Weak-Willed Women in Film Are Not Wonderful: A Pocky "In Focus" Special Report

I have seen enough of the 1970’s made for tv horror films, that I am afraid that I am beginning to see the template. This is not to say that these are bad films. Some of these films are very good, however, the unavoidable tv-ness of them can be a bit distracting. The 1973 tv movie, “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark,” is good, however, I was expecting to be more overwhelmed by it’s greatness. Alas, it is simply a good tv-horror movie.
Kim Darby plays Sally Farnham, a woman whose family has owned a particular house into which her and her husband, Alex (Jim Hutton), move. The caretaker of the house, known simply as Mr. Harris (William Demarest—Uncle Charley from “My Three Sons”), seems to know more about the house than he is saying. There seems to always be a character like this in movies about anything that is possessed or filled with ghosts. Some character always knows the deep, dark secrets. This is usually the case not only in tv-horror movies from the 1970’s, but also many films in the horror genre.
The most disturbing thing about “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” has nothing to do with any of the horror elements in the film. The behavior of the husband character was douchebaggery of the highest order! Ok, I know that in the 70’s and prior to then, female characters were almost always written as extremely weak and dependent on men. I absolutely hate this fact and I hate seeing female characters written as such. This is probably why I am so attracted to strong, intelligent, female characters and do not see such strong female characters as threatening to my masculinity, but rather, they appeal to my libido, not that anyone really wanted to know that, but there you go. Anyway, Sally is written as a weak woman who is seeing scary creatures around her house. Of course, her husband thinks she is going crazy and treats her as if she was a child. He makes all the big decisions and she makes coffee. Fuck! Really? Did men really like this? Did they really like not being engaged intellectually by their wife/girlfriend/female companion, but rather, just wanted them to make dinner and coffee, be a good hostess to potential business clients (geez), then lie on their back for two minutes? The problem with the character of Alex is that he is not supposed to be especially bad. He is a product of that generation. I think this is why I am not drawn to “Mad Men.” I’m sure it is a good show, but I have had my fill of douchebags in my lifetime. Anytime a character with such a narrow view of anything is introduced in a film, I become less interested in what happens to him/her. In the same way, since the character of Sally is such a weak-willed woman, I was not terribly interested in her plight either.
It is too bad that these issues took something away from the movie. It is not really a scary movie, but it is interesting in the fact that it is one of the many horror films that used to air on network television back in the 70’s and 80’s. What it is is more interesting than the substance of it’s existence. I do still enjoy watching such films, however, as I have watched an increasing amount of them, I find the typical 1960’s/70’s husband character and the weak female character to be particularly annoying and frustrating.
“Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” can be purchased on the Warner Archives website. It includes a nice commentary track by Steve Barton from the website Dread Central, Fangoria writer, Sean Abley, and the screenwriter of “Final Destination,” Jeff Reddick. It is a good commentary track. Watching “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” is an ok way to pass 74 minutes, however, the bang was not as loud as I had hoped.

"The Descendants" Ascends to Perfection

There are some movies that one sees during the course of any given year that makes one, to state it very simply, very glad that movies exist. A film like this almost makes up for the rest of the crappy crap that comes out during the year. You may have surmised that I have a particular film in mind that has made me feel as such. You have surmised correctly. Alexander Payne’s latest film, “The Descendants,” is a perfect movie. It is perfectly written and perfectly acted. If a film can get this right, it will entertain me, and sometimes make me want to pump my fist at the end in joy at seeing such a great film, even if the film does not deal with the happiest of subjects.
Part of the perfection of “The Descendants” stems from Payne’s ability to tell this sad story with such perfectly acted emotion and even some touches of humor. George Clooney plays Matt King, a lawyer living in Hawaii, whose family happens to own a beautiful and sizable amount of land in said state, which is being pursued by developers. King’s family has decided to sell the land to a man whom the family has agreed will use it well. Meanwhile, Matt’s wife, Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie), suffers a jet-skiing accident which puts her in a coma. A majority of the film handles the decisions Elizabeth’s family must make while she is on life support in the hospital. Some of the decisions regarding her and Matt’s life are the basis for the most interesting subplot in the film which I will not reveal.
Not only is George Clooney outstanding as Matt, but Shailene Woodley as his 17 year old daughter, Alexandra and Amara Miller as his younger daughter, Scottie are also fantastic. There are no acting missteps in this film. Every moment performed by these three actors is true. Given the subject matter and the emotional weight of the subject matter of the film, it is even more impressive and exciting to see such outstanding performances. As you may imagine from what I have written so far or from what you may have already read about the film, it deals with death, but that is not the only subject of the film. As I have intimated, it also handles issues that arise as Elizabeth lies in a coma. The ability of Payne, who co-wrote the film with Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, to handle such heavy issues with thoughtfulness and wit is brilliant!! That statement gets two exclamation points. The humor in the film works very well just as did the humor in two of Payne’s previous films, “Election” and the brilliant Paul Giamatti/Thomas Haden Church film,“Sideways.” The humor in “The Descendants” is masterfully placed. It is apparent great care was taken in structuring the film so as to properly place the humorous moments amongst the seriousness of the overall issues of the film.
The Hawaiian music used in the film is wonderful as well. The soundtrack, according to the Los Angeles Times, is “a tour of Hawaiian music.” Not being a Hawaiian music expert, I will take their word for it. Like the humor in the film, the music used in the film is brilliantly placed and fits in very well. As with the humorus moments, the music in the film is never obtrusive.
If you can, see this in a theater. The location shooting in Hawaii is great! I felt as if I was there following the characters around as an observer in the beautiful Hawaiian locales. At the same time, Clooney’s character, at the beginning of the film, points out that the notion of Hawaii being nothing but paradise is incorrect as we see some shots of less than beautiful parts of the state. They are not horrible images or anything like that. The point is that people who live in Hawaii have the same kind of life experiences and problems as those who live in the mainland. Just because they happen who live in or have been born into a Hawaiian family does not mean that their lives are instantly full of sweet pineapple and luaus. That is not a major theme in the film. It was simply an establishing point made by Clooney’s character during the opening of the film. It was refreshing to see Hawaii used as simply a location for the film. Payne does not exploit the location with flashy and unnecessary establishing shots as you may find of Miami on CSI:Miami. There are no extraneous shots of surfers, waves, or guys dancing around with those poles that are on fire. “The Descendants” is not about Hawaii. Hawaii is simply the setting of the film.
I hope “The Descendants” wins the Best Picture Oscar in February. It will likely have heavy competition from Scorsese’s “Hugo,” which is not as good a film as this one and “The Tree of Life,” which I have not yet seen, however, when I do, you will know about it. I would love to see Clooney win an Oscar for his performance as Matt King as he handles the emotional range through which his character finds himself perfectly. His scenes of sadness, annoyance, and restraint through situations in which you would not expect one to be restrained are very well acted. Woodley and Miller deserve nominations as well for their work as King’s daughters. These three performers feel as though they are father and daughters. Everything in “The Descendants” feels natural. No emotion in the film feels forced or saccharin. It is not as light as “Election” or “Sideways.” It is a bit sad, but, and I must stress, not, I say, not depressing. A great film is never depressing. Remember that. A great film is never depressing. “The Descendants” is a perfect film and it ascends to true greatness.

Transmission Successful!

The 3rd Annual Northwestern/Notre Dame Epistemology Conference will be held Friday, April 13-Saturday, April 14, 2012. The keynote speaker will be Ram Neta, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill who has written,"Easy Knowledge, Transmission Failure, and Empiricism." I don't know about you, but I hate it when my transmission fails. Perhaps Neta will have some tips about how to get one's car goin' when your transmission fails. Here is the website to go to to submit any and all papers you may want to present at the April conference: www.wcas.northwestern.edu/epistemology/egradconf3. Make sure that all papers are automotive related, with an emphasis on transmissions and the kinetic motion of auto mechanics, because we all know how much we hate it when auto mechanics just sit around and do not perform to their potential.

A Welcome Return

“The Muppets” is a great homage to the beloved Jim Henson creations which gained their highest popularity in the 1970’s and 80’s. The great thing about the new film, “The Muppets,” is that it knows that it’s greatest popularity has already been reached. I feel that “The Muppets” is not trying to reestablish popularity in the days of You Tube (which I admit is way cool), Kardashians and so many other means of instant gratification and diversion. “The Muppets” is an almost tear-jerking acknowledgment that Henson’s creations meant a lot to people of a particular generation and that that amount of popularity will never be seen again because times have changed. It is a bit sad, however, throughout the film are reminders of why the Muppets were so successful. They appealed, not only to kids, but also, to parents. The humor in any given episode of The Muppet Show or any of their first three films was always clever and well-written. There was not a sense that Henson and his crew were dumbing anything down for an attention deficient or uneducated audience. I would love for the Muppets to regain the popularity they had when I was a child, however, I believe the sad reality is that our society is not capable of embracing the genius and wit of the Muppets.
“The Muppets” tells the tale of Gary (Jason Segal), his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams) and Gary’s brother, Walter, a new Muppet creation. Walter is a very welcome addition to the Muppet pantheon. Walter is a likeable Muppet. The trio take a trip to Los Angeles to visit Muppet Studios, former home of the Muppets in their halcyon days. Once there, the trio discover that Muppet Studios is abandoned and that only cheapjack tours led by a bored tour guide (Alan Arkin) are available. They seek out Kermit , whom they convince to embark on a cross-country trip to get the Muppets back together so as to put on a telethon to raise the $10 million necessary to save Muppet Studios from the evil Tex Richman (Chris Cooper). Richman wants to tear down Muppet Studios and drill for oil on that land.
There is a nice belt in the face to modern culture in “The Muppets,” as the 2 hour telethon that Kermit and the gang produce to save Muppet Studios from Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), is allowed on the air only because the normally aired episode of Punch Teacher had encountered a snafu. Yes, Punch Teacher. The makers of “The Muppets” get it, meaning that they seem to understand that their film is more of a nostalgia trip than a possible reboot of a franchise. It does help that “The Muppets” is an outstanding film, reminiscent of the original 1979 film, “The Muppet Movie.” There are even some nice homages to that film such as Sweetums chasing after the rest of the Muppet gang at one point and a very nice rendition of “The Rainbow Connection” by Kermit with help from Miss Piggy. I know it may not make much sense to say that “The Muppets” does not aspire to become the next big movie franchise like Harry Potter, Pirates of the Carribean, or Twilight (…..yeah…..), but I did not get that sense from the film. As I have mentioned, “The Muppets” feels more like an appreciation by a group of actors of Jim Henson’s creations. “The Muppets” stars and was co-written by Jason Segal from “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and the tv series, “How I Met Your Mother.” It was co-written by Nicholas Stoller, director of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It seems that the two have collaborated out of obvious love and appreciation for Kermit and his friends. This is another reason why the film does not feel like a rebooting of or the beginning of a film franchise. I think Segal and Stoller simply wanted to create a loving celebration and appreciation of the Muppets. Unless “The Muppets” makes a lot of cash, I would be surprised to see Disney make another Muppet film anytime soon. Of course, in Hollywood, anything is possible. When is The Fall Guy movie coming out, or perhaps a B.J. and the Bear movie? Sheriff Lobo perhaps…..hmmmmm?
I had only a few issues with “The Muppets.” One song about “being alone” performed by Amy Adams in a diner is cringingly bad and I did not care for the name of the evil oil baron being Tex Richman (Cooper). Isn’t the stereotype of the rich asshole from Texas played out by now? I am from Texas and I have never been rich nor an oil baron. More thought could have been put into Chris Cooper’s character, including not calling him “Tex.”
It is obvious that all involved in “The Muppets” share a love for the subjects of the film. I watched Sesame Street, The Muppet Show, and the first three Muppet movies frequently as a child. I understand the feelings of nostalgia on display in the film. Unless Jason Segal or someone from Disney tells me otherwise, though, I maintain that “The Muppets” is a grand homage and thank you letter to Jim Henson for his creations and not the beginning of a new set of films. I would be more than happy to be wrong about this though. As long as any future Muppet movies are as good as this one, I kind of hope there will be more.

This Post Does Not Ocelot of Money

Does anyone give a shit that Kourtney Kardashian is pregnant? This picture of an ocelot is more interesting.

Try to Get a Handle On It

A good exploitation film delivers exciting action scenes, interesting locations, and some nice nudity. I think Roger Corman once said something like this, though not exactly in these words. The 1977 film, “Too Hot to Handle,” offers all three. It is filmed in Manila, Philippines and looks very nice on the new Shout Factory dvd entitled, “Roger Corman’s Cult Classics Lethal Ladies Collection.” The set also includes a film I am looking forward to watching, “Firecracker,” and “TNT Jackson.”
In “Too Hot to Handle,” Cheri Cafaro, star of the “Ginger” films of the early 70’s, plays Samantha Fox, an organized and efficient assassin. She is dispatched to Manila to dispose of three people who are bad, bad, bad. The extent of their badness is not described at length in the film, however, it is enough to know that they are bad enough to warrant the talents of Samantha Fox to exterminate them. It does help that we know that the people she is hired to hit are bad people who, it turns out, also had something to do with the death of her father. Knowing that she is single-handedly dispatching of these evil folks makes Samantha even more likable than she is already. I was pleasantly surprised to find that Cheri Cafaro plays her character as an intelligent, strong, and cunning female. I am very glad that Samantha Fox was not played as a dimwit dumb blonde who needs the help of a strong man. Samantha is completely independent.
The Manila chief of police, Domingo de la Torres (Aharon Ipale), gets involved in the investigation after the first of Samantha’s hits, McKenzie Portman (John Van Dreelen) is found dead after he invites her to his home to engage in a little bit of bondage fun. Chief de la Torres is quickly able to determine the Portman’s assassin was female. His reasoning does make sense, even though it might seem unlikely to do so. I liked that the character of Chief de la Torres is played as an intelligent investigator. Both Samantha Fox and Chief de la Torres use each other for sex along the way, however, it is clearly a mutual relationship. Samantha is a strong woman and would not allow him to mistreat her.
Samantha’s second hit, Justin Stockwell (Jordan Rosengarten),one of the biggest douchebag assholes the screen has ever seen, is disposed of in a particularly interesting and cunning fashion. One of the highlights of this film, which may easily be overlooked, is the great makeup job on Cheri Cafaro in this scene. I liked that the third of Samantha’s hits is a woman, meaning the film avoids a simplistic male vs. female storyline.
The music in the film is comprised of a great, groovy score, however, the song heard during the film’s main sex scene is pretty bad. The song is called, “Lady Samantha.” It will make you cringe. As I mentioned, though, the score throughout most of the film is great, especially during the last five minutes of the film. Great stuff it is!
“Too Hot to Handle” feels like an R-rated episode of “Hawaii Five-O”—the old version, of course. That is a very good thing. Scenes take their time to play out and the progression of scenes is well structured and well paced. Of course, it is not award winning material, but it does quite well what it intends to do---entertain. Cheri Cafaro is naked a lot, bad guys and a gal get whacked, lots of cool shots of Manila are shown, and asses get kicked. Put on your oven mitts because Cheri Cafaro is definitely too hot to handle!

Everyone's a Winner with Hesher

I wish I had a cool guitar riff play after I say something. There is a scene at the beginning of “Hesher” in which Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) says something to T.J. Forney (Devin Brochu) and after Hesher has spoken, a nice guitar riff is heard. That occurs in the first five minutes of Spencer Susser’s film about a boy of about 14 years who is, in a strange way, befriended by a long-haired stoner guy whose name turns out to be Hesher. We do not know a whole lot about Hesher, and throughout the course of the film, we never learn much of anything about him. That is ok with me because it works. Hesher moves into the house of T.J. and his father, Paul, (Rainn Wilson) without permission. Paul does not put up any resistance. Paul and his son are recovering from the recent loss of his wife and T.J’s mother. Hesher’s presence in their lives acts as a strangely interesting antidote for their issues. Add to this, T.J’s crush on a grocery store cashier named Nicole (Natalie Portman). Though she does not necessarily act as any kind guiding light in T.J’s life, she does add an additional bit of charm to the film.
“Hesher” is one of those cool films in which things just happen randomly, exactly like the narrative structure of most of what I write. In the case of “Hesher,” there appears to be some rationale to the random events that occur. Hesher, though uncouth, vulgar, and of questionable odor, proves to be the person, or maybe the force that T.J. and his father need to fully recover from their loss. Grief counseling sessions do not seem to help a great deal. T.J. is constantly bullied by Dustin (Brendan Hill) a young man who almost reaches the level of vulgarity of which Hesher is quite the master. Hesher eventually helps T.J. get back at Dustin in an unconventional, though fulfulling way. Thankfully, this event is not treated as family film fodder as T.J. is not as happy with Hesher’s handiwork as Hesher is. The structure of “Hesher” is like a series of vignettes which are linear and serve to document the process through which T.J. and his father are able to deal with and accept the situation in which their lives exist. One may debate whether or not Hesher is supposed to be a representation of Christ, a foul-mouthed Christ, but who serves the same purpose---the purpose of guidance through trying times in one’s life. Of course, Hesher may also be just some random guy who shows up in their lives and distracts them from their grief for a while. Who Hesher is is never stated, and I liked that. His purpose in the lives of T.J. and his father, however, is clear.
I liked the film quite a bit with only a few exceptions. About an hour in, something happens in the film which is a bit of a movie cliché. Wow, Microsoft Word just automatically added the tilde over the “e” in cliché! It did it again! I was going to just leave it as is. Sometimes stuff like that just happens…..
Anyway, something happens midway through “Hesher” which is cliché. I wish it had not happened, solely because what happened was a cliché. As well, the ending, though fulfilling, is comprised of a bit too much “end of movie speech-ness.” Those who have seen a lot of movies will likely know what I mean by this. Basically, at the end of the film, one of the main characters shows up to make a speech telling us what the point of the film is and how we should feel. I only say this as a way of defining “end of movie speech-ness.” In “Hesher,” we get this, however, it is not inflicted with this malady too badly and as I mentioned, the overall result of the final twenty minutes of the film is very effective and well done.
All of the performances in “Hesher” are great, especially Levitt, Wilson, Brochu, and Piper Laurie as T.J’s grandmother. “Hesher” is a vulgar feel-good movie. I did not expect to “feel good” at the film’s conclusion, however, the message that director Susser conveys is clear.
I enjoyed the ditty Hesher tells T.J. and Nicole in his van about the four women with whom he once shared……an experience. See this film and you will enjoy this tale as well. Remember, everyone’s a winner.

How Are They Gonna Steal an Entire Building? It Appears to Be Quite Heavy and Unable to Fit in My Pocket.

First of all, I hope you enjoy the picture of the otter showing us her baby. I thought a picture of a tall building would be a bit dull. Anyway, I was looking forward to seeing “Tower Heist,” however, I did not expect to be bowled over by it’s genius or complex storytelling. I was correct in my assumption. “Tower Heist” is a good, pleasant film. What propels the film is the performances of four actors: Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Matthew Broderick, and Alan Alda. All four deliver very good performances. Without these fine actors’ performances, “Tower Heist” could have been very mediocre. The story is nothing new. Disgruntled employees plan a way to get back at their unscrupulous boss. In this case, the unscrupulousness of the boss, Arthur Shaw (Alda), is more than calling his employees names or making them work long hours. Shaw has embezzled his employees’ money in something similar to a Ponzi scheme. Josh Kovacs (Stiller), Shaw’s trusted assistant and manager of Shaw’s apartment building in New York City, cannot believe, at first that Shaw would have done such things. Upon learning that, indeed, Shaw is a malicious son of a bitch, Kovacs assembles a team of former Shaw employees to infiltrate the inner-workings of Shaw’s building so as to steal back their money. Along the way, Kovacs enlists the help of Slide (Murphy). Slide is a petty criminal who is bailed out of jail by Kovacs. Slide is to be the experienced theft expert of the team, however, his expertise is discovered to be limited to small-time thefts and not massive heists. That’s ok, though, because Kovacs’ team is good enough as it is to, through various machinations of scriptwriting, perform a massive undertaking which, as you will see if you watch this film, is quite ridiculous, however, since a majority of the performers in the film do a great job, I found myself not minding the fact that what the team ends up doing is quite impossible, at least in the non-movie world.
Eddie Murphy stands out as Slide. His dialogue is the vulgar and funny variety we remember from his roles in "48 Hours" and "Beverly Hills Cop." Thankfully for us all, he does not wear a fat suit or dress as a woman in this film. He says lots of dirty words and is crass. This is great news! Murphy is given a chance to be funny in “Tower Heist” and he succeeds. It was wonderful to see Ben Stiller in a role in which he is not humiliated 30 times during the course of the film. Stiller is an outstanding comedic actor as can be witnessed in “Flirting With Disaster” and “Greenberg.” Though he is not given any over the top dialogue as is Murphy, Stiller does deliver his understated, funny lines with the ease and grace one would expect from a standout Stiller performance. Alan Alda is fantastic as the bastard, Arthur Shaw. It is always great to see Alan Alda in a film and such is the case in “Tower Heist.” Alda is fully capable of playing mean and slimy—and it is even more effective to use Alda in such a role because most know his characters to be easygoing. Of course, if you remember his role of Hawkeye on MASH, it is clear that his ability to deliver sarcasm and his ability to perform on a dramatic level are on display. In “Whispers in the Dark,” Alda surprises us with quite a scene of insane bravura that I will always remember. That film is not very good, however, as he does in most films in which he appears, Alda stood out.
Matthew Broderick, always a reliable performer, delvers a very good performance as a down on his luck stockbroker who is threatened with eviction from his luxury apartment in the Shaw building. His role in the heist is as the one who can fully point out just how much money Shaw has stolen. Broderick, as he did in “Election,” delivers his lines with fantastic comic nervousness. Gabourey Sidibe, who gained notoriety from her performance in “Precious” is the only source of complaint I have about “Tower Heist.” She did not seem to fit in with the rest of the heist team. Her appearance in the film seemed more like stunt casting. I never bought her performance as a Jamaican safecracker,mon.
I feel compelled to point out that I was very happy to find that there were few car crashes, explosions, shootouts, or other assorted and unnecessary action movie cliches in "Tower Heist." There is a brief car chase scene, but, as I stated, it thankfully does not take long to resolve.
I will not reveal how the plan the team of heisters has in store for the evil Arthur Shaw develops, however, as I alluded to, it is quite ridiculous. Regardless of the ridiculousness of the plan, the cast of “Tower Heist” is engaging enough to allow me to not be distracted by said plan. “Tower Heist” does not reach the top story of flim genius, however it does climb a few floors above the midway point of the filmmaking edifice.

What Do Green Erasers Tell Us About Ourselves and Further, What Do We Tell Ourselves About Green Erasers?

The opening theme heard in Aldo Lado’s “The Humanoid” is very nice. The score, written by Ennio Morricone, is unique and only once sounds like an already known piece of music. There is one bit of orchestration that sounds like Beethoven’s Ode to Joy. I will let that pass, as I do not know if it is an intentional nod to that piece of music or not.
First of all, up front I will acknowledge that “The Humanoid” is an intentional rip-off of “Star Wars.” Released in 1979, it does not try to hide it’s knock-off status in any way. The villain looks like Darth Vader---actually, the villain looks more like Rick Moranis’ character, Dark Helmet, in “Spaceballs.” In “The Humanoid,” we can see the villain’s face as he wears what looks like an oversized hardhat with a hint of a mask covering his face, but not so much that we cannot see the actor. I wonder if Mel Brooks ever saw “The Humanoid” and thought that this look would suit Dark Helmet in his 1987 film. We do know that Mel Brooks is extra cool simply for the fact that he produced David Lynch’s first studio film, “The Elephant Man” in 1980. Brooks must have seen Lynch’s genius in “Eraserhead,” and took from that picture the fact that Lynch was an outstanding filmmaker.
Richard Kiel plays the humanoid in question in “The Humanoid.” Kiel is best known as Jaws from two James Bond films, “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “Moonraker.” Kiel is 7 feet, 2 inches tall, however his height is only mentioned one time in the film and it is not exploited for humorous effect at any point in the film, which is refreshing. Tall vs. short humor rarely works and is quite a tired form of humor. One fun thing about “The Humanoid” is the fact that Richard Kiel’s character, Golob, speaks in his normal voice for the first 15 minutes of the film. He is also bearded. The reason why Golob ceases speech after 15 minutes is because Lord Graal (the guy dressed a bit like Darth Vader) wants to create a race of humanoids to perform various bits of malfeasance upon the world. Graal enlists the assistance of Dr. Kraspin (Arthur Kennedy) to create a rocket which, when coming into contact with a normal human, will transform said human into a robotic, speechless being, or humanoid. Richard Kiel does not give the greatest performance during the first 15 minutes. His delivery is not very good and he is very unnatural. Despite this, I could not help but like his character and his robot dog pal who travels with him in his spaceship before he is shot down by the evil Graal and soon thereafter lands in a body of water which not only turns Golob into a “humanoid,” but always provides Golob with a nice shave in the process.
Barbara Bach is also in this film! She is always a welcome addition to any film. Her beauty in this film, however, is somewhat masked by the two costumes she wears in the film. During the first half of the film her hair looks like that puffy stuff that the hood of a winter coat is made out of. It looks like a very big version of that puffy stuff. It almost looks like she is wearing a large hood, but it turns out it is her hair. She looks like she is wearing an eagle around her head. This is not the best look for her, but she is still hot. In the second half of the film, she wears what looks like a bicycle helmet. The decision of the makers of The Humanoid to not allow Barbara Bach’s gorgeous hair to appear in a natural style for 1979, knocks the star rating of this film down by one full star. It may be of some interest that Barbara Bach was the “Bond Girl” in “The Spy Who Loved Me,” the first Bond film in which Richard Kiel (Golob) appeared. Maybe you don’t care about such things. I do. If you do not, so be it.
Once the plot is established about an evil lord in space enlisting the aid of an equally mad doctor so as to create “humanoids” for nefarious purposes, the film weaves a fairly entertaining tale of the humanoid and his companions, Barbara Gibson (Corrine Clery) and a young Asian boy named Tom Tom (yeah, I know…), whose relationship to Barbara is not established, or if it was I was not paying attention as I may have been too distracted by Barbara Bach’s hair, in attempting to thwart the plans of the evil twosome. As Netflix might say, “If you liked ‘Star Crash,’ you may like ‘The Humanoid!’” If Netflix and it’s rating system made this statement, I would be in agreement. I liked “Star Crash.” I liked “The Humanoid.” “Star Crash” is better, or one might say, it is stranger and goofier, which, in turn, makes it better, meaning more fun to watch, than “The Humanoid.” Should you ever find it or get a chance to see it, let Barbara Bach’s hair wash over you as you enjoy “The Humanoid.” I know that as long as there is corn in the fields and lead in the pencil, I will never allow the memory of "The Humanoid" to be erased from my mind. And that's One to Grow On!

Noodles On Film: Case File #1--"With Friends Like These"

There are many reasons to like Canada. I enjoy the accent of the Canadian. Oftentimes, Canadians are quite pleasant. William Shatner is Canadian as is Michael J. Fox. None of these facts are new to anybody, though. I watched a 1990 Canadian horror anthology film that I purchased at a Half Price Books Warehouse sale just five days ago. The name of this film is “With Friends Like These.” This anthology film is comprised of three stories. It is always a good idea in an anthology film to save the best story for last, as was the case in “Creepshow.”
I have seen several horror anthology films in my illustrious lifetime including Creepshow, Creepshow 2, Nightmares, and Tales From the Darkside: the Movie. “With Friends Like These” ranks a bit below these four films, but that does not make it a drag to watch. It feels like either an above-average student film, or a made for tv, or perhaps, made for cable film. I doubt it had much of a theatrical release. It was filmed in and around Montreal, a city I very much enjoyed back in 1996.
The first tale is the weakest. It is about a man who purchases a fancy car with money from his and his fiancee’s bank account. She allows him to use $1500, but he spends $5000 of it, almost draining their savings. The car talks. Unfortunately, it does not have the awesome voice of William Daniels. That is all I will say about this one.
The second story is the best one. This one is about a man who lives in a very dirty apartment. He does not keep his kitchen, or any other part of his apartment clean. He is a slob. In his refrigerator, we see a disgusting, moldy mess of old, spilled food, or what looks like it used to be food. After the introduction of the character and his circumstances, there is a scene in which the man opens up his refrigerator door and there is some kind of creature living inside of it. This creature is composed of only a torso and a head. The torso talks. It has a decent voice, but again, he is no William Daniels. I believe the creature in the refrigerator is played by Russell Yvan. His name is given in the credits as “Creature.” This is the only creature in the film, so I am going with that. The concept of this second story is very interesting—a man’s fridge is so moldy and gross that all of the yucky stuff inside it turns into said mold creature. The creature and the man become pals and the creature gives the man dating advice. I think, all men, at some point need a moldy, green torso living in their refrigerator to give them dating advice. It just makes good sense. The mold creature depends on the coldness of the fridge to survive so when the power goes out in the man’s apartment, the man has to run out to the store to buy ice to keep the creature alive. Chaos does not ensue, thankfully, as this is a fairly straight-forward entry in the triad of tales within this film. Other things happen in this tale, however, I will not provide spoilers just in case any readers of this collection of letters and words happens to be fortunate enough, as I was, to find a vhs copy of this film.
The third story in this triumvirate is fairly decent, though nothing about it is surprising. It is apparent that the filmmakers thought they were delivering a surprising twist ending, however, they slip in a few insert shots too many which spoil the surprise. This tale is about a woman who uses the services of a dating agency to find the perfect man for her. It is cool to see some early 90’s technology in action, such as those old, light brown, clunky desktop computers all businesses had back then. It may have been more interesting to watch a documentary about twenty year old technology, however, we see, instead this tale of the woman who is matched up with what the dating services' computers determine is her perfect man. The savvy reader of this fine review will likely figure out the big twist in this story shortly after the “perfect man” is introduced. The performance of Christopher McCabe as the “perfect man” is good as is the performance of Nathalie Gauthier as the woman searching for her ideal mate. Of the three stories in this anthology, this one relies most on the surprise ending element, however, it is the least surprising. The performances of the leads, however, make it better than it might have been.
The most annoying part of “With Friends Like These” is the horrible in-between stories narration that Norman Fell, tv’s Mr. Roper from Three’s Company was given to read. It is not his fault. The lines he reads as we see various people getting onto and off of a city bus are very bad. The word “relationship” is said, I guarantee, over twenty times during these in between stories connecting scenes. I think the point of the narration is that you never know what you are really getting into when you enter into any given friendship or “relationship” with somebody. The problem is that this point is made using the same words, just rearranged four different times throughout the film, in between the stories. Even though it is always pleasing to hear to sound of Norman Fell’s voice, he is also no William Daniels.
So, why should anyone seek out this film? Just for fun, I suppose. If you are curious about low-budget horror anthology films from the early 90’s, this is just the film for you. I am glad I found it at Half Price Books and am proud to include it in my obscure vhs tape collection. The tape is orange! I think it is my first orange tape! I would love to know more about this film, however, there is very little information about it online. This is one of those movies in which it would be fun to listen to the director or some of the actors involved talk about it on a commentary track. Well, I feel that way about most low-budget films from 1970-1990, but because of the fact that this one is more obscure than normal, my zeal to learn more about it is of greater intensity. Wow! Greater intensity! Indeed.
It would be way too easy to dismiss “With Friends Like These” as a cheap, low-budget film with terrible acting. The acting in this film is pretty good, considering the fact that many of the actors in this film do not appear to have had much film experience. Perhaps they were stage actors in Canada. It is definitely a low-budget project, but for being such, it does provide 81 minutes of entertainment. With movies like these…there will always be something new and interesting to discover.

The Clooney and Harris Lists

People are always comparing me to George Clooney, you know-- my looks, (insert Don Knotts-like sniff here), charm, suaveness (insert one more Don Knotts-like sniff here). For this reason, I choose to follow his lead and create my own list of my 100 favorite movies. His list is comprised of his top 100 films from 1964-1976. He calls this the “the greatest era in filmmaking by far.” I agree with this statement. I, however, unlike Mr. Clooney, do not choose to limit my choices to selections from a specific time frame. I have chosen to open my list to all years in which films were being made. For those interested, here is Clooney’s list: www.parade.com/celebrity/slideshows/editors-pick/george-clooney-top-100-movies.html.
I will divide my list into two groups of fifty, beginning with this here post and ending in a future post which is upcoming soon and which will be posted sometime in the future, which will occur later. These are in no particular order, just like my thought process:
1. Sideways (2004)
2. Slingblade (1998)
3. Magnolia (1999)
4. The Exorcist (1973)
5. Halloween (1978)
6. Beyond the Door (1974)
7. The Visitor (2008)
8. The Visitor (1978)
9. All the President’s Men (1976)
10. Fargo (1995)
11. Oleanna (1994)
12. Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
13. Eraserhead (1977)
14. 1776 (1972)
15. Grease (1978)
16. Annie Hall (1977)
17. Leaving Las Vegas (1994)
18. The Music of Chance (1993)
19. Sleeper (1973)
20. White Dog (1982)
21. War Games (1982)
22. No Country For Old Men (2008)
23. Stroszek (1977)
24. My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done (2009)
25. Roger and Me (1989)
26. Fitzcarraldo (1982)
27. Burden of Dreams (1983)
28. Barry Lyndon (1975)
29. Anguish (1986)
30. Breaking Point (1975-Bo Arne Vibenius)
31. King of Kong (2005)
32. The Passenger (1975)
33. Grindhouse
34. Inglorious Basterds (2008)
35. Pulp Fiction (1994)
36. Superman (1978)
37. Misery (1990)
38. Carnival Magic (1981)
39. Halloween 3---yes, that one (1983)
40. Blade Runner (1982)
41. Alien (1979)
42. Scanners (1980)
43. Akeelah and the Bee (2002)
44. Star Trek 2 (1982)
45. Star Trek 4 (1986)
46. The Room---this is a special film (2003)
47. Die Hard (1988)
48. E.T. (1982)
49. Schindler’s List (1993)
50. Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Instant Streaming of Consciousness : A Special Report From Pocky

The dvd will eventually become obsolete. I am not going to argue against this eventual obsolescence or try to say that dvd’s should remain with us forever. Any form of physical media will, at some point, become obsolete, especially as technology rapidly improves upon itself. As we have reached the ability to stream movies and tv shows onto our televisions and computers, the dvd will, in likely 5-10 years, disappear. These facts are inevitable and represent the exciting progress of current technology. One problem exists, however. The disappearance of the audio commentary track will likely result. Let’s just get this clear first—I know there are lots of people who do not give a rat’s ass about listening to “some guy just talkin’ about stuff.” Well, I do. I don’t just give a rat’s ass, but I also give a monkey’s ass about them. Over 75 percent of the time, the information on these commentary tracks is outstanding. It is like getting two movies for the price of one. Sometimes a dvd has two commentary tracks. These audio tracks, usually from any combination of the director, writer, actor in the film provide a wealth of great information about the making of any given film. Fellow movie dorks will know what I am talking about and, perhaps enjoy listening to these tracks as much as I do. Unless these commentary tracks are offered as some sort of audio option through the streaming services, these tracks and the desire for film studios to produce such tracks will disappear. If this happens, they will be missed. It is not too grand a statement to say that commentary tracks provide a wonderful history lesson to the serious and to the casual film lover. The many great audio commentary tracks in existence range from Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather Parts 1, 2, and 3, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now), Martin Scorsese (Last Temptation of Christ, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore), Werner Herzog (Stroszek, the Enigma of Kasper Hauser, Fitzcarraldo, Grizzly Man), George Lucas (Star Wars) to directors, screenwriters, and actors from such niche films as C.H.U.D., Beyond the Door, Stunt Rock, Mother’s Day, Rituals, and even Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren discussing “Caligula” in two separate commentary tracks for that film. One of the best commentaries in existence is Roger Ebert’s very interesting track for “Citizen Kane.” Some of the dvds I own, I purchased simply because I thought the commentary track would be interesting. In most cases, I have been correct.
I fear that there will not be enough consumers in our population who notice that the commentary track option is not part of the streaming of a particular film on any of the online streaming services. Part of the appeal of first the laser disc in the early 1990’s and then the dvd in the late 1990’s was the fact that these discs allowed lots and lots of extra stuff to be included on that form of media. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert extol the virtue of the laser disc on this 1989 Holiday Gift Guide episode of their show in this interesting clip: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpQim1MiO9c. So now that we are progressing from any form of physical media at all to video being streamed through our video game console, tv, or smart phone (and again, I am not proposing an argument that this progression is bad—not at all), I simply am stating and hoping that, along with the large amount and variety of films and tv shows that are being made available to stream, I hope that, in time, the already existing, and perhaps some newly recorded audio commentary tracks, are available as well. The asses of both the rat and the monkey, for which I care so greatly, will be pleased.

I'll Say It Backwards and Forwards, Get Ready to Gear Up For R.O.T.O.R.

Seeing the 1988 film, R.O.T.O.R. was like meeting someone I, at first, did not think would be terribly interesting, only to find that I was completely wrong about my assumptions. R.O.T.O.R. is unique, unpretentious, tries hard, and is worthy of repeat visits. I did not expect much from this film, especially since the poster for this film is quite dull and does not promise anything terribly interesting. Most will say R.O.T.O.R. is a terrible, unpolished film. The unpolished part is correct, but I love unpolished films, especially ones set and filmed in Dallas, the city in which I live. The unpolished nature of R.O.T.O.R. is wonderfully on display all throughout, from bad dialogue looping, uncompromisingly 80’s music (especially one song called “Hideaway” which is heard near the midpoint of the film), awkward characters played by awkward looking people, the revelation in the end credits that most of the lead actors’ dialogue in the film was dubbed by different voice actors, and a main character who looks like former NBA star, Bill Walton. In one shaving scene, though, he looks a bit like current NBA great Dirk Nowitzki. Certainly you can already tell that once you press “play” from your Netflix streaming device, you will be well on your way to something very special.
I was not aware of the greatness into which I was about to be thrown. The story is straight-forward and, obviously borrows quite a bit from Robocop and The Terminator. In current-day Dallas, crime has apparently so overtaken the city that special forces or some such officer, Coldyron (the guy who looks like Bill Walton), played by Richard Gesswein, has developed a robotic police officer which can overpower and subdue the most vile of criminals. Apparently, only one of these has been built and it is called R.O.T.O.R. (Robotic Officer Tactical Operation Research). R.O.T.O.R. will not actually be fully ready for another 4-5 years, however, Coldyron’s boss, a bit of a prick named Greg Hutchins (James Cole), wants it ready within 6 weeks. Upon hearing of Hutchins’ demands, Coldyron promptly quits his job as head architect of the R.O.T.O.R. program. Coldyron and his lady friend, Penny (Nannette Kuczek) go out to lunch at a place that still exists called Crockett’s, which is part of the Hilton Dallas Lincoln Centre hotel near 635 and Dallas Parkway, fairly close to the Galleria. Being a Dallasite, I enjoyed seeing many familiar locations. I wondered where some of the locations were exactly, such as the convenience stores featured in the film. I found myself wondering if they still were open or if there was a Wal-Mart or Starbucks on those sites now. In one scene, the house in which the Penny character lives is revealed to be on the corner of Calculus Drive and Haydale Drive, which is east of 635, between Marsh and Midway. The filmmakers were nice enough to include the street sign in the establishing shot of this house. Through a series of events, Coldyron’s assistant, Dr. Houghtaling (Stan Moore) becomes the new person in charge of the R.O.T.O.R. project. Through even more zany shenanigans involving a character named Shoeboogie (genius!!) R.O.T.O.R. is accidentally unleashed into the world. R.O.T.O.R. looks like a man and speaks in a garbled computer voice. He commandeers a motorcycle and proceeds to begin performing his duty of judge and executioner. His first victim is an incredibly chauvinistic young man who is driving with his fiancee, Sonia, played by the gorgeous Margaret Trigg, who, unfortunately passed away in 2003. So, anyway, mayhem ensues and a female physicist/bodybuilder shows up in the last 15 minutes to assist Coldyron with what will hopefully be an apprehension of Mr. R.O.T.O.R. Jayne Smith plays Dr. Steele, the physicist/bodybuilder in question. Her character is awesome! All the aforementioned business of seeing Dallas area locations is nice for Dallas residents who, like me, may be interested in seeing parts of the city in 1988. Will the awkward characters, the 80’s light rock, random misplaced explosion sound effects, random chairs set up in a parking garage, physicist/female bodybuilder character, and bad looping be enough for anyone else? I certainly believe so. If this film had been shot in Kansas City, a town I have never visited, I would have still been very much interested. Plus—R.O.T.O.R. is a palindrome! It’s not just a palindrome, though. It’s an example of the elusive acronym palindrome! With this revelation, I believe I may have just converted some skeptics into the rewarding world of R.O.T.O.R. Take this journey with me. Come with me and study with R.O.T.O.R. Like Donald Sutherland did, ask it if it will let you into the second grade.

Dam It All! A Close and Thorough Look at The Beaver

I would not have predicted success for “The Beaver” for two reasons: the presence of Mel Gibson and the presence of a hand puppet used as a character's way to communicate with his estranged family--plus it's Mel Gibson's character using the puppet. Director Jodie Foster may not have thought this film would generate huge box office success. She would have been correct. At the same time, however, the fact that she made this film, with the plot device of a beaver puppet and using Mel Gibson in the lead role took a lot of guts. I think the following goes without saying, but I feel compelled to say it anyway. In this posting, you will read a review of Mel Gibson as an actor in this film. This is not a review of the man. The positive things I will say about his performance do not equal an endorsement of the things we have heard about him in the media. Let's just stick to the movie.
“The Beaver” weaves an interesting tale about Walter Black, a man who, through various circumstances, becomes very depressed, so much so that his wife, played by Jodie Foster, tells him to leave permanently as she and their oldest son can no longer take the burden of Walter's depression. In one of the boxes of belongings he takes with him from his house, Walter finds a beaver hand puppet which he throws into a dumpster, but seconds later, decides to keep. Walter goes to a motel and after a night of heavy drinking and a tv set falling on his head, he is awakened by the beaver puppet he decided to keep. That is, Walter begins using the hand puppet, through his own voice, though mimicking a Cockney accent. Yes, the puppet’s voice ends up sounding like Michael Caine. Let’s move on.
Eventually, Walter returns to his home where his wife and two sons live and speaks to his youngest son and his wife through use of the puppet. Walter is too afraid/depressed to speak as himself. He uses the puppet as a way to speak to his family, yet not “be himself.” This is an interesting notion to explore in a film, however, little things detract from the film’s ability to carry through with it’s message without stopping to think about how absurd those little things are. For instance, one subplot in the film involves Walter’s oldest son, Porter (played by Anton Yelchin from “Star Trek” and the new “Fright Night”), being asked to write his high school’s valedictorian’s graduation speech. Porter is known around school for writing very good papers for classmates, so valedictorian Norah, (played by Jennifer Lawrence who was excellent in “Winter’s Bone”) asks him to write her speech. This seems logical, however, we learn that, while in junior high, Norah was a street artist, a graffiti tagger, for which she got into trouble and was expelled from school. I did not believe for a second that Lawrence’s character was ever a rebellious graffiti artist in junior high.
Another aspect of the film we are expected to easily believe is not the fact that Walter goes back to his job as CEO of a toy company, beaver on arm, but the fact that the nation, within, a few weeks, is so bowled over the toy concept Walter comes up with—some block of wood that is supposed to be carved into the shape of a beaver—and it comes with a beaver puppet. What’s even more illogical is that, as in many films from the 80’s and early 90’s, this new wood toy becomes so popular and Walter becomes so famous that his picture is on several national magazines, all conveniently displayed on a single magazine rack. This feels like something, like I alluded to, you might have seen in a 20-25 year old film to show how popular a particular person has become. We even see Walter on the NPR program,“Fresh Air with Terry Gross.” Fifteen to twenty years ago, the film may placed him on “Larry King Live.”
Again, as an idea for a film, “The Beaver” held my interest. All of the performances are very good, especially Mel Gibson, Anton Yelchin, and Jennifer Lawrence. All three have proven themselves as fine actors in the past. The fact that Mel Gibson is in the film and that the film is about a man speaking through a beaver puppet could easily have been distracting, however, I did not let those facts distract me. I believe that Jodie Foster intended to make a profound family drama, however, she inserts too many film elements left over from the 80’s and early 90’s which briefly took my attention away from the action of the film. Mass media has changed quite a bit in the last twenty years. It's as if Foster wants to show that Walter and his company have rebounded to become relevant again, however, the way she presents this rediscovered fame is not in line with current media. There is not internet presence of Walter's fame or that of his puppet. Showing a magazine rack with the subject of said fame's picture on the cover is an outdated way of showing that someone has skyrocketed to popularity. Wow, I did go on about that, didn't I?
That is just a little thing. There are a few plot points which are just too convenient and events in the film that occur and are smoothed over in a very short amount of time. If you see this film, there is one event in particular that is major, but, after it happens, it is as if the screenplay is saying, "Well, that's just a minor thing. We''ll just go on to the next conflict." Despite several of these distracting plot points, the film is successful in delivering it's message. It did not feel preachy or manipulative, which I always appreciate. I give "The Beaver" 3 out of 4 teeth. Dam it! I liked it!

In Defense of a Friday the 13th Movie

Liking a film for “what it is” is a difficult thing to explain. To say I liked “Friday the 13th Part 6: Jason Lives” may make some people want to throw something at their computer or call me names. I do not care. It will be a difficult matter to explain why “Friday the 13th Part 6” is a good film, but I will make the attempt.
At first mention, it would be far too easy to talk about all of the things to dislike in installment number 6 of the Friday the 13th series: deaths of random people at the hands of Jason, dumb teenagers running around, no motivation for the killings. Yeah, that is too easy. The teenagers and some of the ancillary characters in this film are likable, which is why some rewriting should have taken place allowing some of the kids and ancillaries to live. The film is definitely the funniest in the series as it uses humor several times to diffuse the reason for the film’s existence. The problem with this is that along the way, it introduces a few funny and likable characters, only to have them killed off minutes after we meet them. That is where the rewriting should have come in. It is not a great idea to introduce likable characters, then kill them shortly thereafter. This is one way the film falters. “Wait a minute! I thought you said you liked this one!” I did, but I do have a few problems with it. What I have detailed so far is my main issue with the film. As I stated before, the teenagers in the film are not goofy, lifeless automatons either. They are well-played by some good young actors including Thom Mathews, Jennifer Cooke, Renee Jones, and Ann Ryerson. It would have been nice to see more live than die in this film. The producers could have gotten the requisite amount of kills in, but allowed the more interesting and likeble characters to live.
In Part 6, Jason is played as a cartoon character. You could, I suppose, discuss the morality of this, however, it is a discussion that is, in the end, futile as films like this are meant to be taken for what they are: money-making endeavors by Paramount Pictures in the 1980’s. What is interesting about this particular film and what makes it better than most of the other films in the series is the humor director, Tom McLoughlin uses. Yes, life is to be cherished and watching representations of death onscreen, especially in films like this, is not always pleasant. At the same time, however, knowing that what I was watching was a money-making venture, but that the director attempted to make it better than just another factory-made product increases it’s entertainment value. The director is no simpleton and realized what he was getting into, so his effort to do a bit more than churn out a piece of junk was appreciated. I have listened to the director’s commentary track of this film. It is clear that McLoughlin took the duty of making this film seriously and that his motivation was to lighten the mood. What more could he have done, quite honestly, other than the rewrites I suggested earlier?
“Friday the 13th Part 6” is not a brilliant piece of filmmaking. It also is not an abysmal piece of filmmaking and would not be deserving of being brushed off as just another “Dead Teenager Movie,” as Siskel and Ebert used to refer to these types of films. If they would have read what I have written today back in 1986, they likely would have wanted to fight me. By the way, for the record, Siskel and Ebert are awesome! I have watched every incarnation of their show since 1983. I have not always agreed with their assessments, however, they articulate their views flawlessly. The new show, “Roger Ebert Presents At the Movies,” with Christy Lemire, Ignatiy Vishnetsky, and occasional reviews by Roger Ebert through the use of a narrator speaking for Ebert, is very good as well. Two reviews in one blog post—That’s Value!!
One more attribute in favor of "Friday the 13th Part 6"--Ron Palillo, Horshack from "Welcome Back, Kotter," is in this film. It's always pleasant to see Ron Palillo.

I Am Positive About This

Why are people sometimes so negative? This is not an easy question to answer, however, I hope to enlighten, or at the very least, entertain as I attempt to briefly explore why negativity seems to be a more welcome trait in our society than positivity.
I do not claim to have been an optimist for the entirety of my life. For, I would estimate, many of my 38 years, I have been quite pessimistic and perhaps, at times, unpleasant to be around. I use this as a preface for this little essay because I do not want to appear preachy. I do not enjoy negativity. I would much rather make people laugh with little jokes or in the course of pleasant conversation rather than carry on about how such and such is stupid or this thing or that thing is dumb. I believe I have been beaten down by people I have met throughout the course of my life who carry with them so much negativity that I want to react in the opposite way. If someone is a Bitter Benny, my response is to either not react at all, attempt to be Vulcan-like and point out where their logic is flawed, or point out something positive so as to diffuse their bitterness or their complaining. Which one of these I do depends on the situation. I believe life runs much more smoothly through positivity. I do not intend to try to do any convincing here or direct anyone to a book which comes to mind called, “The Power of Positive Thinking.” I have never read this book or any self-help book. I do not claim to be any better or any worse as a result. This is simply a rationale I have developed over the last five years. In those last five years, I have had the honor of meeting some exceptionally positive-minded people and some exceptionally negative-minded people. Witnessing the dynamics that grow within a positive and a negative environment is quite interesting. I am not making any sociological breakthroughs by stating that positive people who are like-minded in their positivity create a very pleasant environment. In the opposite way, negative people who are like-minded in their negativity foster a negative environment.
So why the heck would anyone want to gravitate towards the negative environment? It likely depends on each individual’s current state of mind, which is formed by a myriad of factors. Let’s just say that life is going fairly well. Life is never perfect, so let’s just say it is going fairly ok. If this is the case, why gravitate towards complaining, saying ugly things about people, putting people down, etc? Seriously---what is the emotional profit in that??? If it is only to make yourself feel better about yourself, then that is a shame. Again, I feel it necessary to point out that I have only recently adopted this opinion and there are several people I have in mind to whom I attribute this way of thinking. I have been very fortunate to know these people.
I do not expect all people to adopt my way of thinking, nor do I have the naive idea in my head that everyone should hand flowers to each other and should never ever get mad about anything. Of course, this is unrealistic, and by our flawed nature, will never happen. I still get mad, I let it out, but then it is usually over. Since we each have our own free will, I just wonder sometimes why more folks take the negative course than the positive one.
The "Comments" sections on news organizations websites, or even on IMDB sometimes, are full of negative comments about pretty much any news story. I know that the anonymity of the "Comments" section keeps you safe to spew whatever bile you have to say, but, the hate that flows forth within User Comments sections of websites is sad and discouraging.
One more thing I thought about while writing this---since I write a lot of movie reviews on this blog, will you see any negative reviews? I am sure you will. I will attempt to not attack anybody personally, however, as this is in no way helpful to the reader of any review on any website, newspaper, television program, etc.
I hope to be able to continue following the way of thinking I have described. It would definitely help me to spend five years studying with a Vulcan master, however, it is not only very difficult to find one near where I live, but also, I do not want to be devoid of any emotion, though, I can see the appeal of this. Anyway--I will try to continue being positive and to spread the word. So everyone f*** off!! Just kidding, of course.

Some Perfectly Rational Thoughts About Music and It's Place In My Brain--Part 1, aka How Pocky the Kitty Fixed the Toilet and Ate a Glazed Donut

The reason I like a particular song is rarely because of the lyrics—how they speak to me, the deep philosophical meaning of what they are saying, etc. If I like a particular song it is because I like the melody and the arrangement of the instrumentation in that song. I include the voice of the singer/singers in any given song. The voice of the artist does not only provide a way of conveying the subject matter of the song, but it also serves as a separate and unique musical instrument. Sometimes I wonder what percentage of folks like a song for the way it sounds as opposed to the lyrics. Join me now as I embark upon a musical journey of previously unseen depths and precision!
If I like a song enough, I will eventually listen more closely to the lyrics and end up memorizing most of the song and singing along with it in the car. I love Billy Joel’s 1973 song, “Captain Jack” from his Piano Man album. This song is about a lonely young man who drowns his sorrows in whiskey. That is simplifying the song, but essentially, Billy Joel goes through a list of several things that are depressing the young man and at the end of each lyric, Billy suggests that the young man drink some Captain Jack to forget about his troubles. This song does not speak to me lyrically. It sounds great, however. The combination of the arrangement of the instruments used in the song and the always great voice of Billy Joel make for one of my favorite songs. Billy Joel has a unique voice. I tend to gravitate towards songs sung by artists who I deem as having unique voices. Of course, everyone’s opinion of what is unique is different, so I will not pursue that at this time. The best part of “Captain Jack” is the use of the Hammond organ in the last minute of the song. Any time Hammond organ can be effectively included in a song, I am on board. I do remember that upon listening to the lyrics, I was impressed by them. Again, they did not speak to me but they were creative and easy to memorize should I want to sing along with Billy in the car. Here is a fun anecdote regarding “Captain Jack:” I first heard this song when I was working at a movie theater in Irving, Texas. The manager of this theater decided to play Billy Joel’s Greatest Hits (a double cd collection) and Elton John’s Greatest Hits Volume III in a continuous loop. Looking back—that was genius. I was introduced to Billy Joel and Elton John from working at this particular theater in 1990 and 1991. One day in 1992, I think it was, at one of the theater employee meetings, there was a cd destruction ceremony. The manager who had decided to play all Billy and Elton had been transferred to another theater so there was a changing of the guard. As part of this change, a destruction of the previously named cd’s was performed. Looking back, I really, really, really wish I would have just offered to take the cd’s home and the overplaying of these fine artists in some people’s eyes would just be a distant memory. They are both great albums and were not deserving of such poor treatment. You may look forward to more entertaining, homespun anecdotes such as that one in future posts.
Gerry Rafferty’s 1978 song, “Baker Street” from his City to City album is another one of my favorite songs. After listening to this song several thousand times over the last 25 years, I have deduced that it is simply about a woman who is trying to forget about the man who cheated on her. Rafferty suggests that, “…the sun is shinin’, it’s a new mornin’…” What makes this song brilliant, is the three minute instrumental finale, including some fine saxophone and electric guitar playing. Stay away from the short version of this song and seek out the longer, 6 minute, 30 second version. I never tire of this song. I remember first hearing this song in the car with my mom, probably in 1978, the year of it’s release. I believe she was listening to KLIF AM when they were still playing music and back when there were AM stations playing contemporary music.
At this point, I would like to consider the merits of Elton John’s 1971 song, “Levon,” originally found on his Madman Across the Water album. This song does contain some brilliant lyrics, however, again, it was the way it sounded musically that attracted me to it. I will say, though, that any song that contains the lyrics, “….and Jesus, he wants to go to Venus, leavin’ Levon far behind, take a balloon and go sailin’, while Levon, Levon slowly dies….” is fantastic in my estimation. As well, I always enjoy hearing Elton “whoo” at the end of the song. What? Towards the end of “Levon,” after the lyrics, “…and he shall be Levon, and he shall be a good man…,” Elton lets out a “Whoo.” This is not a lyric, but rather, it is just a musical interjection he belts out. I do not know if it was intended originally or if it was one of those things he did because it felt good musically.
In the future posts about music, you may look forward to more thoughts about specific songs I find to be appealing. Until then, keep your feet on the ground and keep reach-----wait! That’s what Casey Kasem would say. Make it so! No—can’t use that—that’s Jean-Luc Picard’s line. Maybe I’ll come up with something later.

Tear Down the Wall Between You and the Fortress

If you have ever wanted to see a film that one could say is a cross between a Steven Spielberg film and a Quentin Tarantino film, I have one for you. The 1986 Australian film, “Fortress,” fits this description pretty darn well. “Fortress” stars Rachel Ward as schoolteacher, Sally Jones, who teaches a class of about twelve students in a small village in Australia. I do not recall any mention of what part of Australia the film is set, however, it is not terribly relevant to the plot—just as long as it’s not supposed to take place in the outback, which it does not.
At the beginning of a normal school day, a group of four thugs, wearing masks, kidnap the students and the teacher at gunpoint, forcing them into the back of a van. The teacher and her students begin a frightening journey through the area around their village which leads them to a hole in a wooded area which we learn had been prepared prior to their arrival by the four thugs. The hole is shallow enough for the students and teacher to slide down into. We discover that it is an underground cavern (do they make above ground caverns?). I hesitate, at this point, to go into describing the events that make up the remainder of the film, as the film contains very specific acts. In other words, Act I features the students and teacher being kidnapped and the events surrounding that. Act II is comprised of the arrival at the hole in the wooded area and what the students and teacher discover and how they react to the situation in which they find themselves. The remainder of the film offers quite a bit of excitement and opportunities to root for this group of young people and their teacher.
One interesting aspect of “Fortress” is the performance of Rachel Ward. She is perfect as the teacher who leads and corrals the students, as even in such a frightening position, the students still, at times, act like children. One could argue that presented with circumstances involving being kidnapped at gunpoint and witnessing some unpleasant things, children may not continue to act like children. Not being Dr. Benjamin Spock, the famous child psychologist, or a father, I cannot comment intelligently on how children would act in any given situation. I can imagine, however, that there might be some debate regarding the conduct of the children in the film, who range from ages 5-14. I did not have any issue regarding the conduct of the children. Rather, their conduct appeared to be a fairly realistic view of how children may act in the situations they are placed into during the course of the film.
Before starring in “Fortress,” Rachel Ward was already well-known for her performances in “Sharky’s Machine” (“Nobody Leans on Sharky’s Machine”), the tv mini-series, “The Thorn Birds,” and the 1984 Jeff Bridges film, “Against All Odds,” which features the great Phil Collins song, “Take a Look at Me Now.” It was great to see an actress who was already well-known appear in a relatively low-budget film in which she is the only well-known performer in the film. Her interaction with the young actors in the film is great and one may surmise (I’m gonna go ahead and surmise) that Rachel Ward perhaps created positive chemistry with her co-stars. I got the sense throughout the film that teacher and students were working as a collective group to attempt to find a way out of their horrible situation.
There are not many scenes of violence or gore in “Fortress.” This works to the film’s benefit as the film is, without a doubt, more about the characters and the gravity of their situation than about a display of violence. It would, though, surely receive an “R” rating, I believe, if reviewed by the MPAA at the time, however, it was made for Australian television, and, therefore, did not receive a rating, at least not in the U.S. “Fortress” feels, at times, like a Spielberg directed or produced film, like an adventure film for kids in which the kids embark on some kind of adventure. There is no doubt, however, after the first few minutes of the film, that this will not be so, however, the Spielberg-esque feel remains at times, despite the actions in the film.
At the same time, there are many aspects of the film that may remind one of a Tarantino film---of course, “Fortress” being made in 1986, Tarantino had yet to emerge in the filmmaking scene—nonetheless, I use Tarantino as a barometer for films with more of an edge than a normal, “safe-feeling” movie. Trust me, you will see what I mean if you either purchase “Fortress” or rent it from any of the fine online movie rental websites like Netflix. My barometer points towards an extremely positive reaction to “Fortress.” It is recommended highly and is a rewarding way to spend 88 minutes. Do not build a wall between you and this film. There is no need to defend against seeing “Fortress.”

Snail Male?

Did you know that most species of snails have both male and female reproductive organs? This being the case, I suppose one would be speaking correctly anatomically, but still not be speaking correctly in a physical sense, if one made the suggestion to a snail that it do something in particular to itself.

I Threw Myself Into The Pit

There any many movies that should not be considered under the normal rules of film criticism, whatever those rules may be. One such film is the 1981 horror film (??), “The Pit.” Although one would have found “The Pit” in the horror section of his or her local video store in the 1980’s, upon watching the film, one would likely come to the conclusion that “The Pit” is not a horror film, but, rather, an exercise in fun film insanity. That is high praise. Not just any film can be labled as “fun film insanity.”
“The Pit” establishes itself as 90 minutes of good fun within the first five minutes when we watch young Jamie Benjamin, played by Candian actor, Sammy Snyders, leading a class bully and said bully’s girlfriend to a nearby woodsy area where there is a pit in the ground. The bully is led to believe by young Jamie that there will be a bag of various treasures in the woods. If you forget about what happens in this scene, don’t worry because this very same scene will be repeated about 45 minutes into the film. It was very nice of the filmmakers to give us a brief refresher course regarding this opening scene in the middle of the movie. So, Jamie pushes the bully and the bully’s girlfriend into the pit, after which we see an opening credits sequence that reminded me very much of the opening of a tv show. You’ll see what I mean. I was hoping to see a title card at the end of the opening credits that would inform me that this episode’s Special Guest Star would be Pernell Roberts, or, maybe a post-Star Trek/pre-T.J. Hooker William Shatner.
Through the course of the action in “The Pit,” we learn that Jaime’s parents are out of town. Jamie is being looked after by babysitter, Sandy O’Reilly, played by Canadian actress, Jeannie Elias. We learn, as well, that Jamie is given instructions from his teddy bear, Teddy, to feed the creatures that live in the pit, called trogs. At this point in the film, we have already been confronted with a few surrealistic elements which further the entertainment value of the film. It is established in the film that Jamie is 12 years old, however, the actor appears to be older, perhaps 14. The fact that this boy of 12 years who looks older, has a babysitter is not terribly strange. The fact that the boy sleeps with a teddy bear and the fact that his babysitter bathes him are interesting. These definitely amp up the cooky factor of the movie. Now—the fact that the teddy bear speaks to Jamie is not so strange. In a horror film, one expects extremely strange things to occur and I maintain that a teddy bear speaking to and giving directions to a young boy to push various people into a pit full of creatures called trogs is not out of the ordinary, given the circumstances. The strangeness simply presents itself in the form of awkward situations within the film. There are several instances in “The Pit” of awkward music cues. For example, there is a pit throwing into montage scene in which Jamie dispenses of three people within five minutes of screen time. After each kill, the music cue used is one of whimsy, such as what you might expect in a scene involving a cute dog rolling around in some leaves.
It is never clearly established why Jamie is of a mind to push people he does not like into a pit, however, because this film is so much goofy fun, I did not mind. If you are looking for any analysis into what is going on in the mind of Jamie, you will not receive any.
“The Pit” is an example of a movie that I wanted to see after looking at it’s one-sheet poster. The poster includes all the essential elements of the film: the strange kid, Teddy, some Polaroids, and the trogs. This sold me and I hope it sells you on seeking it out. I am forever thankful that I sought out this awesome film. If you are looking for a fun, strange film to enjoy, I recommend throwing yourself into “The Pit.”

There's Always Room For Bill Murray

In one scene of Mitch Glazer’s “Passion Play,” there appears in the foreground a bottle of scotch whiskey sitting on a table. The label on the bottle says, “Gordon Shumway Scotch Whiskey.” You may remember that Gordon Shumway was Alf’s name on his home planet of Melmac. The appearance of that bottle is one reason why I somewhat enjoyed “Passion Play.”
The main reason I decided to watch this 2010 film was the cast. “Passion Play” features Bill Murray, Mickey Rourke, and Megan Fox. The plot is fairly simple, but if you let it, it may mystify you. I almost let it mystify me, but I did not try to take it so literally, although, it almost works as just a literal storyline. What does all that mean? The plot of “Passion Play” is as follows: Mickey Rourke plays a man named Nate who gets into trouble with some gangsters, mainly because he has sex with the wife of the mob boss, Happy Shannon, played by Bill Murray. At the beginning of the movie he is about to be shot by some of Happy’s goons, but is rescued by someone who shoots and kills the goons. Nate, tired and dazed, wanders into the countryside of what appears to be southern Arizona, perhaps near Mexico. He discovers a traveling carnival which features the typical movie carnival things—a bearded lady, a ferris wheel, and a woman with wings.
The woman with wings is played by Megan Fox. The winged woman is named Lily. She travels with the carnival as a woman who sits in a lighted, glass booth and displays her wings. That really is pretty much all she does in the carnival---but she has wings and can kind of fly. Not only is she super hot, but she has wings—that is a powerful combination. Anyway, Nate and Lily end up leaving the carnival and venturing out into a new life together. Nate falls in love with Lily. Happy Shannon wants to kill Nate for having sex with his wife. Happy also, after learning about the woman with wings, wants her as his own. What follows is interesting, but is not the wonderful cinematic experience it appears the filmmakers thought it might be. I enjoyed it and would watch it again, maybe in a few years. The performances of Bill Murray and Mickey Rourke are very good and make the film a bit more interesting than it might have been without them. Megan Fox’s performance is good as well. Her wings are a product of some below average visual effects, but she still sells them well. I believed that her back did hurt as a result of having wings to lug around.
“Passion Play” is one of those films that made me think, up until the final scene, "So, what does this all mean---Megan Fox has wings, Bill Murray is a gangster who hosts a fancy-looking event in which the winged woman is in a glass booth on a stage in an opera house, Mickey Rourke is down and out again, there’s Gordon Shumway scotch whiskey." If you watch the whole movie, I believe clarity will kick in at the end. I could be wrong and some may figure out what is going on ten minutes in, but sometimes I am not that quick. One thing that should be addressed is that a passion play is a dramatic representation of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. As hard as I tried, I could not make any connection between what Nate was going through in the film and the life of Christ. I really did try, but I failed.
It is always agreeable to see Bill Murray in any film, I am still very happy for Mickey Rourke to be on the path to what hopefully is a Robert Downey Jr-like comeback, and, of course, Megan Fox is one of the sexiest women alive and (let me be unashamedly male here) hotter than heck! Even though the title of the film and the events in the film do not seem to match (you could make a tenuous case after the final scene for them matching), there is enough in the film that is of interest to make it worth 90 minutes of your time, especially if you are a Bill Murray or Mickey Rourke fan. It is neither fascinating nor profound, but it is interesting. If you have enough passion for either Murray or Rourke, give it a play.