Showing posts with label Clifton James. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clifton James. Show all posts

January 16, 2023

David and Lisa.

Review #1957: David and Lisa.

Cast: 
Keir Dullea (David Clemens), Janet Margolin (Lisa Brandt), Howard Da Silva (Dr. Alan Swinford), Neva Patterson (Mrs. Clemens), Richard McMurray (Stewart Clemens), Clifton James (John), Nancy Nutter (Maureen), Matthew Anden (Simon), Jamie Sanchez (Carlos), Coni Hudak (Kate), and Karen Lynn Gorney (Josette) Directed by Frank Perry.

Review: 
It should only be natural to cover a New York director. The son of a stockbroker and an Alcoholics Anonymous aide, he was interested in the theater from a young age, working as a parking lot attendant as a youth for the Westport Country Playhouse. He attended the University of Miami before studying under Lee Strasberg and going on to produce plays in Connecticut. He served in the Korean War and became involved with television in 1961 before making his first film with David and Lisa (1962). He would make a variety of films that were generally on the edge of the studio system. In total, Perry directed fourteen feature films, where he was known for films such as The Swimmer (1968), Diary of a Mad Housewife (1970), and Mommie Dearest (1981) before he died in 1995 at the age of 65, with his last directorial effort being a documentary in On the Bridge (1992) about his struggle with prostate cancer.

It is an adaptation of the novella of the same name by Theodore Isaac Rubin, a psychiatrist and author. It was Ann Perry (daughter to playwright Eleanor Perry) who brought the novella to the attention of the Perrys. Eleanor Perry wrote the film, the first of numerous collaborations as writer with F. Perry, who was enlisted to direct (their partnership dissolved in 1971 after they divorced). Each of the Perrys received an Academy Award nomination for their work, which is no small feat for a film made for roughly over $150,000. Admittedly, the premise does sound like a film that could have just been a cheap feature for the exploitation circuit, considering that the lead character is a kid who has an intense fear of being touched. But it is a quirky love story, one that isn't just a feature of sensationalism or goop for cheap tricks, one that asks what it means to help people not stay numb inside. Dullea got his start in acting in television in the 1960s, such as Route 66 (which got him his first film role with Hoodlum Priest (1961). Dullea received notice for this role, although he did grouse at the momentary idea of him being thought of as a troubled youth for typecasting (Dullea has been quoted as saying that his true preference is for the theater). In a role filled with compulsive tendencies that could make one not know where he might spring himself next, Dullea proves worthy to the challenge of making a compelling performance, one where we see the pain wrapped inside someone scared to let someone reach within. The scenes with his parents aren't too long, but they underlie the stark contrast between the perceived "normal" family members and how he was shaped by them. This was the film debut for Margolin, who had thought about being a doctor before being encouraged to give her other interest in acting a try; in 1961, she went from prop girl at the New York Shakespeare Festival to 18-year-old Tony Award nominee. She pulls a double act in self-realization, which means a good chunk of dialogue is short or in rhymes, but she handles it in a way that is warm without cloying that makes for compelling chemistry between Margolin and Dullea. Da Silva provides solid support in efficient timing (mostly spent with Dullea) that isn't there to wax poetically or grandstand in authoritative boredom. The movie is mostly kept inside the psychiatric center, with a few interesting exceptions, such as a sequence where the group is seen out in public and reacts to a rude sentence told to them by repeating it right as they are walking off, as if being in the same room as others a bit different than them is too much. 

It is a tactful movie about people thought to be outside the margins: people who need psychiatric help. It doesn't do so by sugarcoating the leads or turning it into a simple black-and-white tale of treatment. It is the kind of movie where a simple gesture of togetherness in a film as well-executed as this makes the difference between ham-handedness and dynamite, for which the film rests in the latter category. It is a crushing tale of acceptance that makes a useful character study of two wayward souls finding some sort of path forward together. Quick to the point in 93 minutes without needing easy resolutions or cheap tricks, David and Lisa is a testament to the power of independent filmmaking and the potential it can bring thanks to the efforts of the Perrys and all involved.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

October 22, 2019

Eight Men Out.


Review #1287: Eight Men Out.

Cast: 
John Cusack (Buck Weaver), Clifton James (Charles Comiskey), Michael Lerner (Arnold Rothstein), Christopher Lloyd (Bill Burns), John Mahoney (Kid Gleason), Charlie Sheen (Happy Felsch), David Strathairn (Eddie Cicotte), D. B. Sweeney (Shoeless Joe Jackson), Michael Rooker (Chick Gandil), Don Harvey (Swede Risberg), and James Read (Lefty Williams) Written and Directed by John Sayles.

Review: 
Yes I know, not a horror film. However, today is the start of the World Series, which incidentally features my Houston Astros, so how could I resist covering a baseball movie? This one had been on my list for quite a while, so it only makes sense to do it now. Enjoy, and let's hope for a wonderful World Series result.

It is interesting to note the passing of 100 years since the Black Sox scandal, in which eight players of the Chicago White Sox were accused of throwing games in the 1919 World Series in conspiracy with gamblers. A public trial ensued in 1921, for which none of the accused players were convicted of any crime, although they were banned from playing professional baseball for the rest of their lives. A tale as old as time for baseball (a sport I adore) undeniably has inspired writers to adapt it into stories. Eliot Asinof wrote an account of the scandal in 1963, while W. P. Kinsella's wrote a magic realist novel with Shoeless Joe (1982, which was adapted into Field of Dreams the same year as this film). It isn't hard to say that baseball fans will certainly have interest in seeing this tale come to life in film while non-baseball fans will have a little harder time getting behind what this movie wants to show with this (questionably accurate) period drama. When it comes to baseball movies, this is probably safe middle ground stuff, doing just fine with its look and some of its ensemble moments while being a bit lacking when it comes to making everything really stick (particularly when it comes to some egregious liberties taken with real events, which is just as true with the novel and its combination of fictional characters into what is meant to be a non-fiction narrative). It clocks in at just a few seconds under two hours, for which the first half proves more favorable than the latter half (what better way to combine baseball cliches than courtroom cliches), seeming to have a few amusing moments with its cast. As such, the highlights include Cusack, Strathairn, Sweeney, and Rooker, with each actor of the conspiracy sticking out, such as Cusack and his bright disposition (even when faced with a bunch of crooked teammates), or the calmness of the others in their belief of that allure one calls more money. Minor highlights include James and Mahoney, making crucial points count just fine. How much guff can one give about accuracy about adapting the scandal to film with source material that took its own liberties with the facts (the Internet sure does help occasionally when it comes to finding tidbits of information, such as Society for American Baseball Research (SABR), who recently had made an article detailing numerous myths about the scandal, such as the White Sox actually having a high payroll (for 1919), or the gamblers being approached by the players (as opposed to the other way around), or the grand jury testimony being stolen (which they simply re-created later on anyway, which didn't have a big effect on the trial). If you really wanted to go further, the Internet is your friend for finding things to pick at (for better or worse). For me, it does tend to rankle me, in part because a film should know a little better about getting more than basic concepts right, especially stuff like Christy Mathewson (famed baseball legend) being the one that helped out the journalist investigation as opposed to Lardner (played by Sayles himself). In the end, I find that the film does best when letting the players speak for themselves along with its baseball action, with its foundation having quite a few cracks that can make this a hit-or-miss kind of movie. For me, it is a fair single, worth a look if one is curious enough for an old-timey but fair-minded day at an old ballpark.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

November 24, 2012

Movie Night: Live and Let Die.


Review #293: Live and Let Die.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Yaphet Kotto (Dr. Kananga/Mr. Big), Jane Seymour (Solitaire), Julius Harris (Tee Hee Johnson), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Gloria Hendry (Rosie Carver), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Geoffrey Holder (Samedi), Bernard Lee (M), Roy Stewart (Quarrel Jr) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, and #291 - Goldfinger)

Review
This was the eighth Bond film, two years after the love it or hate it Diamonds Are Forever. In a way, this is like a trilogy, three straight films in order by the same director all with James Bond. But is this any better then the other two? Yes...and no. This was Roger Moore's first film as James Bond (Even though this is the third review of him as James Bond, sorry for the reviewing paradox), and he does a reasonable job, making the role slowly turn into his own, away from Connery (and Lazenby), which is a good thing. It's a shame that the film around him isn't exactly "good", though. Its plot lines are weird at points, making me wonder if I watching a Bond film or one of those random 70's films you might find in a cheap DVD pack. And that's another flaw of the film, it's dated at some points. (The fashion, the club locations, even the dialogue at times) What does dated mean exactly? It means that over time a film doesn't look as good as it might've been in its time, instead it looks like only a product of the 70's and not much else. The villain is not very impressive nowadays compared to other villains the Bond series has had (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Klebb, Jaws, even Franz Sanchez), and his henchmen Tee Hee reminds me too much of Dr. No, who wasn't exactly impressive to being with. The leading lady (Also known as the Bond girl, but I thought that would be weird to say) is excellent, having a purpose and being noteworthy enough to escape just being a girl who Bond saves. I'd almost forgotten that Q isn't in this film, and he usually provided some sort of fun, even if it was for one or two scenes. The action is mildly enjoyable. In the end, this film might be a step up or a small misstep for the Bond franchise, not being horrible, but not being very good either. At least Moore would have better opportunities as Bond. I think. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.

November 21, 2012

Movie Night: The Man with the Golden Gun.


Review #289: The Man with the Golden Gun.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Christopher Lee (Francisco Scaramanga), Britt Ekland (Mary Goodnight), Maud Adams (Andrea Anders), Hervé Villechaize (Nick Nack), Richard Loo (Hai Fat), Soon-Tek Oh (Lieutenant Hip), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Bernard Lee (M), Marc Lawrence (Rodney), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Marne Maitland (Lazar), and Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever)

Review
The Man with the Golden Gun was the ninth film in the James Bond series based off the 13th novel of the book series by Ian Fleming, though the film doesn't have much to do with the novel (This doesn't hurt the film though as the films usually don't have that much accuracy anyway). And I finally get to talk about Roger Moore as James Bond. How is he? Well....Let me get to that later. Christopher Lee (I should make a game of how many times I review him in a film with him either being there or being the villain) is decent (He's been Dracula, a Baskerville, a Wonka, Dooku, The Creature, and a voice of the Jabberwocky in his career. Impressive.), probably more interesting then the plot. What's the plot? Something about solar power and a man with the golden gun (title drop), almost as thin as Diamonds Are Forever. The dialogue is meh, but the attempts at comedy are even more mediocre, which doesn't mesh well with the action. Ekland is...surprisingly clumsy (One scene I can't believe involves her not being able to see a button that is bright red), again almost as "eh" as Jill St. John in (again) Diamonds Are Forever. So how is Roger Moore? Well...He's relatively okay. He's not a suave type of Bond, but a more "roll with it" Bond. Roger Moore would be James Bond for 12 years (The longest run for a Bond, with 7 movies from 1973-1985), with this film being a slight misfire for the Bond franchise.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.