Escape From New York (1981)

Plot: Set in a future Dystopia where Manhattan is a high security prison, convict Snake Plissken is sent in to rescue the President of the United States.

This was one fun action movie. All that's missing are a few Arnold Swargenagger one-liners. Getting old pros like Ernie Borgnine and Lee van cleef to support Russell was a stroke of genius casting. Little did the filmmakers know that NYC in 1997 would not be a burnt out shell but one of the most richest places in the world.

Overlord (1975)

Plot: During World War II, a young British lad's called up and, with increasing sense of foreboding, undertakes his army training for D-day

Lets be honest, most war movies that pretend to be "anti-war", really aren't. Our hero may go through hell but survives. Or if he does dies, its a hero's death, in the last few minutes. So, I often wondered, what if a war movie tried to be different, and had John Wayne or Tom Hanks killed in the first reel. That would not only be more shocking, it would be more realistic.

And "Overlord" sorta does this. Filmed on a low-budget and only 83 minutes, the movie incorporates lots of actual WW II footage. It does this so well, it seems part of movie. The actual footage is used to give a sense of realism, as we follow an average Englishman as he goes through basic training to his first battle, D-Day. Where he is killed, before he steps off the landing craft.

Its different. And interesting. But not particularly entertaining. And not suitable for a commercial movie that wants to put "Bums on the seats". And the hero is just an average man. And not charismatic.

 Its an good experimental film. It shows up the fakery and childishness of war movies like Private Ryan with their cartoon heroics and flag-waving propaganda. But that doesn't make it the sort of movie you'd pay money to see.

Barking Dogs Never Bite (2000)

Barking dogs never bite: unpolished, leisurely, often funny, sometimes dull korean comedy. I’m sure a lot of the comedy got lot in translation, but this dark comedy about Dog killers had me laughing a few times. But while there are quite a few humorous moments,  too often the film just seems to be marking time, and all the leading characters seem likable but muted. The humor is often realistic, which jokes are more “one off” than building off each other. The director throws in quite a bit of social commentary. The obvious point is that Korean society cares more about dogs than their poor.

Highpoint has to be the “Boiler Jim” story, and the heroine’s rescue of the dog at the end: Other good bits:

•  The heroine expects to get large sum from “Granny” but instead she only get dried radishes
•  Several clerks approvingly watch a Chinese women fight a bank robber
•  The absurd story of a man who get drunk, leans over the tracks to vomit, and gets hit by a train
• A man tries to dispose of a barking dog, but finds something or someone always frustrating him.

Again, probably a lot of the humor probably went over my head, since comedy is often about violating societal norms. And what may be considered outrageous or Kooky behavior in Korea might not be in the USA. he film's Korean title is satirically named after the 1872 novel A Dog of Flanders, a European pet story that is very popular in parts of East Asia.

Star Trek TNG - Season 3

Sins of the Father:  This is my favorite 3rd Season Episode so far.  We get some excellent "World Building" as Worf goes before the Klingon High Council to defend his Father's name, after discovering he has a younger brother.  Tony Todd is completely believable as a Klingon and as Worf's brother.  I loved the look of the Klingon World too.  Great set design.  Bad things?  Well, the Klingon's do shout quite a bit, don't they?

Yesterday’s Enterprise: Supposedly one of TNG’s best episodes (9.2 rating) but I didn’t like it much. It shows up TNG’s greatest flaw, casting. The producers were so interested in winning diversity bingo, they skipped talent and fitting the part. The two guest stars are bland and the female one is completely unbelievable as the former Captain of the Enterprise. How can you go from Picard/Kirk to her? Sorry no sale. Meanwhile, we get far too much of the wretched Whoopi with her silly outfits and bad acting. Rounding out the horror show is Ms. Crosby with a butch haircut and dull personality.

Deja Q - A fun, comic episode with Q having to deal with being busted down to Human. Of course, its only temporary and the episode ends with Q back to his omnipotent self. Making it even better is we get less Whoopi than normal. For reasons unknown to anyone but the Producers, they always guest-star Whoopi on a Q episode. Thank God for John de Lancie. Funniest line: “I’m not good in groups. It’s difficult to work in a group when you’re omnipotent.”

A Matter of Perspective – There’s nothing special about the story but I enjoyed this one, primarily because I’m a sucker for Rashomon type episodes and movies. It also gives Frakes a chance to do some acting.

Sarek – Absurdly overrated episode with old TOS favorite Mark Lenard. The years haven’t been kind to him, and he seems far too muted. The story itself is no great shakes. The problem is we cared about Sarek because he was Spock’s father. By himself, he wasn’t particularly interesting. You can say the same about Mark Lenard. He was fine in small doses as the supporting actor with a strong script, but not particularly good as “THE GUEST STAR”.

Hollow Pursuits -  Moderately amusing episode about an shy crewmember who's intimidated by his "Bosses" on the Enterprise and spends too much time in the Holodeck. This one probably hit home for a lot of "Trekkers" since so many of them are intelligent shy people who have escaped into the "Trek world".  Guest star Dwight Schultz does an amazing job with an underwritten part. And the comedy world of his Holodeck fantasy was quite amusing. But  there's just too much technobabble and too little plot. And last act is dull.  The writers  give us the usual "X overcomes his handicap and saves the day" Highpoint was Picard as a Musketeer and the real Riker talking to a Holodeck Riker. 

The Most Toys - Picard and the gang think Data has been killed in a shuttle explosion but in fact has been kidnapped by a Collector/Trader of rare objects.  Well written, if overly familiar story that has two good things and two bad things.  The good? An excellent performance by Spiner and an interesting examination of Data's character.  The Bad? A mediocre guest star.  The part needed an actor with the charimsa of a Harry Mudd or Gul Dukat.   Instead, we get a snarky little weasal/nerd. His sidekick wasn't much better.  And I'm getting a little tired of every villian being a  white guy. Where are the female/black villians?     

Menage à Troi -  A Ferengi "Comedy"-  about as good as you'd expect. 

Transfigurations

The Burbs (1984)

Plot: A comedy. A strange, scary, family moves into a suburban neighorbood - making everyone curious
Stars: Carrie Fisher, Tom Hanks, Bruce Dern

Comedy is subjective, and I didn't find this one funny.  Dern (playing his weirdness for laughs) and likable Hanks  have a few good moments, but there's just too much yelling, overly-broad comedy and silliness for my taste.  Also,  the supporting cast wasn't that good.  I kept wishing John Candy was in it.  The 'burbs, gets worse as it goes along,  by the 70 minute mark I was pushing the FF button.

Typical Joke: 

Ray Peterson: I've never seen that. I've never seen anybody drive their garbage down to the street and bang the hell out of it with a stick. I-I've never seen that.

Prince of the City (1981)

Plot: A NYC Detective decides to expose corruption in the police force. Based on a non-ficiton book.

I got sad about half-way through Prince of the City. It had started out so well and had so many good Cop characters and supporting actors. Along with quite a few realistic, well done, action scenes.  I liked Treat Williams too.

But after while, it just got to be too much.
Too un-focused , too confusing, too little plot movement, too many characters, too many lawyers, too many dull court scenes, too many scenes of regret and shame, too much gloom, too much overacting, and too many perfunctory family scenes. Not to mention, too dull.

I finally had to turn it off after 100 minutes (with 80 to go). It wasn’t a film, it was an endurance contest.

So what went wrong?
Two words: Sidney Lumet. Not only did the Producers give him almost creative carte blanche (and $10 million budget) they agreed to his demands of no stars, and a 3 hour run time. Throw in that he co-wrote the screen play in just 30 days, and you got the resulting mess. It takes Lumet 3 hours to get from A to A.

This movie should have been 2 hours, tops.
And the script should have been rewritten and made more focused and dramatic. This story needed better structure, fewer characters and more plot movement.

It also has two inherent problems

Its based on a true story (which limits the drama) and low-level Police corruption really isn’t that engrossing. Drama needs villains and corrupt policeman don't make good ones. Nor are the stakes that high. How upset can you get at NYC Cops shaking down drug dealers or skimming off drug dealer money? Or care about them being convicted?  I cared a little, but not 3 hours worth.

Highlights:  Gritty 1980 NYC and those Big cars.  Ron Karabatsos as a slimy bails bondman

The Gambler (1974)

Stars: James Caan, Lauren Hutton, Paul Sorvino

A pointless movie of a NYC college professor addicted to gambling and making huge risky bets. Driving the plot is Axel Freed (Caan)’s need to come up with $44,000 or face the wrath of the Mobsters. We follow him as makes even more crazy bets, sponges off his well-to-do Mother, and tries to appease and buy time from Loan sharks/Bookmakers. We also get some dull scenes with Axel teaching college students and we get the standard boyfriend-girlfriend scenes with Hutton.

This is NOT a nail-biting, “OMG how is Alex going to pay off the money and not get killed” thriller. It’s more of a leisurely character study of a self-destructive gambler. Even worse there’s really only one character: Axel Freed. And there's almost no humor or charm and very little entertainment. The Gambling scenes fail to transmit the thrill and excitement gamblers must experience.

The movie expects us to identify with Mr. Freed, be intrigued by him, and root for him. But that’s just a given - there's nothing put on the screen that makes us care.  He makes no effort to cure his gambling habit,  he's gotten in trouble before and gotten bailed out by his rich relatives, and outside of his gambling habit there's nothing particularly interesting about him.  By the end, I was tired of him. So, when Axel absurdly goes to Harlem and tries to bait a pimp into killing him,  one wishes it were so.  But sadly, he only manages to get his face slashed.

And Caan doesn’t help matters. He just doesn’t have the charisma/acting chops to draw us in. Caan’s too self-contained, its all surface emotion. We feel neither Axel’s ghastly compulsion nor his intermittent exultation. And Caan doesn’t wear well - he can’t “carry” a movie for 120 minutes.

Summary: Watching a young Paul Sorvino, and a few scenes of 1970s NYC was fun. And Hutton was attractive - but mostly I was bored with “The Gambler”. We get too many scenes of Caan driving a car, talking to college students, or talking to his mother. Or Axel telling some bookie “I’ll get your money, just wait”. Again, the whole thing seemed pointless.  A small time movie about a small-time man you  really wouldn't want to know. Who was the target audience for this?  I dunno.  It sure wasn't me.

The Mystery of James Caan

James Caan always seems to be a bigger star then he actually was. Partly, it was luck. He got co-star/supporting roles in memorable movies (Misery, Dick Tracy, Brian’s Song, and The Godfather) or was paired with a popular actress in one of thieir star vehicles (Funny Lady, Comes a Horseman). And partly it was because he was the darling of  Studio Execs/Producers and Pauline Kael in the 1970s. Robert Evans, for example, wanted Caan as “Michael” in the Godfather. And the director of “The Gambler” chose Caan over DeNiro for that role.

It’s not clear how popular Caan really was, because most of his starring movies in 70s weren’t very good and did mediocre business. After watching Thief and The Gambler, it’s clear he couldn’t carry a movie on his own. He just wasn’t in the same class as De Niro, Pacino, or Redford. 

Thief (1981)

Plot: A Jewel Thief hooks up with the mob, and learns to regret it.
Stars: James Caan, Tuesday Weld

Thief suffers from some big problems.

• We get a lot of scenes where we see Caan stealing stuff, but none of it is interesting or clever. It’s all tension free.  We never think Caan is in danger of being caught. And the ending shoot-out is bloody but boring
• Ala "Miami Vice" we get a pounding soundtrack.  But that cant make dull scenes exciting. 
• The entire Tuesday Weld subplot is boring. Its seems to serve two purposes: To pad out the movie and draw in women viewers. But Weld is given no believable dialogue and her character is paper thin.
• James Caan is usually a likable actor.  But the dialogue and delivery makes him unlikable. And he simply isn’t “Cool” enough or tough enough to carry off the Film noir dialogue. One hundred minutes of Jimmy Caan is too much, he just doesn’t  acting chops to carry a movie. This one needed Pacino or De Niro.
• I didn’t care about lead character. But then what’s to like? His surly attitude? His arrogance? His desire to be rich without working? His willingness to steal and kill?
• Unrealistic characters, dialogue, and situations. Caan is always the smartest guy in the room. Also, tougher, more skilled and more courageous. He’s a film-noir superman. His only mistake is trusting the Mob Boss in order to get a baby for his wife. Otherwise, he can out-talk, out-cuss, out-fight, out-steal, and out-shoot everyone. He always knows exactly where to go, and exactly what to do. And somehow, after 11 years in jail, he has no problem running a successful used car business. Or penetrating the mob bosses lair. Or stealing zillions in jewels
• In order to make this criminal our “Hero”, Michael Mann makes Caan the crook with the heart of gold. He owns a bar and used car lot and everyone loves him. After a heist, he shares a bag of bagels and small talk with an old black man fishing on the lake. He wants a family and a house with a white Pickett fence (just one more score), he rescues a damaged waitress who can’t have kids and marries her, he grieves for his “The father I never had” who dies in prison, and he wants nothing to do with stealing from homes, just big jewel heists or “cash”.
• And he’s the most noble man in the film. Unlike the mob boss, the corrupt cops, the crooked judges, and the nasty unfeeling social workers and adoption agency employees, this “Thief” just wants what’s right. Sure, he’s a crook who steals other people’s valuables, but damn it, he has principles!
• So when the mob boss betrays him, and kills his “Jimmy Caan worshipping” sidekick, he does what any superman/filmnoir/noble person would do. He blows up his car business, his house, his bar, and sends his wife/baby away with $400,000 dollars. And then kills the mob boss and six henchmen and then walks away. The only man in America with a code of honor.

Summary:  This was Michael Mann's first draft for Heat.  Watch that instead. 

Killer Joe (2011)

Plot: Based on an off-Broadway play, a Dallas Hitman helps a Trailer park family kill their mother for the insurance money
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Juno Temple, Emile Hirsch

Sometimes disgusting, sometimes darkly funny, sometimes chilling, and sometimes dull, Killer Joe is always well acted. Particularly by McConaughey. In fact, he's the only reason to see the movie. There are some clever lines, but basically its a low budget, filmed play, with some silly fight scenes and ketchup violence.

Frankly, its hard to rate. I'm full of admiration for the well-cast actors, and the last 30 minutes or so held me spellbound. But the first 20 minutes, before "Killer Joe" talks about killing the mother aren't particularly interesting, and the "romance" scenes between "Killer Joe" and Dottie are equally dull. Even at 106 minutes the movie is far too long. There's no point in discussing the score or the Direction because its a filmed play.

Reading the reviews, the "sophisticated" MSM reviewers seem to like it, while many average reviewers regard the movie as "garbage" or "brutal and ugly" . The problem is its hard to tell what the movie was going for. If they were trying to make a black comedy "cartoon" with a family so horrible, we laugh at them, they failed. We do laugh at one hapless character because he's so completely cucked and dumb. But the other three family members aren't particularly funny. And the realistic gore and violence completely negates the comedy.

And 3 other factors reduced my enjoyment. The first was the depressing, downscale, "Trailer Trash" atmosphere. The second was the realization that only white texans/southerners can be portrayed this way. No Hollywood Film exec would allow people of color or Jews to be made such trashy degenerates. Even in jest.

And the third was unneccesssary sexual vulgarity and blood splattering violence. Of course, its Williams Friedkin, so I wasn't surprised.

Summary: I doubt I'll watch again, but I can't say I disliked the movie. Its incredibly uneven. There's a good movie in the material, but it needed someone with more taste and more talent at the helm

To Live and Die In LA (1986)

Plot: A Secret Service agent vows revenge against the Criminal kingpin who killed his partner
Stars: William Dafoe, William Peterson, John Pankow

In 1986 the film failed to connect with a mainstream audience and did modest business.  Its seems people thought it vulgar, souless and mechanical.  

And I  agree. I found it unoriginal, overly long, overly familiar, & often unbelievable. It’s the sort of action movie where the Heroes drive 50 MPH  the wrong way on a crowded freeway and never get a scratch. Or get shot at with a zillion bullets, all of which miss, while the soundtrack pounds away.

At the 30 minute mark,  I  told my wife "Hey, this is just like an episode of  Miami Vice"  And whatta y'know?  Michael Mann agreed, since he sued Friedkin for plagiarism.

The movie does have some good points.

 Dafoe is a good villain. The chases and action scenes are well executed, full of  absurdity and adrenaline. And we get some clever lines here and there.

Best Line:  That doesn't mean I'm gonna roll over and play informer. If you're looking for a pigeon, go to the park.

But the movie is underwritten, and slackly directed.

It more or less dies when people stop shooting and chasing each other.  And I kept hitting the FF button, because I either knew what was going to happen, or nothing was happening. And the characters are clichés. 

Cardboard Characters

William Peterson, the vengeful cop, isn’t really given a background or character. He’s a trope. “Plays by his own rules” “Will do anything to win” . So is his partner: he's the cop with ethics, who expresses doubts, but ultimately goes along. Dafoe is also a familiar trope: the suave ruthless villain who uses everyone, is an expert crook, drives a great car, has a great house, knows great art, and has a beautiful girlfriend. The women? Just ciphers there to be eye candy or engage in sex.  

Most Surprising Supporting Actor

Jane Leeves, aka Daphne Moon, shows up as one of the villains beautiful girlfriends!

At 2 hours, the movie doesn’t have enough plot to fill the time

So, Friedkin pads out the movie with some rather odd scenes. For example:

• A half-naked Dafoe working out and lifting weights
• Flashy night club dance scenes

• Our hero bungee jumping to the cheers of onlookers

• An irrelevant prologue about Arab terrorist trying to assassinate the President.
• A  meaningless showdown between Dafoe and a black hit man who’s botched the job.

What the Critics Said:
Not surprisingly, To Live and Die in L.A. received mixed reviews. 

The Washington Post said: "To Live and Die in L.A. will live briefly and die quickly in L.A., where God hath no wrath like a studio executive with bad grosses. Then again, perhaps it's unfair to hold this overheated and recklessly violent movie to the high standard established by Starsky and Hutch.” 

Time magazine:  "The movis has a brutal, bloated car-chase sequence pilfered from Friedkin's nifty The French Connection, - but its a fetid movie hybrid: Miami Vile.”