this film yet). The cast is fantastic across the board, with more mention going to John Carroll Lynch as a prime suspect. The number of performers with speaking parts is massive, but I was never confused and the who's-who list of character actors go about their business, doing what they do best. I am not a fan of Mark Ruffalo, and I haven't warmed up to Gyllenhaal in anything yet, so this is among their strongest work that I have seen. The soundtrack is awesome, you'll never listen to Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" the same way again.
I ignore the internet chatter about the Zodiac killer, a popular trend is that "my dad was the killer" and hurried books with iffy evidence are written. I read Graysmith's compelling first book on the crimes, but I doubt we will ever know who Zodiac was. I hope I'm wrong, closure is needed for the families. Another popular trend these days is the limited series true crime documentary, but this film does not pretend to be that. This is Robert Graysmith's story (who is now a true crime writer), and it's excellent. How this received ZERO Oscar nominations in a year that saw "Juno" and "Transformers" get recognition is beyond me.
-MPAA Rated (R), contains physical violence, gun violence, gore, profanity, sexual references, adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use
*Get Zodiac: The Shocking True Story of the Hunt for the Nation's Most Elusive Serial Killer by Robert Graysmith on Amazon here*
It's hard to make a suspenseful film about a true life series of infamous unsolved murders. Investigators comb through evidence, reporters cover the story, but in the end, we know how it's going to turn out- they don't catch the guy. Director David Fincher and screenwriter James Vanderbilt take Robert Graysmith's book and turn it into one of the best films of the 2000's.
Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a political cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle in the late 1960's. A few murders pop up here and there, nothing out of the ordinary, until the killer contacts the newspaper, sending a cipher and egging on the police. Jaded crime reporter Paul Avery (a great Robert Downey, Jr.) begins coverage, and inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo, in one of his few roles I can stomach) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) are brought in to investigate. The self-named Zodiac killer begins making outlandish threats, and continues his attacks, as Graysmith becomes obsessed with the case that would eventually affect his family life and career.
I want to say that Fincher shoots this in a straightforward manner, but his direction is by no means simplistic. He avoids the camera acrobatics that rendered "Panic Room" silly at times, but every shot is awash in detail and meaning. Nonchalant scenes like Avery going to visit a source, or Graysmith in a basement with a stranger, are turned into cringeing suspense by Fincher, Vanderbilt, cinematographer Harris Savides, and editor Angus Wall. Every scene is rich, there is nothing wasted or any lull (and I have not viewed the extended version of this film yet). The cast is fantastic across the board, with more mention going to John Carroll Lynch as a prime suspect. The number of performers with speaking parts is massive, but I was never confused and the who's-who list of character actors go about their business, doing what they do best. I am not a fan of Mark Ruffalo, and I haven't warmed up to Gyllenhaal in anything yet, so this is among their strongest work that I have seen. The soundtrack is awesome, you'll never listen to Donovan's "Hurdy Gurdy Man" the same way again.
I ignore the internet chatter about the Zodiac killer, a popular trend is that "my dad was the killer" and hurried books with iffy evidence are written. I read Graysmith's compelling first book on the crimes, but I doubt we will ever know who Zodiac was. I hope I'm wrong, closure is needed for the families. Another popular trend these days is the limited series true crime documentary, but this film does not pretend to be that. This is Robert Graysmith's story (who is now a true crime writer), and it's excellent. How this received ZERO Oscar nominations in a year that saw "Juno" and "Transformers" get recognition is beyond me.
-MPAA Rated (R), contains physical violence, gun violence, gore, profanity, sexual references, adult situations, alcohol and tobacco use
The Ring (2002)
*Get "The Ring" on Amazon here*
*Get Ring by Koji Suzuki, translated by Glynne Walley on Amazon here*
Gore Verbinski brings one of the scariest films in recent memory, reviving my faith in the much maligned horror genre.
Naomi Watts is reporter Rachel, an on-the-go single mom to quiet grade schooler Aidan (David Dorfman). In the opening of the film, two high school girls talk about a mysterious video. When someone watches the nightmarish images, they immediately receive a phone call telling them they have seven days to live. On that seventh day, they die a horrible death. Unfortunately, one of those girls had viewed that tape a week before, and she dies.
Rachel was the girl's aunt, and Rachel's sister asks her to look into the girl's death. The girl had seen the tape during a weekend with friends at a cabin in the woods, and all those friends are dead too. Rachel tracks down the tape, easily, watches it...and then receives the phone call telling her she has a week to live. She shows the tape to newspaper photographer, and Aidan's dad, Noah (Martin Henderson), who is still disbelieving. I will have to stop the plot summary here, since the entire film has Rachel and Noah trying to track down the origin of the video, and with a horrible urgency after Aidan accidentally watches the tape as well.
Based on a Japanese film, director Gore Verbinski adds many horrifying visuals to a ready made creepy story. Verbinski also directed the very funny dark comedy "Mouse Hunt," and he does stuff here you have never seen before. Hans Zimmer adds his best musical score since "Driving Miss Daisy." The cast is good across the board since they do play against type. Dorfman is no cutesy-wutesy kid, as I first expected. Henderson is no he-man beauhunk action hero, as I first expected. Watts is no idiot, as I first expected. Nice character turns by Brian Cox and Jane Alexander, and one scene with an actress I worship- Sara Rue- helps make this cast almost flawless.
My one minor quibble with the film was when the characters sometimes verbalize the solutions, as if we might not quite get it. This is minor, considering the scary imagery of such everyday things as a tree at sunset and a lighthouse on a foggy shore. The final scene that takes place in Noah's studio/apartment is so scary, every noise in my living room seem to amplify to demonic proportions.
"The Ring" does the one thing a horror film is required to do- it scared the willies out of me. Any horror film fan will find something here, and I know I will not be able to let it go anytime soon.
*Get Ring by Koji Suzuki, translated by Glynne Walley on Amazon here*
Gore Verbinski brings one of the scariest films in recent memory, reviving my faith in the much maligned horror genre.
Naomi Watts is reporter Rachel, an on-the-go single mom to quiet grade schooler Aidan (David Dorfman). In the opening of the film, two high school girls talk about a mysterious video. When someone watches the nightmarish images, they immediately receive a phone call telling them they have seven days to live. On that seventh day, they die a horrible death. Unfortunately, one of those girls had viewed that tape a week before, and she dies.
Rachel was the girl's aunt, and Rachel's sister asks her to look into the girl's death. The girl had seen the tape during a weekend with friends at a cabin in the woods, and all those friends are dead too. Rachel tracks down the tape, easily, watches it...and then receives the phone call telling her she has a week to live. She shows the tape to newspaper photographer, and Aidan's dad, Noah (Martin Henderson), who is still disbelieving. I will have to stop the plot summary here, since the entire film has Rachel and Noah trying to track down the origin of the video, and with a horrible urgency after Aidan accidentally watches the tape as well.
Based on a Japanese film, director Gore Verbinski adds many horrifying visuals to a ready made creepy story. Verbinski also directed the very funny dark comedy "Mouse Hunt," and he does stuff here you have never seen before. Hans Zimmer adds his best musical score since "Driving Miss Daisy." The cast is good across the board since they do play against type. Dorfman is no cutesy-wutesy kid, as I first expected. Henderson is no he-man beauhunk action hero, as I first expected. Watts is no idiot, as I first expected. Nice character turns by Brian Cox and Jane Alexander, and one scene with an actress I worship- Sara Rue- helps make this cast almost flawless.
My one minor quibble with the film was when the characters sometimes verbalize the solutions, as if we might not quite get it. This is minor, considering the scary imagery of such everyday things as a tree at sunset and a lighthouse on a foggy shore. The final scene that takes place in Noah's studio/apartment is so scary, every noise in my living room seem to amplify to demonic proportions.
"The Ring" does the one thing a horror film is required to do- it scared the willies out of me. Any horror film fan will find something here, and I know I will not be able to let it go anytime soon.
Your World As I See It (1994)
*Get "Essential Ernest Collection" on Amazon here*
*Get The Importance of Being Ernest: The Life of Actor Jim Varney by Justin Lloyd on Amazon here*
After watching the video "Your World as I See It," you will have the phrase "your world as I see it" permanently burned into your memory because you will hear the words "your world as I see it" and see the sentence "Your World as I See It" almost fifty times in a piece of work that runs less than half an hour.
I pity Jim Varney. When he died a few years back from lung cancer, he was known strictly for his Ernest P. Worrell character and nothing else. He hated the "Hey, Vern!" pitchman (according to an "E! True Hollywood Story" I once saw) but the money kept him in the denim vest and gray baseball cap through dozens of television commercials and some feature length films.
Enter this, um, well, I'm not sure what to properly label it. Let's say "video." The video opens with the title, and introduces us to Varney's ultra-rich Astor Clement character. Varney does a dead-on preppie, talking through his clenched teeth and commenting on the behavior of the common folk before cutting to another Varney character (usually Ernest) doing something stupid and not remotely funny. The camera cuts back to Varney as Clement who comments this is "your world as I see it" before the picture fades out. Then, we get a pithy pun of a title for the next segment, then Clement, Ernest, Clement saying "your world as I see it," and another fade out, etc...people, this occurs on the video over FORTY times!
Each "short story," as the video box labels them, lasts about a short thirty seconds each, but go a long way toward triggering a migraine headache. I honestly don't know what the hell this is. The segments with Ernest and the other characters seem like they come from the commercials Varney did, cutting away before a product could be pimped. They were obviously meant to be shown as stand alone filler, maybe on a comedy channel or something, but as a half hour collection they quickly annoy. Two of Varney's characters on the video box aren't even in the video. While Varney's talent with characters other than Ernest was never properly utilized, this video does not help, either. Bunny the beautician, Auntie Nelda, Coy the mechanic, Baby Ernest, and even Astor Clement are not very amusing, here or anywhere else.
I was sorry to hear the news of Varney's death. Squandered talent is never pretty. However, if this video was meant as a new stab at unrecognized comedic brilliance, it fails as both brilliance and comedy. Who is to blame? There are no credits onscreen or on the video box, just poor Jim trying his damnedest to make me laugh.
Unless Varney's passing created a vacuum in your life, you might skip "Your World As I See It"...know whut I mean? (*) out of five stars.
*Get The Importance of Being Ernest: The Life of Actor Jim Varney by Justin Lloyd on Amazon here*
After watching the video "Your World as I See It," you will have the phrase "your world as I see it" permanently burned into your memory because you will hear the words "your world as I see it" and see the sentence "Your World as I See It" almost fifty times in a piece of work that runs less than half an hour.
I pity Jim Varney. When he died a few years back from lung cancer, he was known strictly for his Ernest P. Worrell character and nothing else. He hated the "Hey, Vern!" pitchman (according to an "E! True Hollywood Story" I once saw) but the money kept him in the denim vest and gray baseball cap through dozens of television commercials and some feature length films.
Enter this, um, well, I'm not sure what to properly label it. Let's say "video." The video opens with the title, and introduces us to Varney's ultra-rich Astor Clement character. Varney does a dead-on preppie, talking through his clenched teeth and commenting on the behavior of the common folk before cutting to another Varney character (usually Ernest) doing something stupid and not remotely funny. The camera cuts back to Varney as Clement who comments this is "your world as I see it" before the picture fades out. Then, we get a pithy pun of a title for the next segment, then Clement, Ernest, Clement saying "your world as I see it," and another fade out, etc...people, this occurs on the video over FORTY times!
Each "short story," as the video box labels them, lasts about a short thirty seconds each, but go a long way toward triggering a migraine headache. I honestly don't know what the hell this is. The segments with Ernest and the other characters seem like they come from the commercials Varney did, cutting away before a product could be pimped. They were obviously meant to be shown as stand alone filler, maybe on a comedy channel or something, but as a half hour collection they quickly annoy. Two of Varney's characters on the video box aren't even in the video. While Varney's talent with characters other than Ernest was never properly utilized, this video does not help, either. Bunny the beautician, Auntie Nelda, Coy the mechanic, Baby Ernest, and even Astor Clement are not very amusing, here or anywhere else.
I was sorry to hear the news of Varney's death. Squandered talent is never pretty. However, if this video was meant as a new stab at unrecognized comedic brilliance, it fails as both brilliance and comedy. Who is to blame? There are no credits onscreen or on the video box, just poor Jim trying his damnedest to make me laugh.
Unless Varney's passing created a vacuum in your life, you might skip "Your World As I See It"...know whut I mean? (*) out of five stars.
Meridian (1990)
*Get "Meridian" on Amazon here*
*Get Confessions of a Puppetmaster: A Hollywood Memoir of Ghouls, Guts, and Gonzo Filmmaking by Charles Band with Adam Felber on Amazon here*
On "Meridian" (1990)
The horror film is set in Italy
So the Italian sonnet is used
Two lovely girls are raped and abused
A creature rears its head literally
From the castle Sherilynn should now flee
For her breasts and purity have been loosed
Friend Charlie also drugged, rubbed, and then goosed
Forgive the poet, rape is not funny
We have two beauties, one beast
Art restoration, a ghostly nanny
A full and busy flick to say the least
Despite boobs, the badness is uncanny
A dumb film, to the mind a junk food feast
*Get Confessions of a Puppetmaster: A Hollywood Memoir of Ghouls, Guts, and Gonzo Filmmaking by Charles Band with Adam Felber on Amazon here*
On "Meridian" (1990)
The horror film is set in Italy
So the Italian sonnet is used
Two lovely girls are raped and abused
A creature rears its head literally
From the castle Sherilynn should now flee
For her breasts and purity have been loosed
Friend Charlie also drugged, rubbed, and then goosed
Forgive the poet, rape is not funny
We have two beauties, one beast
Art restoration, a ghostly nanny
A full and busy flick to say the least
Despite boobs, the badness is uncanny
A dumb film, to the mind a junk food feast
Grand Hotel (1932)
*Get "Grand Hotel" on Amazon here*
*Get Grand Hotel by Vicki Baum on Amazon here*
On "Grand Hotel" (1932)
The Berlin Grand Hotel imitates Life
People come, people go, says Lewis Stone
Nothing ever happens (no kids, no wife)
We check into our rooms, play with the phone
We pretend to be people we are not
Putting on masks before speaking loud
Noticing others, their things sold and bought
Lemmings walking in the same plain old crowd
I couldn't be the Baron, I'm Preysing
Kringelein's pathetic, I am him, too
Anonymous bellboy, not surprising
I know someone can feel my words- it's you
"Grand Hotel" is ancient, it creaks and moans
It's one Oscar sits, and we're all alone
*Get Grand Hotel by Vicki Baum on Amazon here*
On "Grand Hotel" (1932)
The Berlin Grand Hotel imitates Life
People come, people go, says Lewis Stone
Nothing ever happens (no kids, no wife)
We check into our rooms, play with the phone
We pretend to be people we are not
Putting on masks before speaking loud
Noticing others, their things sold and bought
Lemmings walking in the same plain old crowd
I couldn't be the Baron, I'm Preysing
Kringelein's pathetic, I am him, too
Anonymous bellboy, not surprising
I know someone can feel my words- it's you
"Grand Hotel" is ancient, it creaks and moans
It's one Oscar sits, and we're all alone
Teenangel (1976)
*Get "Pornocracy" on Amazon here*
*Get The Death of Porn: Men of Integrity Building a World of Nobility by Ray Ortlund on Amazon here*
From the Golden Age of Porn (the 1970's) comes a San Francisco-based story with an all-wrong title and a hilarious coda.
Jim (Frank Ford, an awful actor with a Keith Carradine thing going on) and virgin Sharon (Sharon Demsted) are recently married. They move into a creaky walk-up apartment, and Sharon plays the dutiful housewife waiting for her mechanic husband to get home. One day, when Sharon is out buying groceries for what seems like the hundredth time, Jim sleeps with Kim (Melba Bruce), a newspaper girl who had come to collect on the month's subscription rate. Sharon walks in on them, calls a cab, and disappears from the movie! Jim's best friend/Vietnam War buddy Pete (Link Beemer) then invites Jim over with a proposition. We find out Sharon attempted suicide, Jim was fired, and now he's hard up for money to pay the hospital bills. Pete has a foolproof bank robbery plan ready to go, as soon as they have sex with a couple of Pete's prostitutes (Desiree West and Georgette Teaps). A transistor radio fills in the rest of the story.
I don't want to give too much away, but what transpires in Pete and Jim's bank robbery had me laughing out loud. It is hilarious, and what happens to all the characters after this film is over might have made a better story if that unrealized sequel had been made. Miller's direction is odd for a porn film, his shooting of the sex scenes is standard, the editing is not very good, but out of nowhere will appear an over-the-head shot, or interesting juxtaposition in the group sex scene. At first, the choice of music had me believing there was some thought put into it: when Jim and Sharon first make love on their wedding night, the orchestral score transforms into dirty-sounding porn music. I thought maybe the film makers were saying something about what was happening to Sharon, but I was wrong when another piece of music was introduced in a sex scene. Do you want to know what the unsexiest porn music I've ever heard is? Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells" from the horror film "The Exorcist." This normally chilling piece takes all the sexy out of a sex scene.
Ford is terrible, really a wretched actor. Demstad's idea of a virgin is being a dope. Bruce is alright as the paper girl, but Beemer has a lot of trouble with his lines. The script is so odd. You think we might meet Sharon's sister, since she is a topic of conversation between the couple, but she never shows up. I'm not even sure who the "teen angel" of the title is. Sharon, who is much too old to play an innocent teen, disappears after walking in on Jim and Kim. Kim is a secondary character, hardly the stuff of a title role. The other two women featured don't have spoken lines and certainly are not teens. This is also known as "Sex Angel," "Love Angel," and "Virgin Honeymoon;" all titles that do not do the story justice. I have a feeling "Jim Is a Dillhole Bastard" would not have brought any of the raincoat crowd into the theaters, but then again. On a side note, I don't know what film the folks over at VCX were describing on the back of the DVD cover, but their synopsis is way off and may have been meant for a different film entirely
"Teenangel" (it's one word in the opening credits) is an odd relic. It's pretty rough to watch and thankfully short, but it's unintentional weirdness almost makes it work.
*Get The Death of Porn: Men of Integrity Building a World of Nobility by Ray Ortlund on Amazon here*
From the Golden Age of Porn (the 1970's) comes a San Francisco-based story with an all-wrong title and a hilarious coda.
Jim (Frank Ford, an awful actor with a Keith Carradine thing going on) and virgin Sharon (Sharon Demsted) are recently married. They move into a creaky walk-up apartment, and Sharon plays the dutiful housewife waiting for her mechanic husband to get home. One day, when Sharon is out buying groceries for what seems like the hundredth time, Jim sleeps with Kim (Melba Bruce), a newspaper girl who had come to collect on the month's subscription rate. Sharon walks in on them, calls a cab, and disappears from the movie! Jim's best friend/Vietnam War buddy Pete (Link Beemer) then invites Jim over with a proposition. We find out Sharon attempted suicide, Jim was fired, and now he's hard up for money to pay the hospital bills. Pete has a foolproof bank robbery plan ready to go, as soon as they have sex with a couple of Pete's prostitutes (Desiree West and Georgette Teaps). A transistor radio fills in the rest of the story.
I don't want to give too much away, but what transpires in Pete and Jim's bank robbery had me laughing out loud. It is hilarious, and what happens to all the characters after this film is over might have made a better story if that unrealized sequel had been made. Miller's direction is odd for a porn film, his shooting of the sex scenes is standard, the editing is not very good, but out of nowhere will appear an over-the-head shot, or interesting juxtaposition in the group sex scene. At first, the choice of music had me believing there was some thought put into it: when Jim and Sharon first make love on their wedding night, the orchestral score transforms into dirty-sounding porn music. I thought maybe the film makers were saying something about what was happening to Sharon, but I was wrong when another piece of music was introduced in a sex scene. Do you want to know what the unsexiest porn music I've ever heard is? Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells" from the horror film "The Exorcist." This normally chilling piece takes all the sexy out of a sex scene.
Ford is terrible, really a wretched actor. Demstad's idea of a virgin is being a dope. Bruce is alright as the paper girl, but Beemer has a lot of trouble with his lines. The script is so odd. You think we might meet Sharon's sister, since she is a topic of conversation between the couple, but she never shows up. I'm not even sure who the "teen angel" of the title is. Sharon, who is much too old to play an innocent teen, disappears after walking in on Jim and Kim. Kim is a secondary character, hardly the stuff of a title role. The other two women featured don't have spoken lines and certainly are not teens. This is also known as "Sex Angel," "Love Angel," and "Virgin Honeymoon;" all titles that do not do the story justice. I have a feeling "Jim Is a Dillhole Bastard" would not have brought any of the raincoat crowd into the theaters, but then again. On a side note, I don't know what film the folks over at VCX were describing on the back of the DVD cover, but their synopsis is way off and may have been meant for a different film entirely
"Teenangel" (it's one word in the opening credits) is an odd relic. It's pretty rough to watch and thankfully short, but it's unintentional weirdness almost makes it work.
The Best of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents": Volume I (2004)
*Get "Alfred Hitchcock Presents: The Legacy Collection" on Amazon here*
*Get Alfred Hitchcock Presents: An Illustrated Guide to the Ten-Year Television Career of the Master of Suspense by John McCarty and Brian Kelleher on Amazon here*
This review contains spoilers! Alfred Hitchcock not only hosted his anthology series, he even directed a few episodes. The three episodes on this video were all directed by the master of suspense, but they do not live up to his better film work.
The first episode, written by Roald Dahl, is entitled "Lamb to the Slaughter." Barbara Bel Geddes is a young, eager-to-please pregnant wife whose cop hubby comes home one night and springs a surprise. He is in love with someone else and wants a divorce. She goes about her wifely duties, trying to ignore the painful situation. He decides to leave, daring his wife to stop him. She does- by konking him on the head with a frozen leg of lamb. She goes about ransacking the place, and calls the police. While she was at the market, someone broke in and killed her husband. As the detectives investigate, they come up with few clues. They decide the murder weapon was a club-like blunt instrument, and eat Bel Geddes' lovely lamb roast, destroying the evidence.
Tom Ewell stars in "The Case of Mr. Pelham." He talks to a doctor at lunch, and tells him a peculiar story. It seems Pelham's been in a couple of different places around town. He snubs a local client while out of town. He does work in morning, then comes in to the office in the afternoon, not remembering the work. He leaves instructions with his butler, and does not remember them. Pelham figures out he has a double who is taking his place at work, play, and his home, fooling friends and employees alike. In the end, he confronts the other Pelham, with unexpected results.
The final story is a weak murder mystery called "Banquo's Chair." In 1903 England, retired inspector calls in a murder suspect who was never charged. He invites him to dinner on the two year anniversary of the suspect's aunt's murder. He plants an actress in the other room to play the aunt's ghost. The suspect sees the "apparition," confesses, and is arrested. The ghost actress then arrives late, and apologizes for not getting to play the spectre in time...cue ominous music.
If you think I spoiled the first and third stories, you are half right. The episodes are so poorly written, you would have been able to figure them out for yourself. Bel Geddes is very good in her role. The look on her face when her husband dumps her is heartbreaking. The problem is you know exactly what is going to happen through the finale. The premise really does not make much sense. How many cops sit down to dinner in the house of a murdered colleague, cooked by his pregnant, grieving widow? Tom Ewell is very good in his role as the paranoid man with the double. He is very believable without going over the top. The final story has no real stars, just tried and true English character actors doing what they do best. It is not badly done, it is just done, with no challenge to the cast.
Hitchcock's direction is nothing special. He does not have all the tricks at his disposal to make this any different than any other television director's work. He tries some stuff with "Banquo's Chair," but even the ghost sequence fails to spark anything. Accept for the second episode, the best sequence is Hitchcock's introduction and conclusions after the third episode. He talks about hunting in Hollywood, and the puns here are actually funny. Hitchcock's work has always been either really great ("Rear Window," "Rope," "Psycho") or very very not good ("Topaz"). This falls in the middle, but since one good episode cannot make up for two bad ones, I cannot recommend this collection.
"The Best of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' Volume I" is unrated, and contains mild physical violence.
*Get Alfred Hitchcock Presents: An Illustrated Guide to the Ten-Year Television Career of the Master of Suspense by John McCarty and Brian Kelleher on Amazon here*
This review contains spoilers! Alfred Hitchcock not only hosted his anthology series, he even directed a few episodes. The three episodes on this video were all directed by the master of suspense, but they do not live up to his better film work.
The first episode, written by Roald Dahl, is entitled "Lamb to the Slaughter." Barbara Bel Geddes is a young, eager-to-please pregnant wife whose cop hubby comes home one night and springs a surprise. He is in love with someone else and wants a divorce. She goes about her wifely duties, trying to ignore the painful situation. He decides to leave, daring his wife to stop him. She does- by konking him on the head with a frozen leg of lamb. She goes about ransacking the place, and calls the police. While she was at the market, someone broke in and killed her husband. As the detectives investigate, they come up with few clues. They decide the murder weapon was a club-like blunt instrument, and eat Bel Geddes' lovely lamb roast, destroying the evidence.
Tom Ewell stars in "The Case of Mr. Pelham." He talks to a doctor at lunch, and tells him a peculiar story. It seems Pelham's been in a couple of different places around town. He snubs a local client while out of town. He does work in morning, then comes in to the office in the afternoon, not remembering the work. He leaves instructions with his butler, and does not remember them. Pelham figures out he has a double who is taking his place at work, play, and his home, fooling friends and employees alike. In the end, he confronts the other Pelham, with unexpected results.
The final story is a weak murder mystery called "Banquo's Chair." In 1903 England, retired inspector calls in a murder suspect who was never charged. He invites him to dinner on the two year anniversary of the suspect's aunt's murder. He plants an actress in the other room to play the aunt's ghost. The suspect sees the "apparition," confesses, and is arrested. The ghost actress then arrives late, and apologizes for not getting to play the spectre in time...cue ominous music.
If you think I spoiled the first and third stories, you are half right. The episodes are so poorly written, you would have been able to figure them out for yourself. Bel Geddes is very good in her role. The look on her face when her husband dumps her is heartbreaking. The problem is you know exactly what is going to happen through the finale. The premise really does not make much sense. How many cops sit down to dinner in the house of a murdered colleague, cooked by his pregnant, grieving widow? Tom Ewell is very good in his role as the paranoid man with the double. He is very believable without going over the top. The final story has no real stars, just tried and true English character actors doing what they do best. It is not badly done, it is just done, with no challenge to the cast.
Hitchcock's direction is nothing special. He does not have all the tricks at his disposal to make this any different than any other television director's work. He tries some stuff with "Banquo's Chair," but even the ghost sequence fails to spark anything. Accept for the second episode, the best sequence is Hitchcock's introduction and conclusions after the third episode. He talks about hunting in Hollywood, and the puns here are actually funny. Hitchcock's work has always been either really great ("Rear Window," "Rope," "Psycho") or very very not good ("Topaz"). This falls in the middle, but since one good episode cannot make up for two bad ones, I cannot recommend this collection.
"The Best of 'Alfred Hitchcock Presents' Volume I" is unrated, and contains mild physical violence.
VHS Revolution (2017)
*Get "VHS Revolution" on Amazon here*
*Get VHS Video Cover Art by Thomas Hodge on Amazon here*
As I still deal with the massive letdown Hollywood has put me through over the last several years, I find myself hearkening back to a simpler time before the intrawebs and the Twatter. Back when I was in Waller Elementary School in Bossier City, Louisiana, and my best friend (Gerald R., where art thou?) and I would plan sleepovers based on salacious movies that were playing on HBO that weekend. Good job, HBO Guide, alerting twelve year old boys everywhere that a film contained NUDITY and SEXUAL CONTENT! When I was in junior high, my dad brought home our first VCR (it was two components, and the PLAY/PAUSE remote control was connected with a wire), and we immediately watched anything Dad also brought home that he traded with his coworkers. I was thirteen or fourteen, and loved sitting through the classics like "Superman" and "Star Wars," but also found myself watching odd choices like "The Sand Pebbles" and "The Mouse and His Child." I spent my youth in movie theaters, or in front of the television, every chance I got. I absorbed everything. You can imagine my delight when these things called video stores began popping up when I was in high school and college. I binge-watched tons of videos on the weekends, especially at college when I should have been studying.
I also discovered that you could purchase videotapes, too. I have had many movie collections over the years, giving them away, and then turning around and collecting more. Next to my left arm as I type this are five VHS cassettes that I got at a local thrift store for 99 cents each after I got off work today. I'm pretty confident that my wife and I own more DVDs and videotapes than we do books. I caught the media collecting bug again, and have been concentrating on the letter "A," just to see how many I can amass (I only pick up films I haven't seen, I do need some parameters or else this hobby gets out of hand).
There have been a number of VHS documentaries over the last few years, and they have been pretty good. "VHS Revolution" covers the same familiar ground (Beta vs. VHS, Mom & Pop Video Stores vs. Blockbuster, the British government vs. Video Nasties), and it is also merely good. It clocks in at under an hour, I ironically caught it on Amazon Prime streaming, and I honestly can't come up with anything bad about the film. Or anything unique, or different, or shocking, or covering a subject that I wasn't already familiar with.
*Get VHS Video Cover Art by Thomas Hodge on Amazon here*
As I still deal with the massive letdown Hollywood has put me through over the last several years, I find myself hearkening back to a simpler time before the intrawebs and the Twatter. Back when I was in Waller Elementary School in Bossier City, Louisiana, and my best friend (Gerald R., where art thou?) and I would plan sleepovers based on salacious movies that were playing on HBO that weekend. Good job, HBO Guide, alerting twelve year old boys everywhere that a film contained NUDITY and SEXUAL CONTENT! When I was in junior high, my dad brought home our first VCR (it was two components, and the PLAY/PAUSE remote control was connected with a wire), and we immediately watched anything Dad also brought home that he traded with his coworkers. I was thirteen or fourteen, and loved sitting through the classics like "Superman" and "Star Wars," but also found myself watching odd choices like "The Sand Pebbles" and "The Mouse and His Child." I spent my youth in movie theaters, or in front of the television, every chance I got. I absorbed everything. You can imagine my delight when these things called video stores began popping up when I was in high school and college. I binge-watched tons of videos on the weekends, especially at college when I should have been studying.
I also discovered that you could purchase videotapes, too. I have had many movie collections over the years, giving them away, and then turning around and collecting more. Next to my left arm as I type this are five VHS cassettes that I got at a local thrift store for 99 cents each after I got off work today. I'm pretty confident that my wife and I own more DVDs and videotapes than we do books. I caught the media collecting bug again, and have been concentrating on the letter "A," just to see how many I can amass (I only pick up films I haven't seen, I do need some parameters or else this hobby gets out of hand).
There have been a number of VHS documentaries over the last few years, and they have been pretty good. "VHS Revolution" covers the same familiar ground (Beta vs. VHS, Mom & Pop Video Stores vs. Blockbuster, the British government vs. Video Nasties), and it is also merely good. It clocks in at under an hour, I ironically caught it on Amazon Prime streaming, and I honestly can't come up with anything bad about the film. Or anything unique, or different, or shocking, or covering a subject that I wasn't already familiar with.
The Blind Side (2009)
*Get "The Blind Side" on Amazon here*
*Get The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game by Michael Lewis on Amazon here*
My wife's favorite actress is Sandra Bullock, and she has a ton of her movies in our collection. I've seen plenty of Bullock's work over the years, liked some to most of it, but had never seen her Oscar winning turn until last night. While she certainly deserved accolades for her performance, for me the best acting done in a field of great acting was by Quinton Aaron.
Aaron plays Michael Oher, a hulking young man from the wrong side of the tracks in Memphis, Tennessee who is taken in by the Tuohy family, led by Bullock and Tim McGraw. Oher gets into a private school where his two new siblings go, being groomed to become a football player. His struggles with the new environment are predictable, but writer/director John Lee Hancock confidently weaves his cast through some nicely done scenes. Aaron's performance is fantastic. While physically imposing, his take on Oher is not childlike or naive. On the other hand, he is not dangerous, with the viewer waiting for him to lose his mind and go nuts from the overwhelming changes in his life. Another stand-out here is Irone Singleton as the grinning drug dealer Alton. He IS menacing and every second of his screen time had me on edge. Both Aaron and Singleton should have received Oscar nominations as well. Reading a bit online, I guess the real life Oher wasn't impressed with the film's depiction of his behavior and intelligence (he did know how to play football already, and is far from the Forrest Gump-like portrayal). There was one infamous slam against George W. Bush here (this was made back when everything was Bush's fault- even a long wait in a line at a government office), but Hancock did show Bullock to be a Southern Christian white woman in a positive light while still addressing racism from both sides of Oher's life.
Also, this is not a football movie per se. It's a nice and extremely well-acted drama about a football player, but there aren't endless scenes of staged plays and the finale doesn't involve a "big game" and last minute touchdown. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shows up in some stock footage with the real Oher during the NFL draft, and I realized this was the most football I had seen in over a year, ever since the anthem kneelers drove me away.
*Get The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game by Michael Lewis on Amazon here*
My wife's favorite actress is Sandra Bullock, and she has a ton of her movies in our collection. I've seen plenty of Bullock's work over the years, liked some to most of it, but had never seen her Oscar winning turn until last night. While she certainly deserved accolades for her performance, for me the best acting done in a field of great acting was by Quinton Aaron.
Aaron plays Michael Oher, a hulking young man from the wrong side of the tracks in Memphis, Tennessee who is taken in by the Tuohy family, led by Bullock and Tim McGraw. Oher gets into a private school where his two new siblings go, being groomed to become a football player. His struggles with the new environment are predictable, but writer/director John Lee Hancock confidently weaves his cast through some nicely done scenes. Aaron's performance is fantastic. While physically imposing, his take on Oher is not childlike or naive. On the other hand, he is not dangerous, with the viewer waiting for him to lose his mind and go nuts from the overwhelming changes in his life. Another stand-out here is Irone Singleton as the grinning drug dealer Alton. He IS menacing and every second of his screen time had me on edge. Both Aaron and Singleton should have received Oscar nominations as well. Reading a bit online, I guess the real life Oher wasn't impressed with the film's depiction of his behavior and intelligence (he did know how to play football already, and is far from the Forrest Gump-like portrayal). There was one infamous slam against George W. Bush here (this was made back when everything was Bush's fault- even a long wait in a line at a government office), but Hancock did show Bullock to be a Southern Christian white woman in a positive light while still addressing racism from both sides of Oher's life.
Also, this is not a football movie per se. It's a nice and extremely well-acted drama about a football player, but there aren't endless scenes of staged plays and the finale doesn't involve a "big game" and last minute touchdown. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shows up in some stock footage with the real Oher during the NFL draft, and I realized this was the most football I had seen in over a year, ever since the anthem kneelers drove me away.
Thursday, May 7, 2026
Johnny Eager (1941)
*Get "Johnny Eager" on Amazon here*
*Get Detour: A Hollywood Tragedy by Cheryl Crane with Cliff Jahr on Amazon here
The explosive pairing of Robert Taylor and Lana Turner in a noir thriller should have crackled, but instead this odd melodrama has questionable pacing and character motivation, working against some fine performances.
Johnny Eager (Robert Taylor) is a recently paroled con who has fooled his parole officer (Henry O'Neill) into thinking he is on the straight and narrow. Eager has a free pass to roam around the city as an honest taxi driver, even secreting a "loving" family in an apartment to cover for him on the occasional surprise inspection. In fact, Johnny is up to his moustache in his old ways, trying to get a dog track off the ground in spite of injunctions and delays. Conveniently, Johnny falls for young sociology student Lisbeth (Lana Turner), who happens to be the step-daughter of Farrell (Edward Arnold), the prosecutor who put Eager in the slammer years before. Eager is a narcissist, using and abusing various "friends" he surrounds himself with, including self-loathing alcoholic Jeff (Van Heflin, in an Oscar winning role). Keeping up the crime-free charade, as well as trying to date the step-daughter of the man who put you away in prison, weighs on Johnny, and his world begins to crumble around him.
"Johnny Eager" is one of those films that couldn't be remade today because modern technology would expose the central character's ruse almost immediately. Giving an ex-convict free rein to toodle around town, checking in with his naive parole officer isn't very believable in this film, much less today. Eager and Lisbeth barely make eye contact before they are in each other's arms, breathing heavy and pitching woo. While the performers Taylor and Turner have outstanding chemistry, the characters Johnny and Lisbeth do not, resulting in a pretty ridiculous scene where Eager guarantees he will get his dog track.
Screenwriters John Lee Mahin and James Edward Grant can't decide if Johnny is an anti-hero or not, and his entourage's devotion is hard to understand. Heflin turns in a memorable performance, but it seems like his character should be in a Method acting-filled Elia Kazan film, not a fast-talking melodrama with outlandish plot points. LeRoy does well by his small budget, there's a nice car accident and a final shootout that really highlight his talent behind the camera, but there are also deathly dull scenes, filled with some supporting and bit players who look too much alike and don't have enough screen time for the viewer to care once they are either rubbed out or framed or remain on Eager's good side.
Taylor has the gravitas to carry the film, he's in almost every scene, so while my rating is middling, I would slightly recommend "Johnny Eager."
Not Rated by the MPAA, but contains gun violence, some physical violence, mild adult situations, and strong tobacco and alcohol use
*Get Detour: A Hollywood Tragedy by Cheryl Crane with Cliff Jahr on Amazon here
The explosive pairing of Robert Taylor and Lana Turner in a noir thriller should have crackled, but instead this odd melodrama has questionable pacing and character motivation, working against some fine performances.
Johnny Eager (Robert Taylor) is a recently paroled con who has fooled his parole officer (Henry O'Neill) into thinking he is on the straight and narrow. Eager has a free pass to roam around the city as an honest taxi driver, even secreting a "loving" family in an apartment to cover for him on the occasional surprise inspection. In fact, Johnny is up to his moustache in his old ways, trying to get a dog track off the ground in spite of injunctions and delays. Conveniently, Johnny falls for young sociology student Lisbeth (Lana Turner), who happens to be the step-daughter of Farrell (Edward Arnold), the prosecutor who put Eager in the slammer years before. Eager is a narcissist, using and abusing various "friends" he surrounds himself with, including self-loathing alcoholic Jeff (Van Heflin, in an Oscar winning role). Keeping up the crime-free charade, as well as trying to date the step-daughter of the man who put you away in prison, weighs on Johnny, and his world begins to crumble around him.
"Johnny Eager" is one of those films that couldn't be remade today because modern technology would expose the central character's ruse almost immediately. Giving an ex-convict free rein to toodle around town, checking in with his naive parole officer isn't very believable in this film, much less today. Eager and Lisbeth barely make eye contact before they are in each other's arms, breathing heavy and pitching woo. While the performers Taylor and Turner have outstanding chemistry, the characters Johnny and Lisbeth do not, resulting in a pretty ridiculous scene where Eager guarantees he will get his dog track.
Screenwriters John Lee Mahin and James Edward Grant can't decide if Johnny is an anti-hero or not, and his entourage's devotion is hard to understand. Heflin turns in a memorable performance, but it seems like his character should be in a Method acting-filled Elia Kazan film, not a fast-talking melodrama with outlandish plot points. LeRoy does well by his small budget, there's a nice car accident and a final shootout that really highlight his talent behind the camera, but there are also deathly dull scenes, filled with some supporting and bit players who look too much alike and don't have enough screen time for the viewer to care once they are either rubbed out or framed or remain on Eager's good side.
Taylor has the gravitas to carry the film, he's in almost every scene, so while my rating is middling, I would slightly recommend "Johnny Eager."
Not Rated by the MPAA, but contains gun violence, some physical violence, mild adult situations, and strong tobacco and alcohol use
Blades of Glory (2007)
*Get "Blades of Glory" on Amazon here*
*Get Let Me Off at the Top!: My Classy Life & Other Musings by Ron Burgundy on Amazon here*
"They laughed at Louis Armstrong when he said he was gonna go to the moon. Now he's up there, laughing at them."
Yeah, it's not very deep. The humor is slight, with a lot of slapstick and dirty jokes, and little to no characterization. Yet, this politically incorrect sports comedy sprints right out of the gate, with as many quotable lines as Ferrell's "Anchorman" films and laugh-out-loud moments throughout.
Jimmy (Jon Heder) is a skating prodigy adopted by billionaire Macelroy (William Fichtner) who is looking to create a super athlete and claim all the credit. Jimmy ties with figure skating bad boy Chazz (Will Ferrell) at a competition, and the two get into a violent altercation on the winners' podium that gets them barred for life from singles male figure skating. Years later, Jimmy's stalker (Nick Swardson) points out that Jimmy can get back into skating with a partner. Jimmy's fired coach (Craig T. Nelson) sees news footage of Jimmy and Chazz get into another fight and hits on a brilliant plan- team up the two arch-enemies as skating partners and put them into competition against the brother-and-sister team of Stranz (Will Arnett) and Fairchild (Amy Poehler). The two men begin practicing, as Jimmy falls for their competition's put-upon sister Katie (Jenna Fischer), and Chazz must deal with his sex addiction and drinking. It all culminates in a winter sports event in Canada.
Will Ferrell has always made me laugh since his days of "Saturday Night Live." His physicality, his timing, his line delivery- all are flawless here, and he often lifts sub-par material. "Blades of Glory" isn't a Will Ferrell movie per se. Jon Heder is given equal screen time, and is just as funny as the vaguely androgynous Jimmy. He's plays off the oafish Chazz spectacularly, while claiming many moments on his own; he doesn't serve as a background character who must react every time Chazz does something shocking or dumb. Gordon and Speck co-directed this with a lot of silly camera angles and ideas, all perfectly capturing the humor. Stars of the figure skating world make cameos here, and most of them actually deliver their lines well and don't embarrass themselves. While the film makers run out of steam toward the end, it's a hilarious ride getting there, despite the hot and cold special effects, and Fischer just replaying "The Office"'s Pam on the big screen. Nelson is always reliable, and Arnett and Poehler do their best with characters that did in fact need more depth.
All in all, "Blades of Glory" is a very funny stand alone comedy, despite some of its flaws.
"Blades of Glory" is MPAA rated (PG13) for physical violence, mild gore, profanity, some sexual content, strong sexual references, and alcohol use
*Get Let Me Off at the Top!: My Classy Life & Other Musings by Ron Burgundy on Amazon here*
"They laughed at Louis Armstrong when he said he was gonna go to the moon. Now he's up there, laughing at them."
Yeah, it's not very deep. The humor is slight, with a lot of slapstick and dirty jokes, and little to no characterization. Yet, this politically incorrect sports comedy sprints right out of the gate, with as many quotable lines as Ferrell's "Anchorman" films and laugh-out-loud moments throughout.
Jimmy (Jon Heder) is a skating prodigy adopted by billionaire Macelroy (William Fichtner) who is looking to create a super athlete and claim all the credit. Jimmy ties with figure skating bad boy Chazz (Will Ferrell) at a competition, and the two get into a violent altercation on the winners' podium that gets them barred for life from singles male figure skating. Years later, Jimmy's stalker (Nick Swardson) points out that Jimmy can get back into skating with a partner. Jimmy's fired coach (Craig T. Nelson) sees news footage of Jimmy and Chazz get into another fight and hits on a brilliant plan- team up the two arch-enemies as skating partners and put them into competition against the brother-and-sister team of Stranz (Will Arnett) and Fairchild (Amy Poehler). The two men begin practicing, as Jimmy falls for their competition's put-upon sister Katie (Jenna Fischer), and Chazz must deal with his sex addiction and drinking. It all culminates in a winter sports event in Canada.
Will Ferrell has always made me laugh since his days of "Saturday Night Live." His physicality, his timing, his line delivery- all are flawless here, and he often lifts sub-par material. "Blades of Glory" isn't a Will Ferrell movie per se. Jon Heder is given equal screen time, and is just as funny as the vaguely androgynous Jimmy. He's plays off the oafish Chazz spectacularly, while claiming many moments on his own; he doesn't serve as a background character who must react every time Chazz does something shocking or dumb. Gordon and Speck co-directed this with a lot of silly camera angles and ideas, all perfectly capturing the humor. Stars of the figure skating world make cameos here, and most of them actually deliver their lines well and don't embarrass themselves. While the film makers run out of steam toward the end, it's a hilarious ride getting there, despite the hot and cold special effects, and Fischer just replaying "The Office"'s Pam on the big screen. Nelson is always reliable, and Arnett and Poehler do their best with characters that did in fact need more depth.
All in all, "Blades of Glory" is a very funny stand alone comedy, despite some of its flaws.
"Blades of Glory" is MPAA rated (PG13) for physical violence, mild gore, profanity, some sexual content, strong sexual references, and alcohol use
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
*Get "The Da Vinci Code" on Amazon here*
*Get The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown on Amazon here*
A major splash when it came out, Dan Brown's pulpy novel about symbologist Robert Langdon, who goes about trying to solve a murder in the Louvre and its earth-shattering implications, had to be turned into a pulpy film. "The Da Vinci Code" movie, triggering a new Tom Hanks franchise that would fizzle out after three films, is just as flawed and dull as I had heard it was.
Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, and his infamous haircut) is lecturing about symbols to a packed house before being called to the Louvre to meet with angry police captain Fache (Jean Reno, who is required by law to appear in every Hollywood film set in France). The museum curator has been gruesomely murdered by albino monk Elias (Paul Bettany, the film's only interesting character), and lowly police employee Sophie (Audrey Tautou) is in on the investigation as well. Sophie has an agenda of her own, and soon she and Robert are on the run, deciphering clues and puzzles along the way. It seems a secret society, headed by Aringarosa (Alfred Molina, who seems to be in a different film altogether) is trying to protect a secret that could bring the downfall of Christianity as we know it. Robert and Sophie eventually take on expert Leigh (Ian McKellen) and the globe-hopping continues.
Director Ron Howard, whose last film I really enjoyed was "Backdraft," pulls out all the bells and whistles to engage the audience. The cast is impressive, with Hanks trying to be the voice of reason in this heretical plotline that upset many Christians; Robert's theology arguments with Leigh are too brief and surface. The main problem is, as always, the screenplay. Here, Akiva Goldsman, the writer of "Batman Forever," "Batman & Robin," and "The Dark Tower" gives us a two and a half hour information dump wrapped in a couple of terrible action sequences and too many shots of Paul Bettany's butt.
Hanks portrays a confused man-on-the-run well because the viewer is just as confused as the main character. Much like Tyler Perry's "Alex Cross," Langdon has a superhuman ability to notice things and solve complex riddles in seconds. Langdon is not a character, he's a vessel that exchanges information, who takes in and disseminates plotlines. Claustrophobia does not a well-rounded author's creation make. I fought the urge to take notes as Leigh and Langdon bombarded Sophie with two thousand years of Christian history, in between impossibly narrow escapes (the scene involving a pointed gun and a flock of birds made me roll my eyes), and lots of running around. Bettany's Elias is a fantastic, creepy presence that Howard and Goldsman then turn pathetic, robbing the audience of the menace of his initial scenes. Hans Zimmer's musical score is okay only because it's not as bad as everything else happening here.
Finally, that running time. The film should have ended at at least three different points before the final scene, but the film makers overestimated the story's ability to grab an audience. When the credits rolled, I was relieved it was done, and after a decade and a half of avoiding this thing, my initial gut feeling was correct...and there's an extended edition with another half hour?! I'm not looking forward to the further adventures of Robert Langdon, but the glutton-for-punishment in me started "Angels & Demons." God have mercy on my soul.
-MPAA Rated (PG13), contains physical violence, gun violence, gore, very brief sexual content, nudity, mild sexual references, adult situations, alcohol use
*Get The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown on Amazon here*
A major splash when it came out, Dan Brown's pulpy novel about symbologist Robert Langdon, who goes about trying to solve a murder in the Louvre and its earth-shattering implications, had to be turned into a pulpy film. "The Da Vinci Code" movie, triggering a new Tom Hanks franchise that would fizzle out after three films, is just as flawed and dull as I had heard it was.
Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks, and his infamous haircut) is lecturing about symbols to a packed house before being called to the Louvre to meet with angry police captain Fache (Jean Reno, who is required by law to appear in every Hollywood film set in France). The museum curator has been gruesomely murdered by albino monk Elias (Paul Bettany, the film's only interesting character), and lowly police employee Sophie (Audrey Tautou) is in on the investigation as well. Sophie has an agenda of her own, and soon she and Robert are on the run, deciphering clues and puzzles along the way. It seems a secret society, headed by Aringarosa (Alfred Molina, who seems to be in a different film altogether) is trying to protect a secret that could bring the downfall of Christianity as we know it. Robert and Sophie eventually take on expert Leigh (Ian McKellen) and the globe-hopping continues.
Director Ron Howard, whose last film I really enjoyed was "Backdraft," pulls out all the bells and whistles to engage the audience. The cast is impressive, with Hanks trying to be the voice of reason in this heretical plotline that upset many Christians; Robert's theology arguments with Leigh are too brief and surface. The main problem is, as always, the screenplay. Here, Akiva Goldsman, the writer of "Batman Forever," "Batman & Robin," and "The Dark Tower" gives us a two and a half hour information dump wrapped in a couple of terrible action sequences and too many shots of Paul Bettany's butt.
Hanks portrays a confused man-on-the-run well because the viewer is just as confused as the main character. Much like Tyler Perry's "Alex Cross," Langdon has a superhuman ability to notice things and solve complex riddles in seconds. Langdon is not a character, he's a vessel that exchanges information, who takes in and disseminates plotlines. Claustrophobia does not a well-rounded author's creation make. I fought the urge to take notes as Leigh and Langdon bombarded Sophie with two thousand years of Christian history, in between impossibly narrow escapes (the scene involving a pointed gun and a flock of birds made me roll my eyes), and lots of running around. Bettany's Elias is a fantastic, creepy presence that Howard and Goldsman then turn pathetic, robbing the audience of the menace of his initial scenes. Hans Zimmer's musical score is okay only because it's not as bad as everything else happening here.
Finally, that running time. The film should have ended at at least three different points before the final scene, but the film makers overestimated the story's ability to grab an audience. When the credits rolled, I was relieved it was done, and after a decade and a half of avoiding this thing, my initial gut feeling was correct...and there's an extended edition with another half hour?! I'm not looking forward to the further adventures of Robert Langdon, but the glutton-for-punishment in me started "Angels & Demons." God have mercy on my soul.
-MPAA Rated (PG13), contains physical violence, gun violence, gore, very brief sexual content, nudity, mild sexual references, adult situations, alcohol use
Black Box (2020)
*Get "Black Box" on Amazon here*
*Get Black Space: Imagining Race in Science Fiction Film by Adilifu Nama on Amazon here*
Another blind pick that turns into a pleasant surprise, featuring America's Mom in an unexpected turn.
A few months after a car accident that claimed the life of his wife, photographer Nolan (an excellent Mamoudou Athie) is still having neurological problems. His short term memory is a mess, he forgets things easily, loses his temper even easier, and must rely on his school age daughter Ava (Amanda Christine) to parent him back to normalcy. He is constantly being bothered by a hospital to come in for a "study," and after a threat of calling Child Protective Services is made because he consistently forgets to pick up Ava after school, he relents.
There, Dr. Lillian Brooks (Phylicia Rashad) is making some excellent progress in recovering lost memories, and reversing brain damage. She uses hypnosis to place a patient inside their own memories, as she monitors the miracle device- the "black box"- with a computer. Nolan is making incredible strides in his treatments, but the faces in his sessions are blurred, and there is a mysterious Backwards Man creature (Troy James) who seems to invade his newly discovered memories, which are bizarre and unknown to him.
Director and co-writer Osei-Kuffour perfectly evens out the horrific and sci-fi elements of the story. Athie is so sympathetic as Nolan, in a heart breakingly honest performance, that the viewer doesn't want to see anything happen to him, and I was genuinely saddened when things were not going right for him. The cast all around is outstanding, Amanda Christine is refreshingly un-precocious as Ava, and Tosin Morohunfola is also great as Nolan's best friend, completely believing in their relationship. Rashad is wonderful as Dr. Brooks, who has just a hint of menace in her performance, but Osei-Kuffour never turns her into a complete psychotic nutbag at the astonishing midpoint surprise plot revelation. The special effects are mostly practical, with very little computer generation to outshine the story and performances. It's rather a small film when you look back on it.
Too many critics and audience members online have dismissed this as just another episode of "Black Mirror." Good thing I am completely unfamiliar with that show. Instead, "Black Box" came in and swept me into its condensed little world in an almost perfect suspenser. Great stuff.
-MPAA Unrated, contains strong physical violence, some gore, some profanity, adult situations
*Get Black Space: Imagining Race in Science Fiction Film by Adilifu Nama on Amazon here*
Another blind pick that turns into a pleasant surprise, featuring America's Mom in an unexpected turn.
A few months after a car accident that claimed the life of his wife, photographer Nolan (an excellent Mamoudou Athie) is still having neurological problems. His short term memory is a mess, he forgets things easily, loses his temper even easier, and must rely on his school age daughter Ava (Amanda Christine) to parent him back to normalcy. He is constantly being bothered by a hospital to come in for a "study," and after a threat of calling Child Protective Services is made because he consistently forgets to pick up Ava after school, he relents.
There, Dr. Lillian Brooks (Phylicia Rashad) is making some excellent progress in recovering lost memories, and reversing brain damage. She uses hypnosis to place a patient inside their own memories, as she monitors the miracle device- the "black box"- with a computer. Nolan is making incredible strides in his treatments, but the faces in his sessions are blurred, and there is a mysterious Backwards Man creature (Troy James) who seems to invade his newly discovered memories, which are bizarre and unknown to him.
Director and co-writer Osei-Kuffour perfectly evens out the horrific and sci-fi elements of the story. Athie is so sympathetic as Nolan, in a heart breakingly honest performance, that the viewer doesn't want to see anything happen to him, and I was genuinely saddened when things were not going right for him. The cast all around is outstanding, Amanda Christine is refreshingly un-precocious as Ava, and Tosin Morohunfola is also great as Nolan's best friend, completely believing in their relationship. Rashad is wonderful as Dr. Brooks, who has just a hint of menace in her performance, but Osei-Kuffour never turns her into a complete psychotic nutbag at the astonishing midpoint surprise plot revelation. The special effects are mostly practical, with very little computer generation to outshine the story and performances. It's rather a small film when you look back on it.
Too many critics and audience members online have dismissed this as just another episode of "Black Mirror." Good thing I am completely unfamiliar with that show. Instead, "Black Box" came in and swept me into its condensed little world in an almost perfect suspenser. Great stuff.
-MPAA Unrated, contains strong physical violence, some gore, some profanity, adult situations
Hammer House of Horror: {"Growing Pains" #1.4}
*Get "Hammer House of Horror- The Complete Series" on Amazon here*
*Get A History of Horrors: The Rise and Fall of the House of Hammer by Denis Meikle on Amazon here*
A messy but effective episode starts with the violent death of a young boy.
William (Christopher Reilly) is wandering around his botanist father Terence's (Gary Bond) laboratory one night. He ingests some day-glo powder that is meant for Terence's experiments on rabbits, convulses after running out of the house, and dies in front of his father and mother Laurie (Barbara Kellerman). Without missing a beat, the couple adopt another boy about the same age named James (a really great Matthew Blakstad). We begin to learn more about William's relationship with his parents, and James brings an awkward and sinister presence into the house.
I found it interesting that screenwriter Nicholas Palmer didn't go for the tried-and-true cliche of a new evil kid being brought in to replace a couple's golden boy. Terence and Laurie have many flaws (he's a botanist trying to save the world from starvation, she has committee meetings and is away to London, both too busy for their son), and the weird James might actually be the most sane in the family. Director Francis Megahy has some good scenes, and there is a sloppy feel to the episode that is nice. The story is attacked full-on, without a lot of nuance or subtlety, and moves quickly (if you don't think about things too much).
One thing I've noticed while binge-watching this thirteen episode series, this being the fourth episode, is that the producers haven't relied on jump scares to grab the audience. Wow, back when an audience made a film maker work for their fright! Another pretty good episode.
-Unrated, contains physical violence, violence against children, gore, adult situations, alcohol use, some drug references
*Get A History of Horrors: The Rise and Fall of the House of Hammer by Denis Meikle on Amazon here*
A messy but effective episode starts with the violent death of a young boy.
William (Christopher Reilly) is wandering around his botanist father Terence's (Gary Bond) laboratory one night. He ingests some day-glo powder that is meant for Terence's experiments on rabbits, convulses after running out of the house, and dies in front of his father and mother Laurie (Barbara Kellerman). Without missing a beat, the couple adopt another boy about the same age named James (a really great Matthew Blakstad). We begin to learn more about William's relationship with his parents, and James brings an awkward and sinister presence into the house.
I found it interesting that screenwriter Nicholas Palmer didn't go for the tried-and-true cliche of a new evil kid being brought in to replace a couple's golden boy. Terence and Laurie have many flaws (he's a botanist trying to save the world from starvation, she has committee meetings and is away to London, both too busy for their son), and the weird James might actually be the most sane in the family. Director Francis Megahy has some good scenes, and there is a sloppy feel to the episode that is nice. The story is attacked full-on, without a lot of nuance or subtlety, and moves quickly (if you don't think about things too much).
One thing I've noticed while binge-watching this thirteen episode series, this being the fourth episode, is that the producers haven't relied on jump scares to grab the audience. Wow, back when an audience made a film maker work for their fright! Another pretty good episode.
-Unrated, contains physical violence, violence against children, gore, adult situations, alcohol use, some drug references
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)