10.

Review #1461: 10.

Cast: 
Dudley Moore (George Webber), Julie Andrews (Samantha Taylor), Bo Derek (Jenny Hanley), Robert Webber (Hugh), Dee Wallace (Mary Lewis), Sam J. Jones (David Hanley), Nedra Volz (Mrs. Kissell), Brian Dennehy (Don, the bartender), and Max Showalter (Reverend) Written and Directed by Blake Edwards (#329 - The Pink Panther, #481 - The Party, and #899 - A Shot in the Dark)

Review: 
"For someone who wants to practice his art in this business, all you can hope to do, as S.O.B. says, is stick to your guns, make the compromises you must, and hope that somewhere along the way you acquire a few good friends who understand. And keep half a conscience"

Blake Edwards was a good director when one was in need of a laugh. He had started a career in film as an actor, working in small parts beginning in 1942 (having turned 20), but he soon found more interest in being behind the camera instead. After serving in the United States Coast Guard, he started writing with Panhandle (1948), which he co-wrote and co-produced with John C. Champion. He made his debut in directing with television in Four State Playhouse (1953) and film with Bring Your Smile Along (1955), while having also been behind the creation shows such as Richard Diamond, Private Detective (1957-60) and Peter Gunn (1958-61). With a string of hits and misses, Edwards is best known for The Pink Panther film series, which he directed/wrote eight of the nine original films (1963-1993); additional highlights include Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961), Day of Wine and Roses (1962), and S.O.B. (1981).

The original actor intended for the title role was George Segal, who walked off the set right as filming began, apparently because he felt that Edwards was using the film and Segal to help give Andrews a revival (with a song and dance sequence being included for her). Beyond the fact that it never hurts to have more of Andrews (in her third collaboration with Edwards, her husband and first film in five years), it is amusing to think that music prodigy-turned-comedian/composer Moore stepped in and found a bit more footing in Hollywood roles because of such a silly decision. As for the film itself, it is a fair charmer that works well as a comedy of human nature - in this case, a crisis about reaching middle age and wanting something you just can't have. In this case, it just so happens to be a younger woman, and Moore is quite amusing enough to make his quixotic pursuit a reliably amusing one, one with a fine sense of timing whether with others or when left to other devices that make a comedy of predicaments. Although Andrews isn't in the film as much, she makes for some reasoned moments, just as bright and quick to resonate with care and a bit of singing to go as well. Derek (in her second film role that gained her a following while known primarily as the star of  numerous films directed by her husband John) makes a worthy match in being the ideal alongside having a touch of humor for when she is given to do for the climax. Webber makes for a cheeky presence in parts while Dennehy proves an interesting presence to pair with Moore to fill out the highlights of a decently packed cast. The gags are fairly more hit than miss (whether involving telescopes, the beach or passerby cars-and-phone calls), which go with a casual 70's flair for a fair curiosity. The film does run a bit long at 122 minutes, with a first half that runs a bit sillier than the second one, but there is enough amusement and charm present to make a useful capsule for its time with some relevance today about getting old and trying to fling away from it all - for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The list for next month of the 1980s...stay tuned.

Apocalypse Now.

Review #1460: Apocalypse Now.

Cast: 
Marlon Brando (Colonel Walter E. Kurtz), Martin Sheen (Captain Benjamin L. Willard), Robert Duvall (Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore), Frederic Forrest (Jay 'Chef' Hicks), Sam Bottoms (Lance B. Johnson), Laurence Fishburne (Tyrone 'Clean' Miller), Albert Hall (Chief Phillips), Harrison Ford (Colonel Lucas), Dennis Hopper (Photojournalist), G.D. Spradlin (General R. Corman), Jerry Ziesmer (Jerry, Civilian), and Scott Glenn (Lieutenant Richard M. Colby) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola (#592 - Dementia 13 and #1139 - Supernova)

Review: 
"We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment, and little by little we went insane"

The 1970s were a tremendous decade for Francis Ford Coppola, so it only makes sense to cover the last film of that era, one characterized by the highs and lows of the "New Hollywood" movement.
He had a hand in six films for the decade: Patton (1970, co-wrote the screenplay), The Godfather (1972, director and co-writer), The Conversation (1974, as writer, producer, and director), The Great Gatsby (1974, screenplay), and The Godfather Part II (1974, co-writer, director, producer), and this film. Coppola was born in Detroit but raised in Queens, New York as the son of music composer Carmine Coppola (who would work with his son on a couple of his films). He graduated from both Hofstra University and the UCLA Film School (the former in theater arts and the latter in film), with one notable influence on Coppola being Dorothy Arzner, a former film director who was on the staff at the time. Coppola's career in film started in 1962 with three films: The Bellboy and the Playgirls, Tonight for Sure, and Battle Beyond the Sun (the first and latter were English edits), with his next feature being the cult classic Dementia 13 (1963). He spent the next few years doing a few scripts and further directorial efforts (such as the hit You're a Big Boy Now) before the aforementioned luck in the 1970s, where he won a total of five Academy Awards on fourteen nominations.

This was inspired by Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, written in 1899 under the inspiration of his travels on a river steamer sailing up the Congo River (both focus on a character named Kurtz). The screenplay was written by John Milius and Coppola, with narration by Michael Herr (a war correspondent most known for his book Dispatches that detailed his experiences in Vietnam). The initial director in mind to do the film was George Lucas. He worked for years with Milius to develop the project while busy with other scripts, and he had wanted to do it after THX 1138 (1971) with the intent to shoot in both California and South Vietnam on a modest budget of $2 million with 16mm cameras and real soldiers, although this did not come to pass. Coppola was eventually drawn to the script and initially aimed to produce the film before eventually pressing on to do it himself, which he had described as a "comedy and a terrifying psychological horror story". It would take years to ultimately plan and shoot the film, since it was originally set to be a four month shoot in the Philippines for release in 1977. There were of course a few obstacles that made this impossible. The original choice for the Willard character was Harvey Keitel (since others like Steve McQueen did not want to leave America for a significant amount of time), but Coppola soon found that Keitel was not quite right for the role, which led to Sheen being brought in. Describing the amount of production quirks almost sounds like a routine of dark humor. A typhoon wrecked a majority of the sets not long after production started. Sheen had a heart attack that took him off filming for a month (with his brother Joe filling in as a double and voice over at times). Brando showed up to the set severely overweight and hadn't read the script or the book. The film premiered in May 1979 at the Cannes Film Festival while not fully finished at three hours (where Coppola famously stated that his film was not about Vietnam but rather was Vietnam). Nowadays there are multiple editions to possibly view, such as the original 153 minute version, Apocalypse Now Redux (2001, which re-inserted deleted footage that runs at 196 minutes), and Apocalypse Now Final Cut (2017, which was trimmed to 183 minutes).

For a film that runs at a significant length and with such production quirks, it is amazing how well the film works as a look upon the dark parts of a man's soul when it comes to the horrors of war with such tenacity and depth to make for one of the most seminal films of its era and for epic war films as a whole. It is an experience like no other in ways that other films could only dream to do in terms of haunting timelessness, because it is something that can linger in our mind now more than ever. For a man who had his quarrels with Coppola and takes his time to show up in full detail, Brando generates a tremendous performance of stature, a poet warrior's voice from the dark that is intently fascinating to view in those moments for the clear-minded-but-darkened-soul that doesn't have to say much (Coppola edited down a rambling monologue by Brando to only a few minutes) to generate awe. Sheen follows along with great ambiguity, a passive presence that we have absolutely no trouble in following along with in a path of weariness as a changed man of war, right from the very first scene where he punches a mirror with his bare hand. Duvall makes for quite a fanatical presence in such a quick amount of time, a man that we can smell the napalm with in clear detail. The others in the cast prove worthy to travel along with, including a young Fishburne and a dazed Bottoms to go with the eccentrically on-point Hopper and bit highlights for Spradlin and Ziesmer. This is not a film that tests one's patience as much as it is one that probes into your patience, filled with a tremendous look by Vittorio Storaro in cinematography that makes a devastating classic worth checking out as a portrait of what can drive a man to certain actions in war under the guise of morality that leaves its audience fully stunned and ultimately satisfied for having watched it.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Phantasm.

Review #1459: Phantasm.

Cast: 
Angus Scrimm (The Tall Man), A. Michael Baldwin (Mike Pearson), Bill Thornbury (Jody Pearson), Reggie Bannister (Reggie), Kathy Lester (Lady in Lavender), Bill Cone (Tommy), Mary Ellen Shaw (The fortune-teller), and Terrie Kalbus (The fortune-teller's granddaughter) Written and Directed by Don Coscarelli.

Review: 
"I had no plans, when I made the first Phantasm, to create a myth. I was only trying to make an effective low-budget movie, which might propel an audience member or two out of their seats on occasion. If anything, it was the fans who elevated our little tale into myth."
Sometimes there is nothing better than an ambitious horror film to watch, particularly ones with a small budget and an interesting perspective in mixing fantasy and the supernatural to make for a cult favorite and a shining achievement for writer-director-editor-cinematographer Coscarelli. This was the third film of his career, which had started at a young age with a liking for cameras and filmmaking. At the age of 18, he started production on his first film in Jim the World's Greatest (which he co-directed and co-wrote with Craig Mitchell), which he help sell to Universal Pictures at the age of 19 for release in 1975. The next year came Kenny & Company, which was also a family film (both being dramas, with the latter verging into comedy). Each had actors that would appear in this film, such as Baldwin, Bannister, and Scrimm. All in all, Coscarelli has directed ten films (with one being direct-to-video) while being involved in all five films of the Phantasm series, which had its last film (not directed by him) in Phantasm: Ravager (2016).

The idea for the film came to Coscarelli in a dream, one where he had to escape never ending marble corridors with a sphere of chrome and needles chasing him. There are plenty of little things that made for a quirky classic, such as its interesting editing that make for a disjointed haunted feel, done to turn its initial cut of three hours (with plenty of subplots and character development) into a faster paced 89 minute film, made on a budget around $300,000 (with his father being the primary producer) over the course of two years with shooting done on weekends with a rented camera that could be used for 20-hour shoots. The result is a weird but ultimately involving film that rises above its low-budget trappings to make for a worthwhile experience, moving and interesting with its family story and style for a jumble of scares worthy of a curiosity (with a recent restoration on Blu-ray being the best way to seek it out). It isn't exactly a film for the acting to levy much praise, but Scrimm is certainly the one to fit the role. Scrimm was a journalist and liner note writer (where he won a Grammy for Best Album Notes - Classical in 1975) before he took on acting, which he would cultivate a niche for appearances in films from time to time over the next few decades (including all five Phantasm films) prior to his death in 2016. It isn't hard to see why he has a status of his own in cult followings, since there is something quite unnerving about his presence, one where he doesn't have to speak much in order to raise a scare by being oneself. Baldwin and Thornbury make for a curious pair, bonding in the inevitable path from figuring out what they are dealing with fair candor and timing. Bannister, an actor alongside flower delivery man and club worker (who has starred in all five films) proves a fun-loving presence with plenty of resourcefulness and charm. The film achieves a middle ground between making compelling chills and gore (the spheres appear just twice but prove effective) contrast with the shift in reality in our understanding of its main threat, where following along is only half of the battle. Combined with a creeping music cue from Fred Myrow and Malcolm Segrave, this turns out to be a weird but ultimately satisfying film with delving into death and dreams to make a worthy cult classic to check out and follow along with as a film of its era in horror.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Deer Hunter.

Review #1458: The Deer Hunter.

Cast: 
Robert De Niro (SSG Michael "Mike" Vronsky), Christopher Walken (Cpl. Nikanor "Nick" Chevotarevich), John Savage (Cpl. Steven Pushkov), John Cazale (Stan), Meryl Streep (Linda), George Dzundza (John Welsh), Pierre Segui (Julien Grinda), Shirley Stoler (Steven's mother), Chuck Aspegren (Peter "Axel" Axelrod), and Rutanya Alda (Angela Ludhjduravic-Pushkov) Directed by Michael Cimino.

Review: 
"I don't make movies intellectually, I don't make movies to make a point, I make movies to tell stories about people."

War can lead to plenty of actions, and films revolving around (or about) the war is one of them. Vietnam was no different, although it certainly reflected differently than other film revolving about war, whether involving the war or coming home from it, and there certainly are differences from films such as The Green Berets (1968) when compared to this, Go Tell the Spartans, or Coming Home (all 1978) or later ones like Apocalypse Now (1979) and Platoon (1986). It should only figure that a film like this would come from an unknown in Michael Cimino, who was certainly an eccentric when it came to a rise to stardom that was as quick as his fall in a varied career of seven films. He was a graduate of Michigan State University in graphic arts in 1959 along with subsequent study at Yale for art that was followed by work in advertising and commercials during the 1960s (with a stint in the Army reserves for six months). He decided to take on screenwriting in 1971, with his first script being Silent Running (1972) with Deric Washburn and Steven Bochco. He helped write Magnum Force (1973) with John Milius before writing Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974), which was liked enough by Clint Eastwood to have Cimino make his feature directorial debut. He would ultimately win two Academy Awards for his involvement with this film, which he also co-produced and co-wrote (winning for direction and for Best Picture), but his next film Heaven's Gate (1980) turned out to be such a tremendous failure (with far more budgetary overruns than this and numerous edits that has a complicated legacy) that led to a curtailed career.

It isn't too surprising that the film went through plenty of turmoil in production. The budget rose from eight to fourteen million dollars in budget, and Cimino's perfectionism seems to really come out during its wedding sequence (which makes one really feel like they are stuck in a wedding), with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond once describing him as being "difficult to deal with...very stubborn...He wanted it the way he wanted it." There are four different writers credited for the film: Deric Washburn wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Cimino (also co-producer), Louis Garfinkle, and Quinn K. Redeker (the original idea was done by the latter two about Russian roulette in Las Vegas) There is certainly an allegorical feel to this film, albeit not without its own controversy about where it tries to go with its depiction of war (the Russian roulette sequences with POWs is most prominent in that discussion). The basic nature of this film is a portrait of three steelworkers having their lives changed after fighting in the Vietnam War, and it is De Niro and Walken who help to steady a film wracked with plenty of show and say about itself and the nature of change that goes in a man when seeing war, which makes for a curiously decent (if not tremendously flawed) experience for 184 minutes, a mixing of commonplace and agony. De Niro (who had apparently prepped for the role by hanging around with steelworkers in bars and visited their homes as one of them) proves quite compelling with strength that we see come out during the film even as it gets darker and darker. Walken proves just as devastating, rolling along with the agony of war and chance that makes for a soulfully fascinating watch whenever he is present, whether involving roulette or writhing in bed, and the sequence between him and De Niro at the end with roulette (the second time, with the first being just as tense) being the best part of the film in seeing the degree of madness one can do in the company of others. Savage makes the last piece of the veteran trio count just fine, an involving performance that goes along with the others that accompany some interesting moments with Cazale (in his final role before his death) and Aspegren (an actual foreman at a steelworks) that share clear contrast of bonding from the first to the last half of the film. Streep rounds out the cast with grace for a role that could've faded in the background with a less talented actress but here is done with care.

On the whole, the one feeling I had with this film was a sense that I should have liked it more than I did. I acknowledge that the film works fairly well as a tragic look on the nature of friends changed by their experience in war, but its attempts at building a detailed story that borders on excess for a ultimate three hour length nearly overwhelms the whole experience into chaos. The Vietnam sequences are the best part of the film, in part because I really seem to remember them better (because one needs authenticity, it was actually filmed with rats and mosquitoes) than the events that transpired before them, although the parts after coming back from the war do work in cultivating heartbreaking curiosity. Whether there is enough or too much setup to make this story truly work, the film does turn out to be worth a watch in the achievements that it does do in its acting and some of its riveting somber moments, which make up for its tests of patience that have made it a masterpiece in some eyes and tedious in others, and I find myself firmly in the middle. I didn't love what I saw, but I sure didn't hate it either.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Eyes of Laura Mars.

Review #1457: Eyes of Laura Mars.

Cast: 
Faye Dunaway (Laura Mars), Tommy Lee Jones (Lieutenant John Neville), Brad Dourif (Tommy Ludlow), René Auberjonois (Donald Phelps), Raúl Juliá (Michael Reisler), Frank Adonis (Sal Volpe), Lisa Taylor (Michelle), and Darlanne Fluegel (Lulu) Directed by Irvin Kershner (#002 - RoboCop 2, #114 - The Empire Strikes Back, and #595 - Never Say Never Again)

Review:
"The thing what you learn in directing is that no matter how complex the shooting, you have to remain sensitive to the people around you or the machine will ultimately take over. If you don't keep in mind the essential humanity of it all, technique will dominate."

This is a film where you can think about what could have been in different hands. John Carpenter had originally written a spec script called "Eyes", which attracted producer-distributor Jack H. Harris (collaborator on Dark Star) to potentially make a film with Roberta Collins as the lead. However, Jon Peters soon caught wind of the script and found it intriguing to potentially do with his then-partner Barbra Streisand as the lead. She ended up not doing the film because of its violent nature (Dunaway being there instead of Streisand is the better choice at least), but she did end up doing the title song for the film. In any case, the film would have script re-writes by David Zelag Goodman (co-writer of Straw Dogs and Logan's Run); Carpenter later described the whole thing as an unpleasant experience, although he would obtain lasting success with Halloween (1978) just two months after the release of his film. Even the director picked wasn't the initial choice: Lindsay Anderson and Michael Miller both passed on the project before Irvin Kershner signed on. Kershner had plenty of study in music and art before becoming a director. He studied at the Tyler School of Fine Arts, the Art Center College of Design, and finally at the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts, where he taught photography and took cinema courses. A subsequent still photographer job at the State Department led to further opportunities around the world before he returned back to the United States, where he would start work in television in 1955. He made his feature debut with Stakeout on Dope Street (1958) which happened to be financed by Roger Corman, and this happened to be his 12th film in a fifteen film and 32 year career (who stated that while he believed the initial idea of the film, he did not believe the requirements put on him during production).

One can certainly give plenty of credit to the selection of the cast for this film, which has five tremendous presences headlined by Dunaway, who was quite popular at the time for her dedicated performances in films such as Chinatown (1974) and Network (1976). The one paired with her is Jones, who had cultivated his career in the 1970s with film and television (such as with One Life to Live and Jackson County Jail). If I told you there was a film with tremendous character presence in Dourif, Auberjonois, and Julia, one might really seem like you are in for a really great thrill. Technically one will get a thrill out of the film, but maybe not as much as it really could have been. We are talking about a film that has a character who gets real-time visions of a person who is taking out her friends and colleagues one by one through their eyes, after all (the reason for why she suddenly has these visions are not explained, probably for good reason since I imagine they didn't have a good idea either). It certainly seems promising, since the provocative set-ups for the fashion shoots are inspired by the works of Helmut Newton; there is no bad performance among the core five, either. It just so happens that the film doesn't really have that much mystery going on to it, where eccentricity and style seem to rule the day over making a mystery that seems out of Night Gallery (at least the mediocre episodes, anyway) than anything. It has been argued to be an American version of the giallo genre (Italian films with mystery elements in thriller-horror), although I imagine that if I actually had been familiar with giallo films that this would only seem a pale imitator. Dunaway balances out with dedication and vulnerability that keeps one on their toes for good reason, with a few moments of terror mixed in with a sudden romance with the capably straight-laced Jones. Auberjonois has a few campy moments that seem worthwhile, and Dourif is quite capable in being evasive without being too obvious about it (Julia however doesn't have as much time for ridiculousness). For 104 minutes, we have just four possible people that really could be the killer, and for some it may very well be obvious who it is by the halfway mark, so the only real interest is to see where it may go with its climax. And...it doesn't stick at all. Naturally, the killer just happens to sprinkle a few words before they go to attack the lead about why they are doing it (multiple personalities wasn't my first guess either), and then they haphazardly try to lumber at Dunaway before he tells her to kill him if she loves him. Honestly, I don't know to what to think with this film in a positive light, there just isn't anything here to really make me care about goes on with a premise so obvious and yet so empty in really scaring or captivating anyone that isn't just here for style or casting. I can why some may go for it and see through the flaws to make a cult classic, but for me I just see a half-baked misfire that takes its cast for a house of mediocre mysteries that isn't worth the trouble.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Saturday Night Fever.

Review #1456: Saturday Night Fever.

Cast: 
John Travolta (Anthony "Tony" Manero), Karen Lynn Gorney (Stephanie Mangano), Barry Miller (Bobby C.), Joseph Cali (Joey), Paul Pape (Double J.), Donna Pescow (Annette), Bruce Ornstein (Gus), Val Bisoglio (Frank Manero, Sr.), Julie Bovasso (Flo Manero), and Martin Shakar (Frank Manero, Jr.) Directed by John Badham (#086 - Short Circuit and #1293 - Dracula)

Review: 
"My mother was an acting teacher. She taught more of the existentialist style, which was that acting is believing that you're in the moment with the other actor, and I like that. I'm more comfortable portraying what I'm feeling at the moment and not knowing what I'm going to do next."
Some films are just made to endure for their era, for better or worse. The film was inspired by a story in New York magazine called "Tribal Rites of the New Saturday Night", written by Nik Kohn as a supposed detailing of the disco scene of the time (it was revealed two decades later to be a lie by Kohn, with the lead focus being inspired by a person in the mod culture that he knew in the 1960s). It should only figure that this was the film that helped John Travolta become a major star. The son of a tire salesman and an actress/teacher, he had dropped out of high school at 17 to do work in the stage (such as starring in a small role with a touring production of Grease). In 1975 (at the age of 21), he caught a break with a role in Welcome Back, Kotter, which he appeared on for four seasons. The film was produced by Robert Stigwood, a music entrepreneur along with film producer behind managing groups such as the Bee Gees along with film productions like Grease (1978) and Gallipoli (1981).
Another person who was helped by the success of this film was John Badham, who had done plenty of television work earlier in the decade and one previous theatrical film (The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings) that found his way into the film after John G. Avildsen was fired due to creative differences before shooting.

It's funny, for a film so popular like this one, I am surprised that there were actually two versions of this film that were put into theaters. With such a vibrant soundtrack and diverting dance sequences, it could almost be easy to forget the grimy realism that permeates throughout this 119 minute film. In response to the youth response to the soundtrack, Paramount Pictures released a PG-rated edit of the film two years later, which de-emphasized/cut out sequences involving profanity (some involving racial epithets said by some of the characters involving Puerto Ricans) along with references to drugs and a car scene near the end of the film (which involved the rape of one character along with the attempt of another character), with the end result being a 109 minute film. The version I watched was the director's cut, which re-incorporated two deleted scenes into the original film. If one looked at the film without the disco elements, what you see is a film wrapped with the question of what it means to try and live a life beyond the dance floor. One can't dance in a night club or hang out near a bridge talking the same jokes or things forever - in other words, we have to grow up sometime and do some sort of thing with our life beyond the little things we think is all to living. In this sense, Travolta does a tremendous job with making a fascinating lead to follow, a riveting and generally charming performance when on screen - whether on the dance floor or when dealing with the long and winding road of trying to grow up beyond Brooklyn. The others match up fine with making the moments in and out of the dance floor feel real enough, with Gorney and Miller leading the pack with fairly compelling turns when paired with Travolta wherever it wants to go. Although it is a film very much of its era (with fashion and disco, which had a decline in popularity just two years after release), it is a film with a basic foundation that can still apply today with a catchy beat, impactful moments of realism and a tremendous star turn for Travolta that makes it a worthy film to seek out then and now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Goodbye Girl.

Review #1455: The Goodbye Girl.

Cast: 
Richard Dreyfuss (Elliot Garfield), Marsha Mason (Paula McFadden), Quinn Cummings (Lucy McFadden), Paul Benedict (Mark), Barbara Rhoades (Donna), Theresa Merritt (Mrs. Crosby), Michael Shawn (Ronnie), Patricia Pearcy (Rhonda), and Nicol Williamson (Oliver Fry) Directed by Herbert Ross (#244 - The Sunshine Boys)

Review: 
"I think Herb Ross is the best director I've worked with in films. The others just don't understand my material as well."

"I always knew I was going to be an actor and that was that - no doubts, no uncertainties, no changing my mind. And that was when I was like, nine, ten. And it never changed."

It's good to make a comedy-drama when you've got the hands to make something meaningful. The film was written by Neil Simon and directed by Herbert Ross, who had collaborated with Simon in a group of films and plays that went from The Sunshine Boys (1975) to Max Dugan Returns (1983). Ross was a dancer-turned-choreographer-turned director, while Simon was a playwright and screenwriter that had started his line of work with radio before moving to TV with Your Show of Shows (1950-54), plays with Come Blow Your Horn (1961), and film with After the Fox (1966). Both lead actors had already had their moment in the sun rise in the decade in the year of 1973, starting with Dreyfuss in a quick rise from TV to American Graffiti while Mason made her feature debut in Blume in Love that led to work in theater with Simon (along with marriage after meeting during auditions for The Good Doctor). Simon had originally written a script named "Bogart Slept Here", which would have had Mike Nichols direct and Robert De Niro star in a film about the changes in an struggling actor's life after becoming a star. Production on that lasted just a week before De Niro was found to not being suited for the comedic aspects (with Nichols following later on), and Simon reportedly re-wrote the script in a span of six weeks.

For 110 minutes, one is presented with a fairly neat package of comedy and drama, rolling along with a few neat lines and some quirk-laced characters that interact with some zip to make a romance that paints its corners with fair conviction and enough moments to make it worth it. While it does prove awkward at times, Dreyfuss and Mason do eventually make things worth it in the build to establish interesting chemistry that makes the second half resonate with interest over the establishing half. Dreyfuss grows on you very quickly, having a spark of sensitivity and energy that inspires plenty of curiosity with good timing that drives as a bright charmer, whether that means trying to act in a play to his best or drunkenly reading scathing reviews of said play. Mason does well with what she is given, straight-laced but not too unapproachable for banter with Dreyfus or with Cummings, who makes for a fine family pairing to watch. The supporting cast is fine, with Benedict making for a worthy eccentric to see play out in his moments on screen, since the Richard III production scenes (based on an actual production that Mason had a part in) are generally the most amusing sequences in the film anyway, delivering a bit of perspective to what can go in a vision for something (regardless of how strange or funny it might seem). On the whole, when the film hits its mark in making you care for these characters, it hits with charm without needing to go overboard in one genre over the other to make a worthy watch for the era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A Star is Born (1976).

Review #1454: A Star is Born.

Cast: 
Barbra Streisand (Esther Hoffman Howard), Kris Kristofferson (John Norman Howard), Gary Busey (Bobbie Ritchie), Paul Mazursky (Brian Wexler), Joanne Linville (Freddie Lowenstein), Oliver Clark (Gary Danziger), Venetta Fields (One), Clydie King (Two), Sally Kirkland (Photographer), and Marta Heflin (Quentin) Directed by Frank Pierson.

Review: 
"Filming with Barbra Streisand is an experience which may have cured me of the movies."

"For us, the picture cost $6 million and a year of our lives. For the audience it's $3.50 and an evening out. If it's a bum evening, it doesn't make me any better or worse as a person. But if you think the film is you, if it is your effort to transform your lover into a producer worthy of a superstar, if you think it is a home movie about your love and your hope and your deepest feelings, if it's your life that you laid out for the folks and they don't smile back, that's death."
I think I had a pretty good idea of what I was getting myself into when it came time to do this film. It isn't exactly the first time I've seen this kind of story done of a film before. We've moved from romantic drama to musical to musical romantic drama when it comes to A Star is Born, and the easiest thing that can be said is that it certainly is the worst of the bunch in making a consistent romance and tragedy. It seems completely perplexed at times what to do when the camera isn't incessantly focusing on Streisand (who also served as executive producer for the film) as the whole thing threatens to collapse as an ego experience. It is only the curiosity of seeing the limits of where Streisand can go in this "pop and roll" style combined with the enjoyment of seeing Kristofferson stagger with charisma and self-destruction that make things not self-destruct into oblivion for a baffling 142 minutes. This is ridiculous junk, but I'll be darned if I didn't get some sort of cackling enjoyment from seeing how far one can really go in making such a murky 70s film that seems like the ideal sellout and embarrassment for all involved. My particularly favorite memory with the film is not so much a particular scene but actually an article that director Pierson wrote for New West magazine a month before the film's release with "My Battles With Barbra and Jon", which detailed some of the conflicts that Pierson had with producer (and star) Streisand and producer Jon Peters (a hairdresser-turned-producer and Streisand's boyfriend at the tine). There are some interesting little moments involving clashes of ego, but one of my favorite baffling moments is Pierson's meeting with the two in which at one point Peters actually asked if the lead male star had to commit suicide at the end as opposed to having it be an accident instead, since it sounded like such a turnoff. By the time Pierson was approached by Warner Brothers to do the film, numerous writer and directors had been brought in and brought out of doing the film, which had originally been written by Joan Didion and John Dunne as a rock musical with a couple like James Taylor and Carly Simon in parallel careers. Oh but the troubles did not stop with just Streisand (as amusing as it might seem to lay all of the squabbles and jokes on one star/producer). Kristofferson chafed when it came to filming, since he felt that they were making a "Barbra Streisand lollipop extravaganza" rather than some sort of statement about rock music (at least he has the excuse of drinking to act for a drunk lead). Sure, one could debate the ethics of doing an article so close to a film's release, but I heartily enjoy details like this, and even without the article the film is amusing to pick and poke at for its ambitions that crash like a motorcycle on stage.

It is entirely possible that there is a movie here worth really looking into the jagged turns that fame can do to a rock star that the other two films had done for actors. Of course the main problem with that theory is that perhaps Streisand just can't entirely pull off a nervous unknown given a push into stardom. It all seems too manufactured to really stick, too absorbed in showing off without letting you really breathe an actual romance, since the two leads seem entirely focused on literally anything but the other person in front of them. To say the film is all sizzle and no steak is an understatement: the steak got so caught up in re-writes that it turned into a small nut to disintegrate on the grill. On the other hand, I did rather enjoy Kristofferson (a native of Brownsville, Texas that took upon acting to go with his singing-songwriting) and his distant demeanor in his weary entertaining performance. He may be playing a jerk, but man does it invite more conviction and more of a look than what comes out on screen. Busey, an eccentric playing an eccentric peddler of producer (and other certain things) is amusing to see in the few scenes that he is in. Mazursky, who started work as an actor (debuting in Fear and Desire in 1953) before taking on writing and eventually directing (with films such as Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice in 1969), does a careful job here in balancing out the line between producer and man trying to keep someone off the deepest end. The others are here and there, just people to fill in the background before yet another wild or silly antic between our strange stars. To put it mildly, this film stinks, but it sure is a funny one to think about. It is a testament to how overproduced and micromanaged a film can be in hands that believe they are truly making something that can match up to what was old (and classic) while serving the masses with no problem then and now, a hubris unmatched in mediocrity. I know one can see better films with Streisand or Kristofferson, but none could probably be as ridiculous to view play out like this one.


Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Shootist.

Review #1453: The Shootist.

Cast: 
John Wayne (J.B. Books), Lauren Bacall (Bond Rogers), Ron Howard (Gillom Rogers), James Stewart (Dr. Hostetler), Richard Boone (Sweeney), Hugh O'Brian (Pulford), Bill McKinney (Jay Cobb), Harry Morgan (Marshall Thibido), John Carradine (Beckum), Sheree North (Serepta), Rick Lenz (Dan Dobkins), and Scatman Crothers (Moses) Directed by Don Siegel (#893 - Dirty Harry and #920 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers)

Review: 
"I think in America I'm looked upon as the equivalent of a European director--which is quite laughable. I've never had a personal publicity man working for me. So all this came out of the blue--all this publicity. The cult was not engineered. It festered, in a sense. And erupted. And it did me a lot of good."

"The guy you see on the screen really isn't me. I'm Duke Morrison and I never was and never will be a film personality like John Wayne. I know him well. I'm one of his closest students. I have to be. I make a living out of him."

Time waits for no man, where a life and a career each have a beginning, middle, and eventually an end. In a career that spanned a half century, John Wayne appeared as a star or in a small part in over 150 films in a variety of genres (with the Western and war genre being the most prominent) with plenty of collaborations taking place that would serve him and others well in too many films to list. By the time of this film, he had been survived a diagnoses of lung cancer in 1964 (which led to having surgery to remove a lung and four ribs) along with other health problems for the rest of his life, which proved especially apparent for filming here (with compromised breathing during filming in Carson City alongside influenza). He was driven to do this film because of the desire to star in the title role, which apparently had been rejected by several actors such as Paul Newman and George C. Scott. Wayne finished the film but found himself diagnosed with stomach cancer in early 1979, which led to his death on June 11 at the age of 72. The film is adapted from the novel of the same name by Glendon Swarthout with a screenplay by his son Miles and Scott Hale. At the helm as director was a careful craftsman in Don Siegel, who had started his career as a montage director for Warner Brothers before becoming a director with The Verdict (1946), the first of a career comprised of noirs, action films, and Westerns (with this being the fifth-to-last film of his career). 

Wayne helped in recruiting old friends of his to star in the film, such as Stewart (his first film role in five years, having moved his focus to television work while having a hearing impediment), Bacall (who worked with him in Blood Alley 21 years earlier), Carradine (who made several appearances in Wayne films), and Boone (who had worked with Wayne before in Big Jake but is most commonly known for his lead role in Have Gun – Will Travel). There is a great deal of familiarity and foreboding nature to this film, a quiet elegy to a time of the past when it comes to the legend of the gunfighter. We've seen these kinds of characters before in other films, and we know a good deal of where the film urges to go. And yet, there is an undeniable power to how enjoyable the final result is, buoyed by a grizzled Wayne that shows plenty of dignity that we come to expect from him without becoming wrapped in self-serving pity, an actor who lives and reacts on his own terms for consistency. He may not be known as the most sensitive actor, but one can't help but care for those moments where he stands without a gun just as much as the parts with it. Bacall follows along with reserved grace to make a worthwhile pairing in the moments with Wayne, while Howard makes a curious youthful(ish) presence to accompany Wayne with slowly-growing interest. While Stewart has just two scenes in the film, it is always nice to see him around with his stately presence nonetheless, solemn yet fitting. Boone, O'Brian, and McKinney make for worthy adversaries when the moment requires it, while Morgan, Carradine and Crothers prove amusing. There were key changes made to the script from the novel, particularly with its climax. The book had ended with Howard's character shooting Wayne after the gunfight left him mortally wounded, which led to him throwing the gun away. In the film, he shoots the bartender that shoots Wayne in the back and then throws the gun away. I like the climax and its simplicity, which accompanies a film of 100 minutes that achieves most of what it wants with a carefully sensitive nature to lead up to one more gunfight that we can't help but enjoy to see play out with the familiar faces out in play. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Omen (1976).

Review #1452: The Omen.

Cast: 
Gregory Peck (Robert Thorn), Lee Remick (Katherine Thorn), David Warner (Keith Jennings), Billie Whitelaw (Mrs. Willa Baylock), Harvey Spencer Stephens (Damien Thorn), Patrick Troughton (Father Brennan), Martin Benson (Father Spiletto), Leo McKern (Carl Bugenhagen), Robert Rietti (Monk), John Stride (The Psychiatrist), and Anthony Nicholls (Dr. Fred Becker) Directed by Richard Donner (#075 - Scrooged, #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, #547 - Superman, #619 - Maverick, #731 - Lethal Weapon 3, and #734 - Lethal Weapon 4)

Review: 
"With The Omen, I really felt I wasn't in control. It was panic...It was constantly on my head. I was scared, and I didn't want to disappoint Alan Ladd, who had trusted me."

When you think of good horror films, what comes to your mind first? Maybe it involves something involving the possible Antichrist, or some straight-laced acting, or maybe something with occasional gore that will sneak up on you with creeping terror without being too wretchedly scary. It should only figure that its director would receive a breakthrough with making it in Richard Donner (his next feature in Superman. He had an initial interest in acting, doing a few Off-Broadway productions and bit parts before being encouraged by Martin Ritt to try his hand at directing. In the 1960s, he would cultivate a modest career of directing television with shows such as The Rifleman (1962, seven episodes), Mr. Novak (1963-64, also seven), and The Twilight Zone (1963-64, six episodes). He made his feature debut with X-15 (1961) and followed it with a few other films in Salt and Pepper (1968) and Twinky (1969). There were quite a few actors who rejected starring as the lead for this film, ranging from Charlton Heston to Dick Van Dyke (no, not joking), and William Holden (who would star in the sequel four years later), although Warner Brothers initially considered doing this film with Oliver Reed in mind before 20th Century Fox later developed interest after Donner had seen the script and convinced Fox head Alan Ladd Jr to look over the script and take it on (albeit with reduction of elements that was felt to be too obvious, like cloven hoofs). David Seltzer was behind the screenplay, which took a year to write after inspiration came to producer Harvey Bernhard from his friend Bob Munger. Donner described in an interview how he approached Peck to do the film in treating it as a "mystery suspense thriller" rather than straight horror, which convinced Peck to sign on.

The best thing that can be said about the film is that it does manage to build a sense of foreboding to make a useful experience with consistent acting, top-rate music from Jerry Goldsmith and worthwhile moments of horror terror that make a decent if not exceptional horror film for its time. I suppose it really depends on how much one knows about its threat of evil (or at least the possibility of it, since this is a child we are talking about) when it comes to stoking true tension without waiting for the inevitable. I do wonder how this might compare to Rosemary's Baby (1968), which dealt with the possibility of a newborn being the spawn of a jackal to be used by cultists (or at least that's what I read from browsing). The film builds itself on carrying itself calmly to where you will presumably will let your guard down when something scary could befall someone in connecting the dots to the idea that yes indeed there is something wrong with this dark-haired little gremlin child, as if one might actually believe that we are going to be faked out at the last minute. It just depends on what seems the most interesting in whether the parts with the family seem more involving than the hunt for clues for evil, where one can either spend time with Peck and Remick, or see Peck and Warner. Peck is interesting, in the sense that he is taking things with a good grain of salt that doesn't crush the film's credibility nor make things a bore. Remick does fine, albeit with slightly less to do when comparing the first and second halves (though the zoo sequence is pretty amusing). Whitelaw makes a fair adversarial presence to nurture Stephens (who when prompted to go at Donner during the auditions like the others apparently screamed and clawed at him) to the other side without too much silliness. Warner follows along with quiet foreboding. Really though the most interesting small presence is Troughton (best known for his television work in programs such as Doctor Who), who is quite interesting in generating furor in small doses (before having to run away from foreboding weather, of course). This is a film caught between two worlds: On the one hand, it is a dignified kind of film that has plenty of production value to elevate what could've been very hokey in schlockier hands. On the other hand, it is the kind of film that runs for 111 minutes with a concept of horror rather than a true finish, where it only just works as a thriller if you aren't already incredibly familiar with what it is trying to sell you about a main threat of a five year old who could be the Antichrist (insert jokes about him coming to power in politics here). The ending is downbeat enough to make the idea potentially spring further into something more concrete (for which two sequels and an apparent line-by-line remake followed), and on the whole this makes for satisfactory entertainment worth a curious look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dolemite.

Review #1451: Dolemite.

Cast: 
Rudy Ray Moore (Dolemite), Lady Reed (Queen Bee), D'Urville Martin (Willie Green), West Gale (Reverend Gibbs), John Kerry (Mitchell), Jerry Jones (Blakely), Vainus Rackstraw (Creeper), Hy Pyke (Mayor Daley) Directed by D'Urville Martin.

Review: 
"My structure has an art-form flow, and I do what I do as a form of art. I'm a ghetto expressionist, not a dirty old man."

ACTUAL FILM QUOTE: "I'm gonna let 'em know that Dolemite is back on the scene! I'm gonna let 'em know that Dolemite is my name, and fuckin' up motherfuckers is my game!"

What do you expect from a film once described as "the Citizen Kane of kung fu pimping movies"? This was the brainchild of Rudy Ray Moore, who was an comedian and singer after serving in the US Army for the entertainment unit in Germany., after realizing his desire to be an entertainer through seeing a talent contest as a teen. His first persona was "Prince DuMarr" (done at 17 while in Milwaukee), in which he performed a singing and dance act with a turban. He joined the service in 1950 and found himself stationed to perform for fellow service men, for which he served for over two years that helped inspire him to do stand-up comedy. His initial comedy albums (the first in 1961) were moderate hits on release. It was during his time working at Dolphin's of Hollywood that he would first hear about an eccentric drunk named Rico, who would trade his tall tales for money to Moore, which he was soon inspired to use a routine and persona of his own in Dolemite, with the act differing from other comedians of the time with his profanity that included rhymes and music. In 1974, he got the inspiration to further Dolemite into the public consciousness through a motion picture, for which Moore would use the money made from his records to help fund this project to the sum of over a hundred thousand dollars while Jerry Jones would write the script. Moore would prove to have a career in film (of sorts), with a sequel following in The Human Tornado the following year along with a few other blaxploitation films later in the decade while still continuing to do albums that continued until his death in 2008 at the age of 81. A film depicting the film's production was released in 2019 in Dolemite Is My Name, featuring Eddie Murphy as Moore.

It is obvious fairly quickly that this is a nonprofessional kind of film, one where the editing and shot composition seem to fight each other for whose is more obviously ridiculous, and the acting is basically nonexistent. In comparing it to other blaxploitation fare, I would say that this is probably around the level of Shaft's Big Score! (1972) in terms of general entertainment, where you will laugh plenty for this stupefying film (whether with or at what you see) with curiosity in more ways than one. It isn't great by any means, but it is admirably average enough to override flaws that could've sank in less ambitious hands. Perhaps it is like watching one of those so-bad-it's-good films, where you can poke at the holes present here and still smile a bit, such as the supposed martial arts sequences or the key fight between Moore and Martin (who apparently was not too enthusiastic in directing this film) that ends with a liver pulled out of all things. One can't resist watching Moore on screen, who generates plenty of laughs with excitement with too many actions to count. Martin may not be on screen too much as the villain, but he sure makes the confrontation scene between him and Moore worthwhile. You know why this works enough to be recommended as a winner over other certain average "cult classics"? Because this one actually managed to make me actually really care about what could happen next, whether that involved a sling of unmentionable words to make a cheeky insult by our star or where the cardboard cutouts will do next to react to what resembles a vanity project but with kung fu and style. It is a 90 minute amateur explosion that makes for a good curiosity to view and laugh as an irresistible film of its time and era.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dog Day Afternoon.

Review #1450: Dog Day Afternoon.

Cast: 
Al Pacino (Sonny Wortzik), John Cazale (Salvatore "Sal" Naturale), Charles Durning (Sergeant Eugene Moretti), James Broderick (Agent Sheldon), Lance Henriksen (Agent Murphy), Chris Sarandon (Leon Shermer), Penelope Allen (Sylvia), Sully Boyar (Mulvaney), Susan Peretz (Angela Wortzik), and Carol Kane (Jenny) Directed by Sidney Lumet (#035 - 12 Angry Men, #036 - Network, #404 - The Anderson Tapes, #1065 - Deathtrap, and #1446 - Murder on the Orient Express)

Review: 
"I don't think of myself as anything but an actor struggling to find the next role and when I do get the role to try and see if I can find any way into it."

"While the goal of all movies is to entertain, the kind of film is which I believe goes one step further. It compels the spectator to examine one facet or another of his own conscience. It stimulates thought and sets the mental juices flowing."

How can one talk about esteemed method actors and not think about Al Pacino? Although Pacino had ambitions of baseball as a teenager, he soon shifted focus to acting, for which he would have to take modest-paying jobs to help finance study, with one job being a mailroom employee for the magazine Commentary. He acted in small plays in New York, but he wasn't accepted into the Actors Studio when applying as a teen (he would attend the HB Studio for four years until being accepted into the Actors Studio). He cited Lee Strasberg and the Studio as a key effect on his future career in putting all of his focus into acting, and the two would even appear in films together in later years (most notably with The Godfather Part II). He soon shifted to stage work (which he has continued to make on-and-off star appearances), performing for the first time in 1967, with his debut in Broadway coming two years later. That same year, he also made his first appearance in film with Me, Natalie. The 1970s proved to be a tremendous decade for Pacino, starting with notice in The Panic in Needle Park (1971), and it helped him get attention for his next role: The Godfather (1972), for which he was picked over prominent other choices. One of the eight films in the decade Pacino did was Serpico (1973), which he did with Lumet to tremendous success (including an Academy Award nomination, which he received four other times in the decade). Lumet was known for his distinct prolific work over a lengthy career in films (over 40 in a half century starting with 12 Angry Men) and television (primarily doing work in television in the fifties), noted for their social realism and naturalism while mostly set in New York (where he grew up after being born in Philadelphia) that served him well as someone labeled an "actor's director".

The film is very loosely based on real-life events that occurred on August 22, 1972, where failed bank robbers John Wojtowicz and Salvatore Naturale held nine bank employees hostage for 14 hours in attempts to take money for an sex change operation for the former's lover, which resulted in one death and 20 years for Wojtowicz. The exploits of the robbery were covered in an article ("The Boys in the Bank" by P. F. Kluge) for Life magazine, and while writer Frank Pierson wanted to interview Wojtowicz personally in prison, an agreement couldn't be reached about how much to pay for the story. Wojtowicz would later state that only 30% of the film was accurate, although he did find that Pacino and Sarandon were captured accurately (the actual amount robbed was over 37 thousand in cash and over 175 thousand in traveler's checks, and this doesn't even count the allegations from anonymous sources that it was actually organized by a Mafia family). For an biographical film (of sorts), it is interesting to note the improvisations done through the dialogue at times (which keep with the structure of Pierson's screenplay), since Lumet encouraged the actors to show spontaneity when it came to rehearsals (a hallmark of his when it came to establishing trust with his actors) that would help in making lines come out naturally (the famed Attica! line was improvised, for example).

One always seems to feel on the edge when it comes to a film like this, where you can feel every little moment of tension and furor that is headlined by a tremendous performance from Pacino. He molds himself into a frantic pace in a tour-de-force achievement of wired hysteria that we cannot take our eyes of, where our view of him through the film and the people that see him through their television or right in front of their eyes seem to muddle each other into something worth pondering about. The 1970s were certainly a divergent time for America, particularly in light of what people saw on their television screens or in the streets, and seeing someone holding a bank hostage isn't too different. Even now the film proves relevant because of the nature of fame (or infamy) in the eyes of a curious audience looking for some sort of person to relate to or stand with (regardless of how one feels about glorifying/boosting certain actions) in social media. The others prove just as well in following along on a natural tense pace, such as Cazale (who did over a decade of work in the theater before making his first of five film appearances in The Godfather) and his well-placed subtlety as the lead man to a situation that gets worse and worse by the minute. Durning proves resilient with growing tension through some bluster that takes a good chunk of the first half more so than the second for effect. Broderick and Henriksen fill the screen nicely, while Sarandon delivers well in evoking curiosity and humanity for the second half of the film, particularly through the phone call sequence with Pacino. When the film opens itself up in tension and details, we care to see where it all may lea to without too much judgement or impatience. On the whole, while it may prove a bit too much to hold for all of its 125 minute run-time, this is a film worth checking out to see the raw spirit of the times play out in fascinating detail from Pacino, who makes for a frantic yet always interesting presence worth viewing to the bitter end.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Review #1449: The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Cast: 
Tim Curry (Dr. Frank-N-Furter), Susan Sarandon (Janet Weiss, a heroine), Barry Bostwick (Brad Majors, a hero), Richard O'Brien (Riff Raff, a handyman), Patricia Quinn (Magenta, a domestic), Nell Campbell (Columbia, a groupie), Jonathan Adams (Dr. Everett V. Scott, a rival scientist), Peter Hinwood (Rocky Horror, a creation, with Trevor White as singing voice), Meat Loaf (Eddie, an ex-delivery boy), and Charles Gray (The Criminologist) Directed by Jim Sharman.

Review: 
"For me it was, I think, the most joyous time of my life. You know, I was still very young, it took me to Hollywood and to Broadway and into a kind of very peculiar immortality, and I'm very grateful for that."

It was inevitable to cover a film like this at some point. Some movies are born to be cult favorites, and this sure has proven to have a life of its own 45 years after release. It wasn't a big hit with initial releases, but it proved a winner with midnight showings, and the lingering success of doing these screenings have meant that it has not completely left the theater, the longest-running release in film history. When it comes to screenings nowadays, audiences usually are encouraged to say certain lines and practices for scenes or engaging in dressing up as the characters. It was based on The Rocky Horror Show, a stage play written by Richard O'Brien that was first performed in London in 1973. He wrote it as a combination of the unintended comedy of B-horror films with fifties rock and roll alongside his love of science fiction that hit in a time where glam rock was a hit within the United Kingdom. Curry, O'Brien, Quinn, and Campbell reprise their roles from the play into the film. 20th Century Fox wanted to make the film on a bigger budget with contemporary musicians of the day, but a compromise was made to use American leads with a cheaper budget instead. A follow-up film (of sorts) was made six years later in Shock Treatment, which retained Sharman as director/writer alongside O'Brien as writer again while retaining actors such as Campbell and Gray but without Curry, Bostwick, or Sarandon. Funny enough, it was a bigger failure at the box office than the first film (complete with being a midnight movie flop) although it has a small cult following of its own.

Perhaps I wasn't in the right mindset when I watched the film. How many horror and musicals can you watch before they all seem familiar? Of course how many films have a DVD that offer numerous versions to watch involving audience participation? Is it really something to make a film where you can exclaim a reference? The answer to these questions for me is simple: I don't care. Seriously though, while I can acknowledge that it may be an interesting film deserving of some sort of following with an audience (there are many mocking things one can say about encouraging yelling at the screen, but I'll let my bile pass), I cannot say that this was a winning film to enjoy wholeheartedly. Maybe it is the manner of its parody of horror and comedy, where making a hodgepodge of the two with mediocre songs is meant to be something to really laugh at as some sort of camp. You know that song "Science Fiction, Double Feature"? Most, if not all of those films mentioned in that song are probably better than this film. "Sweet Transvestite" may very well work as a song, but that don't help slop like "Dammit Janet" get much better. It proves exhausting to try and keep up with the film's supposed charms, where it proves to be one of the most infuriatingly mediocre films to ever run under two hours at 100 minutes. It may prove iconic for its era, but that sure doesn't mean it is any sort of high-end achievement either. There are basically five simple zones of defining a film's quality: awful, bad, average, good, and great to me, with no substitution or weaseling out of. Simply put, this falls completely in the average pile, with a sort of refusal to ever move towards being good or bad at any point where Curry isn't there.

If anyone proves to be a great highlight, it is surely Curry. A 1968 graduate of the University of Birmingham (studying English and Drama), he debuted on the stage (alongside television) the same year he graduated with the London production of Hair, where he met O'Brien. It isn't hard to see why this was the role that helped him to prominence, since one never really seems to take their eyes off such a daring performance, filled plenty of strange allure of grisly reality and parody. In a more-improved mediocre movie, one might actually just let the Curry performance sweep the other flaws aside and make it truly enjoyable. Bostwick and Sarandon nearly get lost in the entire shuffle, although the latter seems more suited for songs (of sorts, at least with that high voice). O'Brien and Quinn make some sort of duo, while Meat Loaf is sorely wasted here. The straight-laced Gray works only to deliver redundant explanations at times and occasional lyric contributions, which I guess is fine. Of course we are dealing a campy film filled with quietly ridiculous fellow acting, where everything is obvious for the sake of being obvious, where one is almost tempted to spray them with a water bottle to stop it. Patience wears thin when you start to grimace at the idea of yet another song, as if the true horror is actually how many times they can do a string of songs, since the horror-sci-fi pastiches only can so far. If anybody is going to claim the title of affectionate tribute to horror with comedy for the 1970s, it sure isn't going to be this film, since Young Frankenstein (1974) did every aspect with better style and better execution, whereas this just falls short of really resonating with me as a film (perhaps it just worked better on stage). Perhaps another time of watching it could provide some levity, but there are simply too many films to go forth and watch once before even thinking about revisiting stuff that didn't quite click the first time around. No sir, I will not in fact do the Time Warp again any time soon. It may not be a winner enough to make me like it, but it has its own following for a reason and it may prove just fine for those into what it tries to do in camp value.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Review #1448: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Cast: 
Graham Chapman (King Arthur / Voice of God / Middle Head / Hiccoughing Guard), John Cleese (Second Swallow-Savvy Guard / The Black Knight / Peasant 3 / Sir Launcelot the Brave / Taunting French Guard / Tim the Enchanter), Eric Idle (Dead Collector / Peasant 1 / Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Launcelot / First Swamp Castle Guard / Concorde / Roger the Shrubber / Brother Maynard), Terry Gilliam (Patsy / Green Knight / Old Man from Scene 24 (Bridgekeeper) / Sir Bors / Animator / Gorilla Hand), Terry Jones (Dennis's Mother / Sir Bedevere / Left Head / Prince Herbert / Voice of Cartoon Scribe), Michael Palin (First Swallow-Savvy Guard / Dennis / Peasant 2 / Right Head / Sir Galahad the Pure / Narrator / King of Swamp Castle / Brother Maynard's Brother / Leader of The Knights Who Say NI!), Connie Booth (The Witch), Carol Cleveland (Zoot / Dingo), Neil Innes (First Monk / Singing Minstrel / Page Crushed by the Rabbit / Peasant #4), Bee Duffell (Old Crone), John Young (Dead Body / Historian Frank), and Rita Davies (Historian's Wife) Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones.

Review: 
"It was always a series of sketches linked together and we kept tightening and tightening it in the writing. It doesn't outstay its welcome and rather than wind down at the end it just stops abruptly."

"One of the things we tried to do with the show was to try and do something that was so unpredictable that it had no shape and you could never say what the kind of humor was. And I think that the fact that "Pythonesque" is now a word in the Oxford English Dictionary shows the extent to which we failed."

What is there to say about Monty Python that hasn't been said before? I suppose it has developed into one of those lightning rod kind of things to hear about in comedy - once you've seen it, you're either attracted to it for life, but if you don't it'll stick in your head for a while anyway. Far be it from me to say anything different from the obvious: Monty Python is one of the most famous comedy groups of all time, The group, which performed for the first time in 1969 for their sketch comedy series Monty Python's Flying Circus for the BBC, which ran for five years and 45 episodes. The six members all aligned in the late 1960s from different ways, since Jones and Palin performed with the Oxford Revue, Chapman and Cleese met at the University of Cambridge (where they first wrote for the amateur theatre club Cambridge Footlights), while Cleese had met the animator/strip cartoonist Gilliam while performing on a Broadway show, which led to him animating sequences for Do Not Adjust Your Set (1967-69), which featured appearances from people such as Idle, Jones, and Palin (who all except Gilliam had collaborated on The Frost Report prior to this). This was the second Monty Python film, but it was the first with a plot, since And Now for Something Completely Different (1971) was comprised of re-created sketches seen from the first two series (seasons) of the television show that was meant to introduce the group to the US market. When it came time for filming, the budget was set at $400,000, which eventually attracted investors such as rock bands Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin to contribute 10% of the budget each.

As one expects, the film is written completely by the group, and Jones and Gilliam were tasked with directing (Jones would direct the two remaining Python features while Gilliam has gone on to direct further films for four decades), with casting being done by who wrote what scenario (for the most part). Adjusting to a low budget is nothing new, so having to do coconut shells to mimic horses galloping because one can't afford horses is a pretty amusing one (this also played into the climax). Understandably, it must've been a strange time filming a medieval film with chain mail and knitted wool armor in Scotland. Three decades after release, the film was adapted into a musical comedy in Spamalot (Idle co-wrote the music while contributing the book and lyrics), which proved a hit on Broadway in its initial run of 1,575 performances. Obviously the film has a tremendous legacy to it, and you can add this to the pile as well, since this is a fun experience to be had, a fascinating achievement for its six comedy stars/writers in its ridiculous nature and silly charm that make for a clear delight for 92 minutes. When the film grabs you, it doesn't let go, a testament to folks who know what works in timing and comedy while doing a whimsical King Arthur tale with sharp awareness for what makes a good tale with actors doing many parts for themselves. Chapman makes the best straight man to helm a film like this with deadpan finesse. The others prove just as funny, as one can expect from a film with so many quotable lines that are stated by folks that it only makes sense to note one highlight for each for a film with too many to say: Cleese and his well-timed retorts as a Black Knight to be dwindled away by Arthur near the beginning, Idle and his retorts with truthful minstrels, Gilliam and his animation talents and his one roar-inspiring quip about a shot of a castle, Jones and his creative ways of determining a witch involving wood, and the prolific Palin, up to the task of numerous characters with interesting quirks (one who says Ni! and wants a shrubbery) for effect. On the whole, if you didn't already know that this was a great film to check out, then go do so by all means, since it is a classic for its era that works itself for laughs across the pond (or in this case, medieval pond) regardless of how familiar one is with humor like this film possesses (which even led to its own word in the dictionary). Knowing the lines in advance doesn't hurt the best of comedies if one's head is (mostly) in the right place, and this proves no different in making for silly fun.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Towering Inferno.

Review #1447: The Towering Inferno.

Cast: 
Paul Newman (Doug Roberts), Steve McQueen (Michael O'Hallorhan), William Holden (James Duncan), Faye Dunaway (Susan Franklin), Fred Astaire (Harlee Claiborne), Susan Blakely (Patty Duncan Simmons), Richard Chamberlain (Roger Simmons), Jennifer Jones (Lisolette Mueller), O. J. Simpson (Harry Jernigan), Robert Vaughn (U.S. Senator Gary Parker), Robert Wagner (Dan Bigelow), Susan Flannery (Lorrie), Sheila Matthews Allen (Paula Ramsay), Norman Burton (Will Giddings), Jack Collins (Mayor Robert "Bob" Ramsay), Don Gordon (Kappy), Felton Perry (Scott), and Gregory Sierra (Carlos) Directed by John Guillermin (#726 - King Kong (1976) and #1231 - Shaft in Africa)

Review: 
"You know, there's really nothing like an exciting film on a big screen. Hopefully, I've made a few in my career."

Here's an idea: How about a film based on not one, but two books? No wait, here's one better, how about one released by two major studios? This film, adapted from The Tower by Richard Martin Stern and The Glass Inferno by Thomas N. Scortia and Frank M. Robinson, was released in the United States by 20th Century Fox and worldwide by Warner Brothers, as Irwin Allen (who would direct the action sequences) convinced them to make one film together rather than just adapting the novels separately for film. There were numerous disaster films of this era, but The Towering Inferno likely topped them all, despite attempts for others to try to raise the heights, considering 1974's output in this film, Earthquake, and Airport 1975 (the sequel to the original film with familiar disaster star Charlton Heston). Simply put, if something existed that had people nearby, by George would there be a disaster waiting to happen, whether that involved rollercoasters (with Sensurround!), football games (sniper or blimp, take your pick), or meteors. The one fitting to helm a big budget action adventure would be John Guillermin, noted for his intense perfectionist attitudes for his film that crept to his stars and producers for a varied career of distinct hits at times in a career that spanned over three decades.

This is an interesting duo for a film, since both Newman and McQueen apparently have the same amount of lines despite the latter not appearing until forty minutes into a 165 minute film (he actually was meant to star as the architect but lobbied for the architect role and got it). One thing this film certainly has enough of is ludicrous spectacle, a film that builds and builds and builds until it nearly becomes too much about a massive fire that engulfs its audience and stars to make for fair entertainment in parts with enough effects and silliness for a lifetime. It is arguable to say which Allen epic is better with The Poseidon Adventure or this, but it can't be denied that they have had their own types of lasting appeal, with both making plenty of money and receiving accolades (mostly technical awards along with title songs, oddly enough) that make them interesting pieces for their era. Newman (who apparently described the film later as a "turkey" before appearing in another Allen film years later in When Time Ran Out) is quite casual here, rolling with the occasional line about safety and exposition without trouble. McQueen (who appeared in three more films before his death after taking a four-year hiatus following this film) is calm and collected in leading the fire aspects that keeps your attention in a balance that favors the two stars without engulfing them in a scenery-chewing contest. Holden, who described his part as one that spends all the time talking on the phone (while clearly liking the money more than the script), does just fine with a role that doesn't really require too much besides just interacting with the occasional figure in a room - as long as he doesn't seem to be lost in the fun, it works out. Dunaway definitely gets close to being lost in all of this, since she only interacts with Newman for a few scenes before being mostly in the background. There are little highlights within the rest of the cast, such as the kindly professional Astaire paired with the equally kind Jones (in her last role), or a snidely Chamberlain, or even sprinkles of football star-turned-actor Simpson and his rescue of a cat (who then only reappears at the end to give the cat away to a survivor, naturally). One is here to see who will come out of alive, and while there may not be as much of a seeable count of vanquished stars, it still makes for a thrilling film at times, if only because of the thought of a building on fire from below does seem pretty scary. There are plenty of spectacle moments such as the stairwell rescue, the outsider elevator debacle and rescue, the daring attempts to rescue people (and cats) from fires, and a two million gallon water climax. For those who seek out something brimming with spectacle and stars that overflow the pot with mostly satisfaction, you can't quite go wrong with this film - a worthy disaster film highlight for its era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.