Raise the Titanic (1980)

Posted on September 14, 2026 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: Vessel brought to surface.

Government operative Dirk Pitt (Richard Jordan) along with the CIA become aware of an abandoned mine in Siberia that had a rare mineral called byzanium, which could be used to shoot down nuclear missiles. It was supposedly packaged into boxes and loaded onto the Titanic. The US Government now wants to obtain those boxes before the Soviets do and come to the conclusion that the only way to do it would be by raising the sunken ship to the surface.

The film is based on the 1976 novel of the same name written by Clive Cussler and universally panned for its weak characterizations and dialogue, but the plot itself was intriguing enough for Hollywood to take a stab at it. The result though isn’t much better as there’s too many people in the cast many of which are talking head figures like Jason Robards. He’s an excellent actor, but here his only task is to relay orders from other top officials and then stand around and look worried as the plans come into play. David Selby is also quite weak, but this is more because he isn’t an effective leading man and his overall presence is transparent and unnecessary.

Jordan is the only one that does well and had he remained at the center of it, it would’ve worked better. However, there’s no one to become attached to emotionally and the banal dialogue doesn’t give any of them any real distinction. They all seem alike and when one of the submersibles with several men on it implodes it has no impact and you really don’t care.

The book, as flawed as it may have been, actually did things a little better, at least plot wise. It had a hurricane come in, which allowed the soviets to take over the ship and hold the rest of the crew hostage, which then culminated in a battle. The movie though doesn’t touch on any of this. Here only one Soviet spy boards the ship but then realizes he’s easily outnumbered and essentially gives up making it all seem rather pointless to have introduced that angle at all. Granted the hurricane wasn’t included for budgetary reasons, but it certainly would’ve helped bring in more tension of which there isn’t much.

The way the ship gets brought back up to the surface is a bit suspect. I have no expertise in the matter, but it seemed too easy to the extent that it feels almost like a non-event. The special effects are subpar. It’s obvious that it’s a toy model and therefore not half as impressive to look at as it comes to the surface as I’m sure the producers thought it would be. The only moment that I did like is when Jordan boards the ship for the first time. Unfortunately, he only enters one room and then it cuts away. Would’ve been fascinating seeing him walk all around the ship going into many different rooms, but this was again likely scrapped due to the same budget constraints.

Spoiler Alert!

The biggest letdown is with the ending, which is similar to the one in the book where they find the boxes inside the ship’s vault to be filled with nothing more than sand. Then it is deduced, using wildly circumstantial clues, that the rare mineral was buried in a gravesite at a cemetery in Southby, England. However, when this is determined the American agents decide to leave it there, but why was it so important to get their hands on the mineral before, but now suddenly it isn’t? What if the Soviets, or some terrorist group, figure out the locations of the mineral and dig it up? Wouldn’t that still create the same frightening scenario that the US was hoping to avoid when they took so much time, effort, and money to bring up the ship?

This makes the whole thing not only a waste of time for the viewer, but also the taxpayers who funded what amounts to being just a wild goose chase. It becomes an inadvertent satire on government waste and misguided operations and on that level, it succeeds, but as a story it should remain sunk and submerged.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Released: July 30, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Jerry Jameson

Studio: ITC Entertainment

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Fawesome, Plex, Roku, Tubi, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Action/Adventure, Drama on the High Seas, Movies Based on Novels

Tagged , , , , ,

M*A*S*H (1970)

Posted on September 7, 2026 | 2 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Rebellious surgeons break rules.

In 1951 during the Korean War Frank Pierce (Donald Sutherland), who goes by the nickname Hawkeye, arrives at the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital as their new surgeon. He gets placed in a tent with Frank Burns (Robert Duvall), but the two don’t get along due to Frank’s religious zealotry, so he gets transferred to another tent. Hawkeye then gets placed with another new surgeon nicknamed Trapper John (Elliot Gould) and the two, with their irreverent sense of humor and non-conforming ways, immediately become best friends. Not only do they break most of the rules, but they also routinely play pranks on others with their biggest ones being on Frank who falls for Margaret (Sally Kellerman) who is a head nurse.

The film, which is based on the 1968 novel ‘MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors” by Richard Hooker, which in turn was based on his experiences as an Army doctor during the Korean War, gets largely overshadowed by the TV-Series, which ran for 11 seasons and has become a huge cult hit. In retrospect I actually like the movie better. Robert Altman’s direction where conversations and actions overlap helps to give the setting a realistic kinetic feel where nothing seems staged. While I could’ve done without his patent whistling I still liked the portrayal of the Hawkeye character better here. In the series Alan Alda played him as a very talkative, loud, and opinionated person that dominated every scene he was in while here the character is more like just one of the guys that occasionally pushes-the-envelope, but only because he, like everyone else there, is a victim of the bleak circumstances that they’re in. This also has a much better balance between the humor and drama. The show had a tendency to get preachy but the movie manages to make the occasional serious point, but still overall remains consistently funny.

On the negative side it’s highly anachronistic with the characters behaving too much like it’s the late 60’s instead of the early 50’s almost like they’re a bunch of stoned, ‘free love’ hippies who found a time machine and decided to go back 20 years. While the sexual escapades are amusing it does tend to get one dimensional. Everyone is portrayed as being a sex maniac with no inhibition or restraint. Having some not engage, either because they just weren’t that into it, or wanting to remain faithful to their spouses/ romantic partners back home, would’ve given it a better balance and certainly been more realistic for the period.

Having Hawkeye immediately mock Frank when he wants to pray seemed off too. Granted there were atheists and non-religious people back then, but they tended to be in-the-closet as religion was still the dominant cultural force. If Hawkeye and crew got annoyed later on when Frank attempted to let’s say ‘convert’ them then it would be understandable, but upfront I’d think he’d not be so aggressive with his disdain and might even politely play along a bit, especially since he had just arrived there and wouldn’t know who else he’d be offending with his off-handed comments.

It’s all very disappointing the way Frank gets written out halfway through. I really liked the way Duvall played the role. On the TV-series the Frank character was a benign snobby dimwit that was constantly the butt of all the jokes and couldn’t do much about it, but here Duvall plays the part with an aggressive, even menacing edge that would’ve made him a great nemesis that should’ve allowed him to stay all the way through. Also, it’s a bit ridiculous that he gets put into a strait jacket after he has a confrontation with Hawkeye. Many people can and do get into fights and are not immediately deemed ‘insane’ because of it. If anything, he should’ve been handcuffed along with Hawkeye since it was Hawkeye who goaded him into it.

The Hot Lips character is another disappointment. Initially I thought she was great as her haughty ways helped give the proceedings some conflict, but then halfway through she does a complete Jekyll and Hyde. Initially she hates the place and just about everyone in it, even becomes a victim to a cruel prank, but then later during the big football game she’s seen on the side lines as a cheerleader aggressively rooting for them to win the game when logically you’d think she would be pulling for the other team.

Apparently, the movie’s logic is that since it gets revealed that she’s been having sex with Duke, played by Tom Skerrit, that this then ‘changed’ her. She’s now ‘liberated’ and no longer frigid/uptight, but it’s too drastic a switch that only further adds to the film’s overblown concept that sex can somehow ‘solve everything’.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: January 25, 1970

Runtime: 1 Hour 56 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Robert Altman

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, YouTube

 

 

2 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Black Comedy, Buddy Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with a Hospital setting, Movies with Nudity

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Where Are the Children? (1985)

Posted on August 31, 2026 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Her kids go missing.

Nancy (Jill Clayburgh) is a married to Clay (Max Gail) and living in Cape Cod with their two children Michael (Harley Cross) and Missy (Elisabeth Harnois). Nancy has a dark past. Nine years earlier she had two other children, Peter and Lisa, who vanished and later found drowned. She was convicted of the crimes but then released on a legal technicality. She remarried, as her first husband (Frederic Forrest), despondent over the deaths, killed himself though his body was never found. Everything was going great until the nine-year anniversary of the deaths when her current two children go missing while playing in their backyard. Could this be just a coincidence, or is someone from the past crimes involved with this one?

The film is based on the Mary Higgins Clark debut novel of the same name, which in turn was inspired by the real-life case of Alice Crimmins, who was convicted in the deaths of her two children, but like in the movie, was later released. The concept has a lot of potential, but for me a lot of tension gets lost when right away we’re shown who the bad guy is and his interactions with the kids. Don’t get me wrong, Forrest is a fine actor and it’s fun seeing him play a nut case and the kids are really good too, but it would’ve been more intriguing had we seen things solely from Clayburgh’s perspective where we really didn’t know much more than she did and having the kids suddenly disappear could’ve been played up as a surreal nightmare.

It’s also cartoonish when the bad guy, who’s been spying on them through a telescope, has to write in his notebook in big letters ‘TOMORROW’ with an exclamation mark in reference to his plan to go through with the kidnapping the next day, but people only write notes to themselves when they’re living busy lives and doing several different projects at once. With this guy it’s the only thing he’s been obsessing over, so therefore no note was needed as he was clearly not going to forget.

The supporting cast is quite dull particularly Gail as the second husband. It’s great that he takes his wife’s side and insists she has nothing to do with the missing kids, but after a while I would think, some doubt would have to creep in. He keeps insisting that he ‘knows’ she didn’t do it, but how could he? He wasn’t home when it happened and because it’s such a coincidence with the past crime any normal person would have to have some suspicion towards her. Having him start to suspect her, even if it’s just slightly, as the film progresses would’ve created an interesting subplot and made his character less one dimensional.

The main character has problems too. For one thing the odds of her having two kids in her second marriage, that are the exact same age as the two from her previous one, including the boy older than the girl, is too astronomically high to be believable. Even her having just one kid, compared to two from the first, would’ve been enough and not made the kids from the second one seem like just a generic carbon copy.

I also felt that if someone has lost her kids in such a traumatic way that she’d been more protective of these to the point that she might go a bit overboard by not letting them play outside or only letting them go out if she was always right there to watch them. Her taking a shower while the kids are outside makes her look irresponsible. When I was a kid one parent would watch the kids while the other one bathed. Bad things and accidents can happen to kids in a matter of seconds and with the water running, she’d have no way to hear it.

For a career move taking this role was a big mistake. Jill had been in several films during the late 70’s and early 80’s that had won high acclaim and she seemed set to become the big leading lady of the 80’s, but she then made the mistake of starring in Hanna K. a Costa-Garvas directed film that saw limited release, so for many filmgoers it seemed like she had disappeared from the film scene and was no longer in the limelight for a good four years. This film role was meant to be her ‘comeback’, but she really doesn’t have much to do for most of it other than sitting around inside the police station wearing a stupor like expression. She kind of comes on strong at the end when she decides she’ll go and save the kids on her own, but she’s just a thin woman with no weapon or any idea who the bad guy is, or how many of them, making it likely that she could easily be overpowered and thus should’ve let the police do it instead.

Spoiler Alert!

The ending, and the reveal of who the bad guy is, is a big letdown. Like I said earlier Forrest gives an interesting performance, but to have him be the first husband who somehow faked his own suicide, isn’t plausible. For one thing it should’ve been reported as a missing person case and not a suicide since his body was never found. At the very least his identity should’ve been kept a mystery till the end when Jilly confronts him in the home versus having sharp-eyed kid recognize him earlier from a news report.

His motivations for why he seeks ‘revenge’ on Jill is confusing. Supposedly he was a closet pedophile who played kinky games on Jill who he forced to dress like a child and when she refused to keep doing that, he started to do it on their kids and then killed them when they threatened to tell, but if anything, he should’ve been happy that Jill was accused of the crime while he was allowed to walk free without suspicion. Would’ve made more sense had the husband really killed himself and then someone who was close to him, like maybe a brother, decided to seek out revenge on Jill while under the mistaken impression that she really had murdered the first children and then unjustly let out.

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: November 15, 1986

Runtime: 1 Hour 37 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Bruce Malmuth

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD (Out-of-Print), Amazon Video, YouTube

 

 

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Kidnapping Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Obscure Movies, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , , ,

Rancho Deluxe (1975)

Posted on August 28, 2026 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Modern day cattle rustlers.

Jack and Cecil (Jeff Bridges, Sam Waterston) are two drifters who don’t work an actual job and instead rustle cattle and use the meat that they take from that to help pay for the basic things that they need. John (Clifton James) is the ranch owner who’s tired of seeing his cattle routinely mutilated and determined to find those who are responsible. Curt and Burt (Harry Dean Stanton, Richard Bright) are his ranch hands who John puts in charge to find the culprits, but they end up being of no effect despite them knowing that Jack and Cecil are behind it. After his prize bull gets kidnapped and he’s forced to pay a large ransom to get him back, he hires Henry (Slim Pickens) a legendary detective in cattle rustling to finally solve the case, but Henry proves, at least initially, to be just as inept and oblivious about the crimes as everyone else, which further frustrates John.

This was the first screenplay written by the prolific and irreverent writher Thomas McGuane, his second script 92 in the Shade, was also shot in 1974 during the fall of that year while this one was done in the spring and early summer. McGuance directed the other one himself while Frank Perry helmed this one and having an established Hollywood director behind the chair makes all the difference here particularly the cinematography by William A. Fraker that captures the majestic, mountains landscape of the big sky country, which was done on location in Livingston, Montanna becoming the first of many movies that would be shot there.

Like with McGuane’s other works it’s his offbeat, wry humor that keeps it entertaining and helps it stand out. There’re some truly original comical moments that had never been done before or since making this film even after being around 50 years still come off as fresh and inventive. Some of the best moments are when Bridges and Stanton play a game of Pong while having a discussion, which was apparently something they both did of lot of during breaks in shooting, so Perry decided to work it into the story. The shot of the bull inside a hotel is funny too though there’s no explanation for how they were able to get him in there without being detected, which could’ve heightened the comedy had it been shown. There’s also the scene where Bridges and Waterston have a sex orgy with their girlfriends and then the next morning get caught while still naked in bed by the girl’s elderly relatives, which I consider the best moment in the movie.

The dialogue has a wonderfully quirky quality working off non sequiturs and weird tangents like when out-of-the-blue Waterston asks Bridges if he believes in the tooth fairy, or when John’s wife, played by Elizabeth Ashley, asks him if he regrets selling their beauty parlor business while he busily frets about tracking down the rustlers. The best though is when Slim Pickens goes off on a rant involving a dream, he had as a slave in ancient Egypt while John tries giving him the latest updates on the case.

The characters and their goofy contradictions help compliment the absurdity. Bridges and Waterston are especially fun, some may even say this is a precursor to the character he played in The Big Lebowski, as a happy-go-lucky drifter with no direction in life, which they equate as being ‘free’. Even after they get put into the prison, they still have the same carefree mentality proving that state-of-mind is everything. James is also quite fun as the cantankerous rancher who’s always quite confident despite being wrong on everything. Stanton and Bright good too as dimwits who think they’re in on the game only to end up getting played badly. I also enjoyed Patti D’Arbanville who plays Bridges girlfriend Betty. She shows a very wild side with her sexual nature and drug use, but in reality, she’s most likely going to be spending the rest of her life in this small inconsequential town and working the same mundane job we see her doing at the beginning. Having her provocatively dance around while getting drunk and just before she partakes in the orgy is in a lot of ways her final act of rebellion before the clutches of the conventional life, whose claws I suspect she senses are already on her horizon, fully traps her in.

Unlike other movies the residents of this small town aren’t portrayed as being sheltered or cut-off but instead shown as being just as jaded as any urbanite if even more so. It also examines how the ways of the old world have been completely taken over by the attitudes and mores of the modern era where even the rural folk, at least the younger ones like the two sisters, compete to see whose ‘hipper’ and more with the times while wanting to avoid any association of the bygone era of their elders.

My only two complaints are the interior segments done inside John’s ranch home as the rooms came off as cramped and echoey. John was supposedly a rich man, so I wanted to see a house that exuded this with high cathedral ceilings and gaudy decor. Also, having Bridges and Waterston able to retrieve the $50,000 ransom money after kidnapping John’s bull, was too easy. I don’t feel John, or anybody else for that matter, would be willing to let go of their money quite so graciously especially to a couple of crooks. He should’ve either gotten the police involved to set a trap or done it himself by lying in wait at a careful distance with binoculars and waiting to see who comes to retrieve the briefcase full of money and then chasing them down when he spots them, which doesn’t occur, but logically should’ve.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: March 14, 1975

Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Frank Perry

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, PlutoTV, Roku Channel, Tubi, YouTube

 

1 Comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Buddy Movies, Cult, Movies with a rural setting, Movies with Nudity, Quirky

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Pulse (1988)

Posted on August 24, 2026 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Electrical current terrorizes family.

David (Joey Lawrence) moves in with this father (Cliff De Young) and stepmother (Roxanne Hart) for what everyone hopes will be fun and relaxing summer. However, a strange electrical current of unknown origin has infiltrated the grid that controls the appliances of their home. It has already destroyed the home across the street and now seems intent to do the same to theirs. Will the family be able to fight it off and survive, or will they become victims as well?

At the outset before watching the film I was really surprised why this wasn’t better known as I had only become aware of it just recently. Some may argue that because it was given only a limited release that caused it to die off into obscurity, but there’s a lot of movies that weren’t well known when first shown but later acquired a cult following and with this type of premise, you’d think it would make for a good candidate. The special effects, particularly the ones shown inside the electrical circuitry, is impressive and well ahead of its time.

Unfortunately, it gets too invested into these shots. Watching the inner wiring of machines melt away up close is fascinating to see, but having it go back to it in what seems 5 or 8 more times, it starts to get boring and redundant. The other effects, the ones done outside of the machinery, is not nearly as effective. Seeing the family’s TV go ‘haywire’ by having small bleeps appear on the screen will not freak out anybody, and for today’s viewers will come off as nothing more than somebody’s screensaver. Having the washer/dryer backfire a bit in the kid’s face as he looks under it, isn’t real exciting either and for the first hour these are the only so-called ‘scares’ that you’ll see.

Joey Lawrence was not a good casting choice. His claim to fame at the time was his appearances on the TV-Show ‘Gimme a Break’ where his basic talents centered on his singing ability and being an adorable little kid, but in a dramatic setting his exaggerated facial expressions particularly when he’s frightened are over-the-top and a more subtle nuance would’ve been preferrable. I didn’t care for his kid brother Matthew, who plays a neighbor kid, either. I couldn’t understand why his befriending of that kid was even put in as it doesn’t amount to much with the plot. Had they both teamed up to battle the pulse then fine, but that’s not how it works here. I also didn’t get the need for why Joey was a product of a divorce as that angle doesn’t make any difference and he could’ve just been their kid and living there right from the beginning. On that note too his bed, which is styled like a race car, looked cheesy and something better suited for a 4-year-old then someone ready to turn 12.

De Young and Hart are far better actors, and I would’ve preferred it to have just been them fighting the evil force, or maybe also having an infant child to protect, and not having Lawrence in it at all. I realize that in order to attract a youthful audience the main character needed to be a kid, but ultimately it detracts from the tension, what little there is, versus making it stronger. I was also disappointed that Hart disappears halfway through as she was the one thing that kept it together and her absence is sorely missed.

Spoiler Alert!

The scares and action do get more pronounced during the third act, and some may describe this part as being moderately riveting, but having the dad and son work together to battle it doesn’t have much meaning. Had the two been at odds at the beginning and then gotten past their differences in order to battle a common enemy then it might’ve had impact, but there’s no character journey, or arc at all, so ultimately, it’s a generic outing.

It’s also frustrating that no explanation is ever given for what’s behind this force. At the beginning we see a bolt of lightning come out of the sky and strike a power cord, so it seems like it’s simply an act of nature, but as the story progresses it becomes obvious that this force, whatever it is, is ‘plotting’ and ‘thinking’, so what exactly is it? Having it travel to the neighbor’s house and start to harass them just deepens the mystery. Is this force just going to take down each house and family one at a time? And when it gets done with this cul-de-sac is it going to move on to another one and another subdivision and so on until it destroys every house in the country? Who’s going to stop it, or is that even possible? These are all questions that needed to be answered and instead it ends right when it starts to get interesting making it a cop-out that promises way more than it delivers.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: March 11, 1988

Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Paul Golding

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Roku, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Sci-Fi, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , , ,

Alex in Wonderland (1970)

Posted on August 21, 2026 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Director ponders next project.

Alex (D0nald Sutherland) is stuck in the classic struggle many young artists in Hollywood find. His first film that he directed was a big success both commercially and critically, so now he must carefully decide what to for his next project while trying to avoid the dreaded ‘sophomore jinx’. He aspires to do something that analyzes the political struggles of the time, but his agent and studio heads want him to avoid all that and just do something that will be a box office hit. While he longs director something that has impact and ‘makes a statement’ he still fears it not being a hit and thus crippling his career before its barely begun. He also must consider his wife (Ellen Burstyn) and family. He wants to move them into a bigger house in a better neighborhood, but to do so he must choose a project that is profitable. Can he manage to thread-the-needle by creating something that is both artistic and uncompromised, but still commercially appealing?

After the success of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice director Paul Mazursky found himself not knowing what movie that he should do next. Finding himself caught between doing something with mass appeal, but also artistic he finally decided on the ‘clever’ idea of making a movie about a director going through the same type of dilemma. On some level it does have it moments. I liked the segment showing a full-scale Vietnam-like war happening right in the streets of downtown Hollywood, which is surprisingly well mounted and both funny and vivid. The meeting that Alex has with a producer, played by Mazursky, is excellent too. Love how Mazursky uses flattery to try and ‘woo’ Alex into doing the type of project that he wants and tries to impress him with his expensive paintings hanging about to show him how he ‘must know what he’s doing in order to afford such stuff’ and how Alex dryly declines from getting committed to anything. Both men leave still on ‘friendly’ terms, but it’s clear that animosity runs underneath which for me is probably the most on target thing in the whole movie and something that should’ve been explored more instead of just dropped.

The rest of the film is not as engaging and meanders badly until it seems like there’s no pace to it at all. I loved how Mazursky casts his own daughter, Meg, as Sutherland’s kid, she looks just like her real-life dad, and how precocious she is, but her conversations with Sutherland seem endless and don’t help propel the story along and come off almost like someone’s home movie where the camera is turned on and whatever happens happens without any direction at all. The cameos appearances by Federic Fellini and Jeanne Moreau fall flat. In Fellini’s case he seems almost put-off and annoyed and spouts his lines like he just wants to get it over with. With Moreau Sutherland spots her while shopping like anyone can just bump into a legendary French actress while doing everyday activities and then the two break out into song, which is as tacky as it sounds. Not sure if this was meant to be a fantasy segment, or not, but it doesn’t work either way. Viewers of today will be turned-off by Alex’s friend Andre (Andre Philippe) who casually brags about sleeping with 16-year-old girls, which our protagonist almost seems to find amusing. Back in the wild 70’s this sort of thing might’ve been considered by the jaded set as ‘wink-wink’ but now is completely unacceptable.

Burstyn is as usual quite good but having the two argue about what house to buy, or what to purchase at the grocery store is quite generic and not compelling at all. On one hand I guess you could say it’s nice to see that Hollywood couples can have the same type of problems and squabbles as anyone else, but the movie needs something more to it. The attempts to mix the dramatic with the surreal doesn’t work and makes the film quite jarring. Had it been edited down and better structured then maybe, but it’s too wide open to the point that it gives the term cinema verité a bad name.

The most disappointing thing is that it doesn’t delve into the movie business enough. A viewer comes into a movie hoping to experience something that they can’t in real life, or at least appreciate some new viewpoint, but here it never gets going. It stays stalled the whole way with Alex unsure of what to do next. This should’ve ended after act one. In act two he could’ve gone through the process of casting and writing his next project and then in act three went ahead and began filming it. The quarrels and issues he has with his family could’ve been trimmed and intercut between the rest, so we still would’ve gotten a taste of his personal life, but not so much that it would get draggy while also giving us a good idea of how making a movie works from start to finish. Had it gone this route it might’ve been special, but because it doesn’t it ultimately becomes dull and pointless like a movie in desperate search of a script.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: December 17, 1970

Runtime: 1 Hour 51 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Paul Mazursky

Studio: MGM

Available: DVD-R (Warner Archive Collection), Amazon Video, YouTube

 

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Comedy/Drama, Quirky, Surreal/Fantasy

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Loophole (1981)

Posted on August 11, 2026 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Robbing an ‘impenetrable’ vault.

Mike (Albert Finney) is a career safe cracker who finds their last job unrewarding as the loot was less than expected. He decides their next project will be breaking into a bank safe that is supposedly impenetrable, but with one unknown loophole as it’s housed near a main sewer line. He comes up with the idea that he and his men will go into the sewer tunnels and drill holes through the brick walls until they can get underneath where the safe is and then drill through the floor of that until they can get inside. Of course, once they get into the safe it will set off alarms, but the police will not suspect anyone’s inside as the safe door will still be locked shut. In order for their plans to work they’ll need the assistance of Stephen (Martin Sheen) an architect who will be able to locate where the safe is while they’re tunneling underground. At first, he resists, but pressure by his wife (Susannah York) for him to maintain their affluent lifestyle eventually gets him to agree.

The film starts out in a highly unusual way in that with no backstory, or set-up, or even credits jolt the viewer right into a robbery in progress, watching in detail as Mike and his assistants break into a safe, which is disconcerting.  I almost thought there was some sort of glitch in the streaming of the film, and I had somehow come into it in the middle half and completely bypassed the beginning and this goes on for about 5-minutes. Without knowing who these characters are, or why they’re doing it, it’s not interesting or captivating. The result is off-putting and gives the production an amateur vibe.

When the story does finally come into play it still remains fairly awkward. I was surprised that Finney, who had taken a 4-year break from film acting, would choose this one for his ‘comeback’. The character he plays here is dull and one-dimensional and offers no real arc, or emotion. It’s interesting to an extent to see that he lives in affluence with a family, but the woman who plays his wife looks too similar to York, who plays Sheen’s spouse and thus it gets confusing at times, and more effort should’ve been made to make her distinct from the other.

Sheen does better as at the very least you see some change occur in the person he plays and some drama, at least at the very beginning, in his scenes. I liked how he’s resistant to the plan initially by constantly desribing himself as ‘an honest man’, which allows for some tension, but the way he ultimately caves is disappointing. There is the fact that he’s unemployed and in need of the money, but there still should’ve remained friction all the way through. If honesty is truly important to him then there should be lingering guilt about what he’s getting into and evidence of an inner struggle versus him ultimately just becoming ‘one of the guys’.

The robbery itself is pedestrian and been done before in other films. Having their truck get a flat tire, in order for the crew to slide through a trap door of the vehicle and into the manhole cover of the sewer without being detected, seemed too risky especially since it gets done in the daytime instead of under the darkness of night. At one point even the police drive by, which could’ve backfired as once the robbery has been committed, and the investigators realize how it was done they’ll immediately backtrack to the truck and research from the license plate who owned or rented it. Making it probable that they might not have been able to get away with it and would ultimately be caught.

Spoiler Alert!

The most disappointing aspect should’ve been the most exciting. It has to do with the sewer tunnels flooding during an unexpected rainstorm. Finney and his colleagues decide to wade their way through it, but Sheen hangs back insisting he’d rather stay in the safe though this will risk him getting caught once the bank opens on Monday morning.  Watching the water push up through the hole in the floor of the safe eventually creating an entire pool, which gives Sheen less and less room to stay above it, is quite intense, but then the film sells out in the most horrible fashion I’ve even seen, where he’s shown ‘waking up’ inside his own bathtub with absolutely no explanation of how he got out of the safe. If that’s not a copout I don’t what is and seriously ruins the film to the extent that I suggest no one bother to watch it as the stupid ending just destroys the whole thing.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: March 13, 1981

Runtime: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: John Quested

Studio: Goldcrest Films International

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Fawesome, Plex, Roku, Tubi, Amazon Video

 

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, British Movies, Foreign Films, Heist Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Robbing Banks

Tagged , , , , ,

The Cheap Detective (1978)

Posted on August 6, 2026 | 2 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Private eye doesn’t tip.

Lou (Peter Falk) is a struggling private eye who finds himself being questioned by the police over the death of his former partner whose wife (Marsha Mason) he was having an affair with. While he tries to avoid them he comes into contact with his true love Marlene (Louise Fletcher) whom he broke up with years earlier. She wants him to help retrieve some stolen paperwork and a passport that would allow her new husband (Lorenzo Lamas) to leave the country. Along the way he also becomes embroiled in an effort to retrieve a lost treasure that entails gems shaped like eggs.

After the unexpected success of Murder by Death three years earlier writer Neil Simon was motivated to take another stab at detective/mystery satire. This one though, while still making a profit, which came mainly from the opening weekend until word-of-mouth caused it to plummet, didn’t fare as well. While the first film used a variety of comic elements this one stays focused on the dialogue. Some of it is funny as Simon has always been known to have a knack for the one-liners, but it misses out on a lot of potential humor that could’ve propelled it to a higher comic level. Some examples is when Mason’s character talks about getting her black dress at an all-night mourning widow’s shop or receiving her insurance payout just an hour after her husband died, which all would’ve been much funnier had we seen this played out instead of just discussed. The opening visual bit where we see gunshot victims dead, but still standing with small holes in their forehead is both campy and imaginative and there should’ve been more of that throughout verses having it revert to talking heads the rest of the way making it seem almost like it’s a filmed stage play.

While the sets look authentic to the period, they’re also too similar making it seem almost like they stay in the same room the whole time. Lou’s apartment in particular doesn’t look like a genuine bachelor pad as he’s shown having a replica portrait of the Mona Lisa hanging on his wall, but what kind of single man, who’s portrayed as being quite crass and uncultured, would ever want something like that for a decoration? Since he’s constantly complaining about lack of sex and loneliness, I would think having a scantily clad pinup model adoring his place would’ve been better reflective of the character.

The acting by the male cast is a letdown. Falk is the one exception. I initially thought it was type casting as he was more famous for playing another detective named Columbo and I thought watching this would just remind me of that one, but he’s such a talented performer that he manages to make this character quite distinct to the extent that you never see any connection. John Houseman though, playing a fat person named Blubber, is wasted and the oversized suit that he wears, in order to make him seem more ‘blubbery’  does nothing but make his head seem like it’s getting swallowed up. Dom DeLuise is also a detriment playing someone obnoxious and not all that useful to the story. I was also very surprised why Phil Silvers, who was just as well known as the rest, was given such a tiny role where he’s seen just briefly at the end as a cab driver and given only one line to say. Granted he had suffered a stroke earlier in the decade, but he was in several movies and TV-shows after this, so it seemed like he should’ve been given a bigger role and would’ve been able to handle it.

The females fare better especially Fletcher and Mason as well as Ann Margaret who plays a seductive woman, a type of role she’s typically known for, but having her break into a different accent mid scene is fun. I did though feel that Stockard Channing should’ve had more to do. She was treated almost like someone who wasn’t established even though she already starred in her own movie, the underrated gem Sweet Revenge, and thus could’ve been given more of a comic outlet here. I also didn’t buy into her character being so blase about the parade of women that come out of Lou’s apartment as she had openly stated she was into him sexually, so I think she would’ve been jealous and even upset at the other women she saw with him and not amused like here.

The film also suffers from a lack of hipness and much of this could be blamed on virtually the entire cast being well over 40 and filled with has-beens, with the exception of Channing who at 34 was the only up-and-comer. Having a couple of people in their 20’s could’ve helped give it a more youthful appeal and not made it seem so stale.

Spoiler Alert!

There’s also an error that occurs near the end where Falk is shown at gunpoint backed against a window. There’s then a cutaway revealing someone pointing another gun through the open window, but then it cuts back to a long shot where we can’t see the gun making it seem like it’s behind Falk’s body, so then when it goes off it should have hit him instead of Sid Caesar who was sitting in front of Falk. In either case if the gun was indeed behind Falk, but high enough above his body, so that the bullet would hit Caesar then it should’ve been visible in the longshot and no need for the cutaway.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: June 23, 1978

Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Neil Simon

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Amazon Video, Tubi, YouTube

2 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Mystery, Parody

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Evil Under the Sun (1982)

Posted on July 29, 2026 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Who killed the actress?

Hercule Poirot (Peter Ustinov) travels to a luxurious hotel in the Adriatic Sea in order to investigate a diamond that was purchased at Tiffany’s and given to a famous actress named Arlena (Diana Rigg) but later found to be a fake. When Poirot arrives at the resort, he finds the actress to be quite bitchy and disliked by everyone, including Daphne (Maggie Smith) the resort owner who resents Arlena’s fame, as she herself tried out to be an actress at the same time as Arlena, but her career never took off.  There’s also writer Rex (Roddy McDowall) who wants to publish Arlena’s biography, which she now refuses to sign-off on. Producers Odell and Myra (James Mason, Sylvia Miles) resent Arlena because she won’t star in one of their plays, Christine (Jame Birkin) hates her because she’s too flirty with Christine’s husband Patrick (Nicholas Clay), while there’s friction between Arlena and Linda (Emily Hone), Arlena’s 15-year-old stepdaughter, who resents her caustic ways. When Arlena does turn up dead while at the beach it’s up to Poirot to figure out, from the plethora of suspects, which one did it.

This was the second installment with Ustinov playing Poirot after the success of Death on the Nile, and the film starts out with plenty of potential. The exotic locale, filmed on the Balearic Islands, is definitely stunning and a chief asset. The comedic touches, particularly the acerbic interplay between the characters, is another strong point, and helps to make the first hour fun, despite the fact that nothing much happens you’re waiting for the murder to finally happen to the point you begin to wonder if it ever will.

While the production values are high the soundtrack gets overblown. It has a sort of show tune vibe to it, which isn’t bad, but not a good fit for the material. Sure, it’s about an actress who’s starred in some stage productions, but this is something that requires music that helps build suspense, and the stuff here not only doesn’t do that, but actually becomes intrusive. When the characters of Patrick and Myra are boating over to the dead body lying on the beach, the music should’ve been soft and menacing, but here it’s upbeat and booming and this is equally true when Poirot retraces the steps of the killer, where the sound should be downbeat and lowkey and not the reverse.

Spoiler Alert!

The biggest issue I had was with the mystery itself. Normally Agatha Christie does a great job of weaving an elaborate crime, but the resolution here is less than satisfying. While I had never read the 1940 novel of which this is based on, I quickly deemed the Birkin character as being the culprit and the most obvious suspect, so finding out it was her offered no surprise. The way Poirot solves it requires extreme guessing with no proof, like the fact that Birkin has a bottle of sun lotion, or changes the time on Linda’s watch, which is stuff that can’t be fully proven and in a lot of ways a stretch to even deduce. The whole signature thing where the killer (Birkin’s husband) signs his name in the hotel registry, which is a different name that how he signs his cheque, but Poirot is still able to confidently proclaim it’s the same handwriting seemed sketchy too as it didn’t look the same to me.

End of Spoiler Alert!

While the ending is a big letdown the performances by the women are splendid and help keep it entertaining through the lulls. Rigg camps it up perfectly and I enjoyed Smith whose ability to convey droll humor is second to none. Miles is really great too especially her oversized hats, Hone, who’s only ever been in two movies, is fun as the teen who doesn’t hesitate to speak her opinion. Birkin is also excellent particularly because at the time she was a big sex symbol, but here downplays that by covering up her body and coming off as someone who is drab and insecure.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: March 5, 1982

Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Guy Hamilton

Studio: EMI Films

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, Fawesome, Plex, Roku, Tubi, YouTube

 

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Black Comedy, British Movies, Foreign Films, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with a Hotel setting, Mystery

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Posted on July 21, 2026 | 2 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 10 out of 10

4-Word Review: Meetup at Devil’s Tower.

Roy (Richard Dreyfuss) works of a utility company in central Indiana and gets assigned in the middle of the night to investigate power outages that are occurring in the area. While he stops his vehicle to read a map a huge spaceship flies over him causing him to get a bad skin burn on the side of his face. After the encounter he becomes obsessed at recreating a distinct mountain landscape inside his home using any material necessary including digging up the dirt and plants from his outdoor garden and bringing them inside, which causes his wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) to leave him along with their three kids. Jillian (Melinda Dillon) is having a similar issue. She’s a single mother residing in a country home with her young son Barry (Cary Guffey) who gets swept up into the spaceship when it goes over her house. Since losing her son she too becomes obsessed with creating the same type of mountain landscape. Eventually Roy and her meet by chance and when they realize they both have the same vision in common and connect it to Devil’s Tower they set out to Wyoming to get there unbeknownst that the government has already become aware that the aliens intend to land there and have come up with a ploy to keep the public away by pretending that the area has become contaminated with a dangerous gas leak.

The film is a remake of sorts of Steven Spielberg’s first movie that he did called Firelight, which he directed in 1964 when he was only 17. While the storyline was similar that one was shot on a budget of $500 while this one was given almost $20 million and that made all the difference, but what really stands out is how, unlike most sci-fi films up to that time, it’s more about the people and their reactions to the ‘invasion’ or ‘visit’ than the space creatures. Some of the best moments deal simply with the local people congregating on a hilltop next to the highway in the middle of the night playing cards while waiting for the saucer to come. Another great segment is when the government officials become excited when they figure out what the coordinates that the aliens have sent to them mean and then roll out this giant globe to figure where on the planet the location is.

My favorite scenes deal with Roy’s home life, which is so realistic that it’s almost like it could’ve been somebodies home movies. I loved how the children, though still quite young, have essentially ‘taken over’ the house with toys and chaos all over. The parents have become so used to the kids shenanigans that when the one boy takes his younger sister’s doll and begins smashing it to pieces the mom and dad don’t bother to pay much attention to it even as it happens right in front of them, which is what I believe happens with most parents they essentially start to tune out the kids and the noise to the extent they no longer notice what their own kids are doing that others from the outside immediately would.

The casting is on target most of the way. Initially Dreyfuss was deemed too young for the dad role as he was only 29 at the time, but the segment where he becomes disillusioned at the children not wanting to see Pinocchio, which he had enjoyed growing up, brings out the universal generational disconnect that can befall most parents and thus almost immediately cements him as being middle-aged in the viewer’s mind.

I did feel that Garr’s and Dillion’s roles should’ve been reversed. Dillion’s character I never really got into. She’s got too much of a serious look about her and comes off as cold. Some may argue she was traumatized at losing her son, but I just didn’t really feel her pain. Garr is much better at playing vulnerable types and therefore should’ve been the single parent and Roy’s ultimate love interest while Dillion’s acting style would’ve been better suited for the distant and impatient wife.

Roy and Jillian’s quest to get to Devil’s Tower and fight through all the elements that try to stop them is compelling especially when done with John William’s pounding score, but there did seem to be a few logic loopholes. For instance, there’s no explanation where he got the car, as his wife drove off with the kids in their station wagon, and as his car keeps crashing through all the barriers there should’ve been a lot more front-end damage. Having the aliens message the exact coordinates of where Devil’s Tower is begs a lot of questions too. How would aliens know what English numbers mean and if they’re smart enough to learn that then why not learn the language too and speak to the humans with English words and not even bother with the musical note ditty?

Spoiler Alert!

The climactic finish, while still impressive especially with the giant spaceship landing, is a bit of a letdown. The biggest problem are the aliens themselves, which were obvious stop-action Claymation and comes off as tacky and unconvincing. There’s also the issue of this group of people, seems to be around 15, who agree to go off with the aliens in their ship and back to their home planet, but why would anyone want to do that?

How would they know they weren’t going into a hostile environment where humans wouldn’t be accepted, or treating unfairly? Wouldn’t they miss their friends and family here since there would be no guarantee they’d ever come back? Showing other people who had ‘disappeared’ years earlier and were now returned to the earth having not aged might’ve been enough to put the other people’s mind at ease, but still for me it would be taken too much of a risk and I don’t think there would be that many people like it gets shown here who would volunteer to do without question or pause.

The same goes for Roy who is seen entering the ship, but he has family here and if he’s any type of loving father he would never want to leave them. Some may argue that his wife left with the kids, so he was essentially ‘abandoned’, but he could fight for joint custody making the ‘abandonment’ angle null. To make more sense Roy should’ve been portrayed like the protagonist in Liquid Sky, as a loner with no connections or friends and thus leaving this planet wouldn’t have been any great loss.

My Rating: 10 out of 10

Released: November 16, 1977

Runtime: 2 Hours 17 Minutes (Director’s Cut)

Rated PG

Director: Steven Spielberg

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video, YouTube

2 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Classic, Movies Based on Conspiracy Theories, Movies for the Whole Family, Movies with a rural setting, Sci-Fi

Tagged , , , , , ,