Better Call Saul -TV - 2015

Plot:  The trials and tribulations of criminal defense attorney (and former conman) Jimmy McGill before his meeting Walter White. 

I had a hard time getting into this one.  Sleezy lawyers and con-men are not my favorite characters.  Although labeled a "crime drama" the first episode seemed more comic than dramatic. Maybe, I will give it another shot later on. 

Crooklyn (1994)

Plot: Spike Lee's semi-autobiographical story a 1973 black family with five kids in Brooklyn.

I always find Spike Lee hit or miss. This is a miss. Spike was going for vibrant, funny, and touching but ended up with loud and annoying. Given the mediocre script and lack of charm and story, this needed a much better cast.

Oppenheimer (2023)

Plot: Biopic of Physcist Robert Oppenheimer, Head Scientist at the Manhattan Project
Stars: Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jnr,  Elizabeth  Blunt

First, my hats off to Christopher Nolan, not many film-makers could make even a C+ movie about a subject so intrinsically boring and un-dramatic. The acting and cinema-photography were great and kept me awake, but all the flashbacks, cut edits, horse rides, sex scenes, train rides, explosions, B&W photography, wonderful set design, and period authentic costumes’, couldn’t make what was actually said very interesting, or the actual story being told engaging. Or make me care about Oppenheimer.

It was a puzzling choice by Nolan. 

Why did one the 21st Centuries most successful Directors decide to tell the now obscure stories of Oppenheimer’s 1954 security clearance trial and 1957 Admiral Strauss’ Senate confirmation hearing? Or dwell on Oppenheimer’s private life? Even the one part of the movie that should be fascinating, the building of the A-bomb, really wasn’t, because we know the bomb worked, and “building the bomb” isn't dramatic - it’s just talk about physics and formulas on a black board.

And then there’s Oppie himself.

Like most scientists, Oppie wasn’t a fascinating dramatic character. And other than being one of many important scientists involved in the Manhattan project, did nothing to deserve a $100 million movie.

Why was I supposed to care about any of this? 

Nolan seems to think we’re supposed to root for Oppie against all those “nasty anti-communists” who are trying to get him. But since there’s nothing particularly likable about Oppenheimer and he REALLY WAS communist, there was no emotional engagement.

The focus on Strauss was even more puzzling, he wasn’t confirmed as Secretary of Commerce, and…so what? 

 Summary: Frankly, it was a struggle to get through 3 hours of it. And I’ve read several books on Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project. You could make an interesting movie about Oppenheimer, but he would have to be the villain: the cagey traitor trying to help the USSR, while the heroes at Army intelligence tried to uncover him. Needless to say, that movie will never be made.

Addendum: The Movie’s Leftwing Slant
The left of course, never forgives, and never forgets. For years the Left denied Oppenheimer was a communist or even a communist sympathizer. He was just a wrongly accused Liberal, completely innocent, unjustly persecuted by those dastardly McCarthyites.

Verona and Soviet archives showed otherwise, but the Left is still in there pitching, now trying to claim that Oppie may have had communist sympathies, but he was no Soviet Spy. And those right-wingers who accused him are still evil. Well, OK.

The fact that Oppenheimer didn’t PERSONALLY give atomic secrets to the NKVD means little. It would have been stupid for the Soviets to jeopardize their key spy by having him do that. What the soviets needed was for Oppenheimer as the project leader, to be unconcerned with security, approve communist scientists and technicians for the project, and establish an “open workplace” where ideas could widely circulate. And that’s exactly what Oppenheimer did.

When his brother Frank was contacted by Soviet intelligence, Oppenheimer did not report it. Later, after the war, he opposed construction of the H-bomb, and argued for giving Soviets the A-bomb secrets as part of a “deal”. Which is exactly what the Soviets wanted.

A History Lesson on American Communists
People don’t seem to understand that large numbers of Americans were communists but did not have communist party membership or pay dues. Sometimes CPUSA refused to allow people to join the party, or had them leave, thinking they would be more useful as Non-members. For example: Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss both “left the party” – because it was more useful to be able to pose as Non-communists. Many of the most significant Stalinists, who cooperated with the Party, attacked anti-communists, and provided information to the party/USSR, were not FORMAL members. They never joined or they “left the party” when they became more famous. Like: Lillian Hellman, Betsy Blair, William Wyler, Martha Gellhorn, Anthony Blunt, Kim Phil by, William Straight,

Oppenheimer claimed to have not joined. But his wife, brother, mistress, and closest friends were all communists. And when he hired his lab assistants, they were all communists. And when the Nazi-Soviet was signed, Oppenheimer flipped on a dime and wrote pamphlets opposing the entry of the USA into ww ii, until June 22, 1941, when he flipped back to being a warhawk.

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.”

Ziegfeld Girl (1941)

Plot:  In the 1920s, three young girls join the Ziegfeld Follies and find Fame and Tragedy
Stars: Judy Garland, James Stewart, Lana Turner, Heddy Lamar

Ziegfeld Girls has some great stars and great musical numbers, but I was often bored by the overlong (2 hours and 12 minute) often melodramatic story. And I kept wishing it was in color.  Turner and Garland steal the show.  Best musical numbers:

• Garland - "I'm Always chasing Rainbows"
• Garland - "Minnie From Trinidad".
• Winnager and Shean - " Mr. Gallagher And Mr. Shean"

Chinatown (1974)

Plot:  In 1930s Los Angeles,  a PI investigates the mysterious death of the LA Water Commisioner
Stars: Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, John Huston, Diane Ladd

Chinatown has everything a great film-noir needs except wit, pacing, and action. Chandler wisecracks are missing and replaced by vulgar jokes. Memorable lines? None. Gone too is the sense of danger and excitement found in Double indemnity, Maltese Falcon, or The Big heat. Instead we get a film that is deliberate, sometimes slow to the point of dullness. The plot meanders; with too much focus on land deals and water rights. We even get a trip to the Owen’s Valley. And action? Well, we do get a knife to Nicholson’s nose, but mostly it’s just talk, talk, talk.

The film copies the old film noir’s -  but forgets what made them great. But it does improve on them, in some ways. The color photography is great. The acting is too, particularly Nicholson and Faye Dunaway. And movie tries to be more realistic.  Nicholson is no super-hero and no smarter than he should be.

But the greatest flaw is it exaggerates film-noir's “dark and gritty” aspect to the point of absurdity. If the older films had adultery, premarital sex, and (implied) homosexuality, Chinatown gives us not just incest, but double incest. If the old movie villains were cold-blooded gangsters and criminals, Chinatown gives us a villain who murders his own Son-in-law, and destroys entire Valleys. If the old films showed us police/poltical corruption,  this movie gives us the police shooting the Heroine to death (for no reason) and letting the Villain go off to make millions and commit incest.

Except for Nicholson and Dunaway, everyone is painted in dark colors, and the whole world is a black joke wrapped inside a pretentious riddle. “Forget it Jake, its Chinatown”. It’s quite a trip from Walter Neffs friendship with Keyes, or Marlow and Sam Spade getting justice.

But then the movie was made by Polanski, a man guilty of child rape, and who fled the USA to avoid punishment.  And has been applauded and showered with riches.  Maybe Noah Cross is a Polanski self-portrait.

Worst supporting actor
A tie between Polanski and John Huston. As a "hood", Polanski is no more menacing than a 12 y/o kid. Huston has a great voice/physical presence but can’t act. He’s Johnny one-note stone-face. Special mention goes to several clichéd “Hicks” and a Mexican boy on a horse.

Best Supporting Actor
Diane Ladd as “Ida Sessions”

Best quote
Evelyn Mulwray: Hollis seems to think you're an innocent man.
Jake Gittes: Well, I've been accused of a lot of things before, Mrs. Mulwray, but never that.

Worst Quote
A pointless 226 word racist “Joke” that had them rolling in the aisles in 1974

Best Scene
Nicholson’s first couple meetings with Dunaway

Worst Scene
In a campy scene worthy of SNL, Nicholson slaps the truth out of Dunaway. “She my daughter, She’s my sister,” She’s a topping and a floor wax! Special mention to two useless scenes: (1) Nicholson gets beat up by farmers and (2) talks to a child on horseback.

Rewatchablity 

Low. Once you know the plot, and all the twists and turns, Chinatown seems even more padded out and slow then it did the first time. In fact, on 2nd watch, the movie is shown to be hollow and  souless.  A plot held together by bubble gum and toothpicks.  One begins to notice things.  Like what's the point of Nicholson wearing a bandage on his nose, or  the weird exaggerated  veils and outfits the women wear. And how dull so many scenes are, and how bad the supporting actors are. And how fake the film's version of 1930s LA is. It comes off as a 70s Hollywood copy of a 40s Hollywood copy of reality.

Zardoz (1974)

Director John Boorman
Stars: Sean Connery, Charlotte Rampling.
Plot:  In the 23rd Century, a brutish trained killer finds his way into a community of bored immortals who've preserved humanity's achievements.

What Kael Thought:  A lushly photographed piece of twaddle....ideas skimmed off various systems of thought...a glittering cultural trashpile...the most fatuous movie since The Oscar... the passages between the laughs droop. 

A cult SF movie that is despised by  the majority of reviewers (5.6 IMDB rating).  Most find it absurd, others boring, and a few like it.  I found it very uneven, and I perfectly understand the low rating.  

The first act is boring and incomprehensible.  We get almost no dialogue, as we follow a half naked Sean Connery riding a horse, killing people, worshiping a floating stone head,  and being transported to the "Immortals" compound.  We have no idea what's going on - and what IS going on isn't that intresting. The whole section feels padded out and moves at a snails pace.  I'm sure most people never make it past the first 20 minutes.

But then it gets interesting.   In the second act, we learn Connery is amongst the "Immortals" who cant die and who are bored and can't have sex.  Connery is the subject of great interest and the next 45 mintues are quite engaging as we learn about this new society. It seems immortality isn't what its cracked up to be, and quite a few "Immortals" are unhappy.  And since its Sean Connery, quite a few are attracted to him. 

This is the best part of the movie,  beause the last act (35 minutes) is extremely drawn out.  We get a lot of chase scenes, people chanting and moaning,  weird cameras tricks and psychedelic special effects. And all to pad out the very simple plot:  Connery destroys the Vortex and brings death to the immortals.  The movie ends in a very cheesy scene, with "the exterminators" on horseback, coming in and killing all the immortals just like they had killed the "brutes" at the start.  Some of this is interesting but most of it is padding with no interesting dialogue. 

Summary:  I can see why most hate this movie and also why some like it. Its best seen on DVD, where you can FF past the boring, repetitive parts (which is to say about 50% of the movie).  The ideas behind the movie are derivitive but somewhat interesting,  and I'm sure clever people have read into the film more than what's actually there.  Boorman has some good things in the movie, but it needed a script doctor and bigger budget. 

Rewatchablity:  Low. Once you know the plot, a lot of the movie will be extremely boring. Probably the only way to rewatch would be to focus on Connery's interactions with Charlotte Rampling and Sara Kestelman and a few striking scenes and special effects.

Cruising - 1980

Plot: A serial killer is wrecking havoc on the Manhattan Gay "Leather Scene". Al Pacino goes undercover to catch the murderer.

Starring Al Pacino and directed by Academy award winner William Friedkin, Cruising was panned by the critics and did modest business in 1980. Nominated for a "Razzi" it lost out to Can't Stop the Music. Today its seems fairly popular (over 27,000 IMDB Votes) but poorly rated (IMDB Rating 6.5).

Pluses: Acting. Karen Allen, Paul Sorvino, and Pacino are all exellent in their parts.  Also, there are a few good action scenes and some realistic* (if stomach turning) gore.

Minus: The screenplay and story are terrible. Repetitive, sluggish, and unengaging. No memorable dialogue. Supporting characters are forgettable. Take out the Gay angle and its a TV-movie of week. Or an episode of NYPD Blue.

All the characters are boring, even the serial killer**. The atmosphere is unappealing with constant shots of a "shocking " Gay club, full of unattractive men in leather and odd outfits. No one in the movie is likable, except Karen Allen.

Summary: This mediocre movie should be forgotten. Only watched today due the famous people involved and cultural politics.

* =  The realism doesn't apply to the skin color of the actors.  This is Woody Allen Manhattan where 95 percent of the people are white. 
** = Absurdly, despite taking place in NYC, the killer is a WASP college student from St. Louis!

Dragnet 1967 - Season 3

This is probably the worst season of 1967 Dragnet. I only found about 8 episodes that are worth re-watching. Another 10 were unwatchable, and the rest were passable timewasters. At times, Dragnet season 3 seems like a public service program with episodes instructing people to not be bigoted, abuse  kids, or do drugs. We also get a lot of Pro-police propaganda, with Sgt Friday dueling with those who don't like "the fuzz". Or dull episodes about the inner workings of the police department like how (1) policewomen are trained or (2) the LA PD coordinates with the secret service . Solving crimes takes a backseat.

50 years later, this is very all dated and very boring.

On the plus side, Harry Morgan gets to show off his comedic talents, and Friday does solve a few crimes. Probably the best is Herb Mustin showing up as murder suspect. 

 Top Episodes:

1. S0306 - The Boys investigate a muder - but the witnesses wont talk
2. S0307 -  Friday/Gannon are assigned the Robbery Division Desk for a night
3. S0312 -  Investigation of Police Brutality -  Adam 12 leads show up
4. S0314 -  Herb Mustin is involved in Murder
5. S0317 -  Friday is under suspicion for corruption
6. S0320 -  A fraudster is cashing disability checks sent to dead people
7. S0321 -  Someone is stealing comic books and movie memorabilia
8. S0322 -  Friday/Gannon go undercover to break up an illegal gambling scam

Worst Episodes

S0301 -  Friday guests on a TV talk show with the topic "Who needs the police?"
S0303 -  Recruiting Blacks to the LA PD

S0304 -  Friday mans the command post when riots are forecast

S0308 -  Friday provides LA PD protection for the President

S0309 -  A reporter and Friday talk to Female police Cadets  

S0310 -  Small businessmen want to prevent crime - Friday helps out

S0311 -  Teens organize a club to stop drug use

S0313 -  Gannon /Friday attend a conference dealing with Predjudice

S0316 -  The boys help train a dog to sniff out MJ and other drugs

S0319 -  Friday lectures a Women's club about battered children 

Nightmare Alley (1947)

Plot: An amoral Tyrone Power rises from carnival barker to nightclub performer and becomes involved with a black-mailing pychiatrist.

This is widely considered Powers greatest performance, and I can't disagree. Power's is excellent as the ambitious con-man who tries to rise too far, too fast. In fact, everyone gives an excellent performance. The movie is perfectly cast, with Helen Walker as the standout supporting actor.

Nightmare Alley is an extremely well-done movie, and I wish I had enjoyed it more. The camera work is lush and its made with great craftsmanship. Unfortunately, I dislike Carnivals, mind readers, and magic shows. And the middle part of the movie dragged for me. The film was 110 minutes, and ten minutes in the middle could've been cut. However, it ends with a bang.

And I'm dubious about the Film-noir label. Its more of melodrama. The only crimes are fraudulent cons involving speaking to the dead. Can you really have film noir without murder, detectives, or a femme-fatale?

Best Scene: Helen gives Stan $150 instead of $150,00. When he gets angry, she convinces him he's going crazy.

Best Quote: I think you're a perfectly normal human being. Selfish and ruthless when you want something - generous and kindly when you've got it.

Agee's Review:

It would be unbearably brutal if it was played for all the humor, cynicism, and social observation impicit in it, It would be unbearably mawkish if it were played too solemnly. The movie makers have steered a middle course, now and then crudely but on the whole with tact, skill and power. They have seldom forgotten that the original novel they were adapting is essentially intelligent trash, and they have never forgotten that on the screen pretty exciting things can be made of trash. From top to bottom of the cast, the playing is good. Joan Blondell, as the fading carnival queen, is excellent and Tyrone Power – who asked to be cast in the picture – steps into a new class as an actor".

About Willliam Grehsam, the Author of the Original Novel:   

Gresham's life could have been the subject of a movie. Gresham had a life long battle with alcoholism, and was a communist from the late 30s (serving in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade)  till the mid 40s. He spent years in pyschoanalysis , then converted to Chrisitianity, and when that didn't take,  moved on to Ron Hubbarb's dianetics, and then to yoga/Hinduism. Grisham's pattern seems to have been falling for some "belief",  losing his "faith", and attacking it later.  His only consistency was his lifelong obession with carnivals and magic shows.  He died at 53 of mouth cancer (no doubt caused by a lifetime of drinking/smoking).  But he was honest about his talent:

I have no illusions about myself as an ‘author’—I am a hack writer who approaches writing as a trade like cabinet making. I have taught many classes in short story writing; the students probably learned very little but I always learned a lot, listening to myself sound off on how short fiction should be put together.

Hill Street Blues - Season 3

 Well, Police Story is looking better and better the more  “TV Cop shows” I watch. Hill Street Blues is awful. Incredibly the soap opera quotient exceeds that of NY PD Blue. And:

•  Characters were dull.
•  Too many characters and subplots.
•  Too much Talk, talk, talk.
•  The lead actor is good but charmless.
•  Dennis Franz is excellent but has limited screen time.
•  Everyone else is bland or mediocre. James Skiing in particular, is laugh-out loud terrible
•  Kiel Martin’s face looks like 30 miles of bad road.

Here’s what I’ve concluded. Unless you have some great writing, I don’t want to watch a TV show about characters/actors I don’t like or find boring. You’re a flawed character with issues? Do not care. You’re dark and gritty?  Do not care.  You're a groundbreaking character? Do not care. You’re a strong woman, a black authority figure, a Gay who's the first of his kind on TV?  Do not care. You're stark and realistic? Do not care.

Be likable. Be interesting. Or be gone.