Category Archives: Romance

Blind Date (1987)

blind1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 0 out of 10

4-Word Review: Don’t get her drunk!

Walter (Bruce Willis) needs a date as he’s having dinner with a very important client that he has to impress in order to get a business deal to go through. Walter’s brother Ted (Phil Hartman) sets him up with his wife’s cousin Nadia (Kim Basinger). She’s a very beautiful lady who’s just getting over a bad break-up with her possessive boyfriend David (John Larroquette). There’s only one hitch: Walter must make sure that she doesn’t drink any alcohol because if she does she’ll go ‘wild’. Walter though dismisses the warning and offers her a glass of champagne, which soon leads to a night of massive calamity.

Blake Edwards directed a lot of duds in the 80’s and I thought That’s Life and Skin Deep were two of his worst, but this one clearly beats those by a mile.  It has shades of After Hours and had this thing kept the story revolving over the happenings of one night it might’ve worked a bit better, but the second-half goes way off-kilter, which really kills the whole thing and turns it into a complete catastrophe. Screenwriter Dale Launer shouldn’t be blamed either as while his name is still on the credits the script was rewritten so may times that it shared nothing with his originally concept and he ultimately disowned it.

The problem starts right away with the whole alcohol thing as Basinger acts overly drunk after having only a few sips. Her transformation into this crazy lady is more creepy than funny like she has a split personality, or some sort of mental condition. Most guys would be running from her almost immediately and never look back and how someone could ‘fall-in-love’ with her after such obnoxious and erratic behavior defies explanation. If there was ever a bad date night this would be one. The fact that she puts up $10,000 for his bail the next day shouldn’t make-up for it like it does here and where exactly is this lady getting her hands on such quick cash anyways since she can’t afford a place of her own and must reside with others?

Willis is great when he’s the one making wise-cracks like he did in the classic TV-show ‘Moonlighting’, but playing the straight-man who simply responds to all the nuttiness happening around him doesn’t work at all. Having Basinger sober up and then Willis be the one to act zany at a later party they go doesn’t make any sense and seems more like it’s some ‘crazy personality virus’ going around or a possession of some kind that like with the cold or flu can easily transfer from one person to another.

Larroquette as the psycho boyfriend pops-in way too conveniently and becomes a bit hard to imagine how he’s able to constantly track the two down no matter where the go and the fact that his car crashes into the three different storefronts, but the front end of the vehicle remains completely intact, defies logic. His character gets neutered by adding in his parents (William Daniels, Alice Hirson) during the second act whose presence doesn’t really help propel the plot along, but instead seems to take the story in an entirely different direction. Having Larroquette defend Willis in court even though he had a lot to do with why he was in trouble and whose name was mostly likely on the police report and then to have the judge turn-out to be his own father is so outlandish that it’s beyond stupid.

This movie also has somewhat of a personal connection as I was living in L.A. in June of 1986 when it was being filmed and stood around with other pedestrians for a day to watch one of the outdoor scenes that was being shot in a nearby neighborhood. The scene that I saw being filmed comes around the 1-hour mark and entails Willis throwing a beer bottle at the rear window of Hartman’s car and smashing it. The scene took several hours to film as Edwards, who sat under the shade of an umbrella while the cast and crew and had to stand under the hot sun, seemed to be dissatisfied with every take and kept making the actors do the same bit over and over that I found it to be really boring and didn’t think there could be anything duller until of course I finally watched the finished movie, which I found to be even worse.

My Rating: 0 out of 10

Released: March 24, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Blake Edwards

Studio: Tri Star Pictures

Available: DVD, Amazon Video, YouTube

A Perfect Couple (1979)

perfect2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Meeting through dating service.

Sheila (Marta Heflin) is a singer in a traveling rock band run by Ted (Ted Neeley) who is quite demanding and openly berates and even fines members of the group who do not follow his orders. Alex (Paul Dooley) is a middle-aged Greek man still living at home with his domineering father (Tito Vandis) and extended family who berate him at every turn for not conforming to the family orthodox. Both are single and lonely and decide to join a dating service. From there they get connected and go on a first date at an outdoor orchestra concert where it rains and they both get wet. Despite the mishap Alex pressures Sheila for a second date, but miscommunication causes problems here as well. They eventually go their separate ways by dating other people they meet at the service, but Alex feels the need to try one more time to make it work and thus goes on tour with Sheila’s band as they hit the road, but finds their communal lifestyle is not for him.

The inspiration for the movie came while Robert Altman was shooting A Wedding and intrigued with the idea of what would happen if Paul Dooley’s character in that film started dating Sandy Dennis’ character and thus decided to write a whole movie about them. Problems though started right away during rehearsals when Dooley, who’s allergic to cats, could not handle being in the same room with Dennis, who was a major cat lover and would usually bring her pets to the reading, which would send him into a severe allergic reaction. Even when she quit bringing the felines with her it still caused issues with Dooley due to the cat hairs on her clothing. Altman then cut Dennis from the cast and had the part rewritten for Heflin, who was 33 at the time, but looked much younger like she was only 22 or 23 and thus accentuating the differences between the couple.

The film starts out with the two already on their first date instead of showing them viewing potential dates through the taped interviews that the service had available, which I felt was needed. As a guy I could see why Dooley would get into a young, semi-hot chick like Heflin as lonely guys, no matter their age, can instantly ‘fall-in-love’ with a woman from their looks alone, but both need to agree to the date before they go and I couldn’t understand why Heflin would to go out with a guy who was way older and didn’t seem to have much going for him. Maybe all of the other prospects were total duds and he was the best of the lot, so she decided to give it a try, or maybe she had some sort of father complex, but that’s something that still needs to be revealed and the fact that it isn’t leaves a big gaping logic hole.

The characters are palatable to some extent, but behave in ways that makes them at times quite infuriating. Dooley is especially problematic. Granted he’s playing someone who is socially clumsy and not real slick with the dating thing and trying a bit too hard to make it all work, but still insisting that he enter her apartment even when she makes it quite clear that she’s more comfortable just saying goodbye at the door is creepy. Having him show up at her place unannounced and demanding she see him for a second date and not leaving until she relents makes it even worse. There needs to be someone to tell him that his behavior is out-of-line and this isn’t a way to ‘woo a woman’ and in many cases will justifiably scare them off. Unfortunately the Heflin character doesn’t do this. Even though everything he does makes her quite uncomfortable she never protests it and lets him keep having his way, which makes her as annoying as he is.

Their unique living arrangements brings up even more issues. For Heflin I could understand her situation and it made sense. Sure the band manger is a demanding jerk, but I could see her feeling the need to put up with it because she wanted to break into the rock singing business and felt this was part of the crap she had to get through while she works her way up. For Dooley, his living arrangements are just downright baffling as he plays a 50-year-old who’s still residing at home with his father who’s highly demanding forcing Dooley to become a pathetic, obedient simp when around him. I could understand if the guy was like 20 how this might be somewhat believable, but by 50 he should’ve broken away a long time ago and the fact that he hasn’t needs to be explored and explained as it’s highly unusual and seems to intimate that there’s a serious personality disorder of some kind that begs for analyzation that never comes.

The entire runtime has the two going through every bad date moment you could think of. They have absolutely nothing in common and repeatedly talk past each other, so there’s no constructive communication whatsoever and yet somehow at the end they ‘fall in love’, but how? To make a relationship work there needs to be a connecting bond, but the film fails to show what it is making it quite shallow. There’s also an abundance of music played by the band Heflin’s a part of called ‘Keepin’ Em off the Streets’, which gets way overdone. There’s 12 different numbers, which bogs down the pace and makes it seem like a band’s demo reel instead of a movie.

The only memorable bit is when Allan F. Nichols, who co-wrote the script, appears as Dana 115, one of Heflin’s dates for the night and he has a physical confrontation with Dooley, which ended up making me laugh, but that’s about it. Nothing else happens that is either amusing or insightful. A fluffy movie that doesn’t go far enough to be either compelling or memorable.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: April 6, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 47 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Robert Altman

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD

Made for Each Other (1971)

made

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple argues a lot.

Pandora (Renee Taylor) is an out-of-work actress still clinging to her dreams that she’ll one day become famous something she has hoped for since she was a child. Gig (Joseph Bologna) suffers from not being able to find a stable relationship and guilt-ridden over sending the last one into attempted suicide. Both Pandora and Gig attend a group therapy session and this is where they meet. Initially though things are rocky. Gig does not like Pandora’s stand-up act, something she’s been working on for years, and openly tells her it’s awful. They then break-up, but Pandora eventually returns telling him that he was right and she’s worked out the ‘kinks’ from her act, so it’s now improved. To celebrate Gig takes her to his parents (Paul Sorvino, Olympia Dukakis) for Thanksgiving. The parents though don’t approve of Pandora since she’s Jewish and they’re Catholic and they eventually drive her out of their apartment. Gig and Pandora continue to argue once they’re back in the car, but find, strangely, that no matter how the other one annoys them they still like each other’s company.

After the runaway success of Lovers and Other Strangerswhich Bologna and Taylor wrote initially as a play, but then turned it into a movie, Hollywood studios were interested in them trying another script and gave them upfront money to do so. The first film had been based on their real-life experiences of dealing with all of their in-laws during their wedding, which occurred in 1965, and so they decided to base this one on their lives as well, namely what brought them together. Like with their first project the script is quite broad and focuses in on many different people including the parents of each character who have quite a bit of screentime, particularly Sorvino and Dukakis, and who are quite funny. The film also shows the leads when they were infants and many of their childhood experiences, which gets shot in black-and-white, that is also both insightful and amusing.

Unlike with most movies the scenes are quite extended and seemed better primed for a stageplay. The elusive Robert B. Bean gets credited as director, but he never did anything else, which seems a bit curious and there’s been rumors that he was just a pseudonym for Bologna who took over as the actual director. The long takes though are effective and enhance the comedy. The scene inside Gig’s parents house where the tension builds when they slowly realize that Pandora is ‘not their kind’ is quite good and not unlike what could happen in many families homes of that era who closely identified with their particularly religions and not privy to having their kids marry outside of it. Gig’s inability to appreciate Pandora’s stage act and his blunt assessment of it while at a late night cafe is comically on-targe too as any fledgling artist will tell you sometimes family members, friends, and even those really close to them won’t always connect with their artistic endeavors and regrettably become their biggest critics.

Sorvino scores as the abrasive no-nonsense father though ironically he was actually 5-years younger than Bologna who plays his son and for that reason his hair should’ve been made more gray. Dukakis is equally on-target as the super religious mother whose strong faith amounts to a lot of rituals and ends up inadvertently harming her child psychologically like when she catches him masturbating and informs him that if he continues his ‘little thing will fall off’. Helen Verbit as Pandora’s mother is equally amusing playing the over-protective type who wants so hard to shield her daughter from harsh reality that she tells her that her stage act is ‘brilliant’ when it really isn’t and that because she’s her mother that somehow makes her opinion ‘objective’.

The film’s one drawback is the yelling, which there is a lot of. Sometimes confrontational comedy can be quite amusing and this one works most of the way, but how much the viewer will enjoy is up to each individual. Bologna’s shouting is particularly loud and abrasive. It’s meant to funny and done only out of aggravation, but it does tend to get extended especially by the end. Had Taylor shouted back then it would’ve seemed like a ‘fair fight’, but having her run away and cry takes humor out of it and may ultimately ingrate on the audience. The intent is for there to be an offbeat charm, but not everyone may see it that way and thus this thing won’t be for all tastes.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: December 12, 1971

Runtime: 1 Hour 41 Minutes

Rated GP

Director: Robert B. Bean

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD-R (Fox Cinema Archives)

Roadie (1980)

roadie1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Truck driver and groupie.

Travis (Meat Loaf) and B.B. (Gailard Sartain) are two truck drivers out making deliveries when they come upon a disabled RV on the side of the highway. Initially they don’t plan to stop, but when Travis sees Lola (Kaki Hunter), a would-be rock ‘n’ roll groupie, peering out the RV window he decides he’s ‘fallen in love’ and pulls-over. His ability to fix mechanical issues using unorthodox tools impresses Ace (Joe Spano) who’s a road manager and wants Travis to drive them to Austin to set-up equipment for a Hank Williams Jr. show. Because of his fondness for Lola he agrees and promptly quits his job as a trucker to travel all over the country meeting such rock ‘n’ roll legends as Roy Orbison and Blondie while also awkwardly courting Lola who’s more infatuated with meeting her idol Alice Cooper.

While director Alan Rudolph has never had a box office hit his movies have usually achieved success amongst the critics except for this one, but  I considered it his most original effort. Roger Ebert described it as being ‘disorganized and episodic’ even though life on the road in a tour group works that way with new issues coming up almost hourly and like driving on the open road there can be many detours and speed bumps as well as fleeting faces, which in that context the film recreates, in quirky comic form, quite well. He also complained about the lack of character development and maybe in Travis’ case there wasn’t much, but he’s such a funny caricature that I didn’t think he needed any. With Lola though I felt there was and impressed me with how much depth she ultimately showed especially since she initially seemed like nothing more than a caricature too. I really liked that she wasn’t as into Travis at the start like he was into her, which can happen a lot, and she has to grow into liking him during their many adventures though still never really openly admits to it to either herself, or others, which I felt was a refreshing change from the ‘love at first sight’ thing in the Hollywood formulas. Ebert also complained that the songs were never played to completion though the ones that are about Texas are.

There’s many unique laugh-out-loud moments. Some of my favorites was the laundromat scene where Travis and Lola have a box of Tide that supposedly holds cocaine. The car chase in Austin done at night in front of the state Capitol building is amusing as is the barroom brawl. Granted there’s been a lot of those in movies, but like with everything else it has a quirky style unlike the others especially as Travis gets hit in the head and begins rambling out incoherent nonsense. The scenes at Travis’ boyhood home where his father (Art Carney) and sister Alice Poo (Rhonda Bates) are a riot including the telephone booth connected to machine belts that allows it to go from the exterior of the home to the inside and the BBQ chicken eating scene, which may be, at least visually, the best moment in the film.

It’s also nice to have a movie that’s all about Texas to actually be filmed in Texas. Too many try to cheat it, a few of them have been reviewed here recently, that mask the Arizona desert, or even the California one to Texas, but anyone from the Lone Star State could easily detect the difference. This one truly has the Texas look and you can see this from the very first shot which features armadillos crossing the highway and because of this it gets the honor of being put into the Scopophilia movie category of ‘Movies that take place in Texas’ versus the ones that say they are set here, but filmed elsewhere.

Spoiler Alert!

Probably the only thing that doesn’t quite work is the ending where Travis and Lola are kissing in the front seat of a pick-up only to see a bright light of a spaceship. I realize the intent was to do a parody of the ‘Paradise by the Dashboard Light’ song and maybe if we had actually seen the ship, which got inadvertently destroyed before shooting began I might’ve forgiven it, or maybe even been impressed, but entering in a sci-fi genre that late becomes almost like a sell-out and too surreal for its own good. Something that stayed true to the playful quirkiness that came before it would’ve tied the bow better.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: June 13, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Alan Rudolph

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Blu-ray

Starting Over (1979)

starting1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Can’t get over ex.

Phil (Burt Reynolds) gets a divorce from Jessica (Candice Bergen), a successful songwriter, when he finds out she’s been having an affair. He then moves to Boston where his brother Mickey (Charles Durning) and sister-in-law Marva (Frances Sternhagen) set him up with Marilyn (Jill Clayburgh) a nursery school teacher. They don’t initially hit-it-off, so he instead goes out with Marie (Mary Kay Place), but that doesn’t go over well either, so he again calls up Marilyn and this time she relents. Despite the usual ups-and-downs things between them begin to gel and soon they decide to move in together only to have Jessica reappear wanting to get back with Phil and Phil becoming torn as to what he should do.

Based on the novel of the same name by Dan Wakefield with a screenplay by James L. Brooks best known for producing the classic TV-show ‘Mary Tyler Moore Show’. Like with that show the story focuses heavily on the pitfalls of dating life with much of it on-target though it does have a serious out-of-touch quality that’s no longer in-tune with today’s generation. The big one is that they meet on their first date inside the women’s apartments, which because of safety concerns doesn’t happen much now and usually it’s always advised to meet in a public setting and not give out personal addresses until you really get to know the person better. There’s also a scene where Jessica, who wears a highly revealing outfit, meet in Marilyn’s apartment and have what we’re told is a civil three hour conversation though in this day and age it’s hard to believe two women, knowing that the other one is clearly after ‘their man’, could be that composed and most likely a fight would break-out and I’m kind of surprised knowing how emotional Marilyn was and wearing her insecurities on her sleeve, that one didn’t happen here.

On the flip side there’s some terrifically funny moments.  One is when Marilyn and Phil initially get off the bus together, before they’ve officially met, and she thinks he’s a stalker, which has a good true-to-life feel. Another great scene is when Phil and Marilyn briefly break-up and he goes to her school, where they’re having a dunk-a-teacher water party and he manages to hit the bullseye with the ball he’s throwing and she’s goes into the water repeatedly before eventually losing her cool and swearing. Phil’s anxiety attack inside a department store is memorable too as his Jessica’s call to Phil at his apartment while he’s serving Thanksgiving dinner to Marilyn and his guests, which creates quite the awkward moment. Phil’s first date with the aggressive Marie is a terrific bit too.

The acting is top notch especially Clayburgh who creates the perfect composite of single women during the 70’s who desperately wants to get into a relationship, but many times allow her fears and anxieties to get in the way. Reynolds is excellent playing against type. Normally he’s a brash womanizer, but here he’s far more reserved and indecisive.  This is also the last movie where he didn’t have his patented mustache and I felt he looked way better and younger without it. Even Bergen, in a much smaller role, is memorable particularly with her off-key renditions of the songs her character has written.

Overall I consider this one of the best romantic movies made. I will admit a modern remake would give the story a more timely update, but the situations nicely reflect the dating conundrums that affect us all.  My only complaint would be with the Clayburgh character, who seemed too insecure to be able to get into a healthy relationship. Most guys would be scared off with her constant emotional outbursts and accusations and I didn’t see why Phil stuck with it. This is one instance, especially since Phil was pretty much a hunk, that I felt the woman he fell for should’ve been better looking, or at least equal to the Jessica character that he left. I just couldn’t understand exactly why, being that there were a lot of women who could easily get into him, he’d choose, or settle for, Marilyn over all the others. Had they had more in common then maybe, but she came-off like a woman who would eventually become a cat lady and too emotionally needy to be someone you could have a long term relationship with.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: October 5, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 45 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Alan J. Pakula

Studio: Paramount Pictures

Available: DVD-R, Amazon Video, YouTube

Surrender (1987)

surrender

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: Pretending to be poor.

Sean Stein (Michael Caine) is a successful novelist, who after suffering through two contentious divorces, has decided that women are only after him for his money and considers them off-limits. Daisy (Sally Field) is a struggling artist, who is in a relationship with Marty (Steve Guttenberg), a successful attorney with no interest in making a long term commitment. While attending a charity ball that gets overrun by gunmen who rob the place, Sean and Daisy, find themselves tied-up together and despite the stressfulness of the situation slowly get to know each other. The next day, after they ultimately get freed, Sean asks Daisy for a date, but decides to pretend that he’s poor to make sure she loves him for who he is rather than because of his money.

While Jerry Belson wrote several successful comedies during the 70’s and based this story loosely on his own life experiences where he proudly stated that everything that happened to Sean in this movie happened to him in real-life, the pacing and basic comedy scenarios really don’t work. It starts out alright  as they’re several flashbacks showing Sean with his attorney, played by Peter Boyle, battling his ex-wives in court. The different hairstyles that they have as they go through the years is funny and the most creative thing in the movie. I was though disappointed that the two women who play the ex-wives, Louise Lasser and Iman, are never give a single word of dialogue, which wastes the talents of these well-known actresses.

After the first ten minutes though things quickly fall apart. Having armed thieves crash the party that the two are at is particularly troubling as there is no forewarning for why this is happening. People who attending posh parties usually don’t find themselves at gunpoint, so why are they here? Had there been even a fleeting mention of a group of criminals crashing area get togethers then maybe, but here we get no explanation either before, or after giving the plot a haphazard quality like the filmmakers are happy to throw in any crap they want whether it makes sense, or not. The characters respond to what most would consider to be a traumatic experience like it’s just a ‘run-of-the-mill thing’ and by the next day barely remember it, even though many people would have genuine PTSD after it was over.

Caine’s attempts to woo Sally would in most cases have the woman thinking he was a potential stalker. First he comes to her house six hours before their date saying that he couldn’t wait that long to see her and wanted to spend every waking minute with her that he could, which for any sane woman would be a serious red flag. He then kisses her without her consent and begs for immediate sex, or he might not be able to control himself and instead of calling 9-1-1 she gives him a pity fuck. Not only is this unfunny and stupid, but an insult to the viewer’s intelligence that they would find any of this to be a normal, well-adjusted way to start a healthy relationship.

I also thought Caine, who was a raving misogynist who even had signs on the front gate of his home banning women from entering, came around to liking Sally too quickly. Sure she was kind to him when they were tied-up, but an avowed women-hater doesn’t just change his ways overnight, but in this movie that’s exactly what happens, which isn’t realistic. If anything it should’ve been Sally chasing after Caine, who might’ve liked her a little at first, but so set in his ways would still decide to avoid her and only after an extended period of time, and continual prodding by Sally, would he eventually relent.

The pretending to be poor thing isn’t handled well either. I was expecting there to be a lot of comic moments dealing with Caine trying to desperately hide his wealth and background, but that never gets played out. He isn’t even forced to rent himself a seedy, little apartment in order to hide the fact that he lives in a mansion as Sally was apparently never curious about seeing his place, but how many serious relationships are there where they always go to one partner’s home and never the other?

The third act gets even more ridiculous as it has Caine insisting that Field needs to sign a prenup agreement. She’s resistant at first, and even insulted, but then eventually signs it without ever bothering to read it, which is idiotic. She also goes to Vegas and wins 2 million dollars at the slot machine her very first time playing it, which is beating insurmountable odds.

I did like the scene where Caine hands Sally a manuscript he has written, which was published into a book though he doesn’t tell her this and then becomes insecure when she doesn’t immediately like it, which being a budding screenwriter myself, I found funny and despite all the other absurdity in the film, a bit true to life. I was hoping the movie would explore this situation more, but it doesn’t making the rest of it a sore disappointment.

I was surprised why either of these big name stars agreed to do it. I know Caine was willing to be in almost anything for the money, but I’m not sure what Sally’s excuse was and if you ask me I’d find the old reruns of her TV-show ‘The Flying Nun’ to be more entertaining. It’s easy to see why this dumb thing, despite the star quality, has never gotten a DVD or Blu-ray release and nobody’s been clamoring for it either. It bombed badly at the box office too managing to recoup only $5 million of it’s $15 million budget.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Released: October 9, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Jerry Belson

Studio: Warner Brothers

Available: VHS, Tubi

The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)

purple1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Breaking the fourth wall.

Cecilia (Mia Farrow) is a lonely woman living in 1935 who’s stuck in a dead-end job and an abusive marriage. As an escape she regularly goes to the movies and becomes especially entranced with one called ‘The Purple Rose of Cairo’ particularly the dashing young man character named Tom (Jeff Daniels). Tom notices Cecilia continuing to attend each showing and thus breaks out of the black-and-white movie he is in and into the real world just so he can speak with her as he feels he’s falling in love. Cecilia tours him around the small New Jersey town where she lives while the rest of the cast in the movie he’s left sit around and hope he’ll come back, so they can continue on with the story. The actor, Gil Shepherd (also played by Daniels), who played Tom in the movie hears about Tom jumping out of the screen and heads to New Jersey in order to coax him back, but Tom is having too much fun getting to know Cecilia and has no intention of returning to the phony life of the movie world. In the meantime Gil also meets up with Cecilia and the two begin to hit-it-off. Will Cecilia choose Gil over Tom and if so will this get Tom to go back into the movie once and for all?

This was the first of Woody Allen’s nostalgic picture that would replicate the time and place of when he grew up and in fact the theater where Cecilia watches her movies was the Kent Playhouse, which Allen had gone to when he was 12 and which he describes ‘one of the great, meaningful places of my boyhood’. His ability to capture working class life and Cecilia’s bleak existence is completely on-target making the opening 20-minutes one of the most impactful of the whole film. Farrow is nothing short of excellent and Danny Aiello, who got this part to make-up for getting passed over in Broadway Danny Rose, is quite good too particularly with the way he’s able to show the human side of his character despite him being quite abusive and domineering to his wife otherwise.

The comedy takes off when Tom literally jumps out of the screen and Allen is very creative at thinking out every conceivable angle at not only how the other patrons in theater respond, which is some of the funnier bits in the film, to the characters onscreen, who are also quite amusing most notably Zoe Caldwell who plays the Countess and has some great zingers, but also the film’s producer (Alexander Cohen) and how he responds to the ‘calamity’. Some may argue that it’s missing a cause, since film characters don’t jump out of the screen everyday what allowed it to happen in this case, which the movie never answers, but for me that’s what made it even more amusing as everyone reacts in wildly different ways to the unexplainable and if anything Allen at least doesn’t cop-out by turning it into some sort of dream that Cecilia had, which would’ve been disappointing. I’d rather have as some odd fluke in the universe than reverting to an overused dream gimmick.

My one complaint was Daniels who’s deadly dull. He has a few amusing responses to things, but he’s bland most of the way. Michael Keaton was cast in the part initially, but after 10-days of filming Allen decided he seemed ‘too contemporary’ and thus had him replaced, which is a shame as Keaton has a more dynamic onscreen presence while Daniels seems too transparent. I didn’t like the entering in of the actor character either as that just started to make it too confusing. The actor should’ve been wildly different than the character he played, extreme narcissistic ego, which would’ve been hilarious. While he does show some of these traits it’s not enough and it gets hard telling the difference between the two. Having a rich Hollywood actor, who would most likely already be in a relationship anyways, falling in love with a nondescript housewife didn’t make a lot of sense. While the scenes between Cecilia and Tom are quite endearing, the moments between her and Gil are boring and start bogging the whole thing down.

Spoiler Alert!

Some have complained about the so-called ‘unhappy ending’, which Leonard Maltin in his review described as ‘a heartbreaker’, but I found it to be a perfect. The odds that a relationship between a up-and-coming Hollywood star and a New Jersey housewife would actually work are pretty slim. Besides Cecilia’s love affair wasn’t with people anyways, but with movies and their ability to sweep her away from her sad existence and into a fantasy world and on that level it’s a happy one as Cecilia returns to the theater all broken-hearted only to again forget her troubles when she gets wrapped-up in a Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers flick proving that movies would always be there for her even when people won’t.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: January 26, 1985

Runtime: 1 Hour 22 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Woody Allen

Studio: Orion Pictures

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

Reuben, Reuben (1983)

reuben1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Housewives lust for poet.

Gowan (Tom Conti) is a middle-aged poet going through writer’s block who hasn’t written anything in 5 years and manages to remain solvent by touring around a college town and reciting his older writings to women’s clubs. The stress though of not being able to produce anything new causes him to turn to alcohol and further rescinds his writing ability. Geneva (Kelly McGillis) is a college student several years his junior who spots him on a train one day and agrees to pay his fare when he’s found not to have any money. This generosity manages to have a profound affect on him and he makes a commitment to mend his ways while also going out with Geneva on casual dates. The awkward love affair doesn’t go far as Gowan continues to drink and embarrass her every time they go out. When Geneva finds out she’s pregnant the two then must decide how they will proceed.

Unusual romantic flick that has all the ingredients of failing, but manages somehow to have a certain light appeal. Much of this is thanks to McGillis, who in her film debut really shines and while this film is not one of her better known ones I still consider it her best work. Normally film’s dealing with May-December romances don’t work because the younger partner is always portrayed as being wide-eyed and naïve, but here it’s Geneva that’s the sensible one who calls all the shots and remains in control. This change of pace gives the old theme a refreshing new spin and made it palatable enough to hold my interest and in certain moments even becomes touching.

Conti gives a good performance, but he seems more like a caricature. He wears the same dowdy outfit all the way through making me wonder if that was the only suit he owned and if so whether he reeked of odor. I found it hard to believe that this guy, who looks like he was living on the streets, would attract all these frustrated housewives who’d be rushing to go to bed with him. With all the alcohol he consumed I’d have serious questions whether he’d be able to perform, or how sex with him could possibly be much better than with their husbands as I would think it might actually be worse.

Supposedly this was all meant as ‘satire’ and based loosely on the life of Dylan Thomas. Possibly in book form, as this was based on the novel of the same name by Peter De Vries and then later turned into a stage play, it might’ve worked, but as a film set in the modern day it’s confounding. Thomas hit his fame in the 30’s and 40’s when movies and television where just getting started and therefore writers held more clout, but by the 80’s there were so many other types of celebrities that some frumpy looking drunk guy who used big words to create long poems wouldn’t be someone a suburban housewife would get all that excited over. The opening sequence shows the reactions on their faces as they listen to him recite some of his writings and while one of them has a confused look on her face I felt they all should’ve and for my money that would’ve been really funny.

Spoiler Alert!

The finale, which Leonard Maltin in his review calls ‘curious’, but I’d describe more as ill-advised is the one thing that really hurts it. I’m not sure what the thinking was other than Dylan Thomas died young so possibly they felt Gowan needed to die too, but it was the wrong decision. Normally I get annoyed with movies that tack-on a happy ending and have everything work-out even when it’s not earned, but this film works in reverse by throwing in a very sad one that comes out of nowhere and doesn’t fit the tone of the rest of the movie, which for the most part had been quite whimsical.

The way it gets done is pretty dumb too as he elects to hang himself inside his apartment after he finds out all of his top teeth, many of which have been rotting for years due to neglect, would have to be removed. While losing teeth is no one’s idea of fun it does happen to a lot of folks of all ages and dentures (this was made before the advent of implants) if fitted properly aren’t always that noticeable, so to kill yourself over something like that seemed awfully rash.

Just as he’s about to hang himself he gets inspired again to write and even excited about finding new women to sleep with, but then a lovable sheep dog named Reuben runs into the room (you’d think someone planning to kill himself would have the sense to shut his door and lock it) and being overly affectionate jumps-up and knocks down the chair that he’s standing on, which comes-off as being more farcical than anything. I was fully expecting the wooden beam that the rope was tied around to break from the stress of all the weight, which in reality I think it would, but instead it doesn’t and he’s left hanging leaving me genuinely baffled. For such an otherwise light and quirky movie to end this way was very jarring.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: December 19, 1983

Runtime: 1 Hour 41 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Robert Ellis Miller

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD, Blu-ray

Seems Like Old Times (1980)

seems

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Ex on-the-run.

Nick (Chevy Chase) is a lonely writer working on his novel at a remote seaside cabin, which he hopes will give him the isolation that he needs to allow his creative juices to flow. Unfortunately for him two bank robbers (Judd Omen, Marc Alaimo) stake-out the place and kidnap him and then force him at gunpoint to rob a nearby bank. Nick gets seen on the security camera and a warrant for his arrest is issued. He seeks help from his ex-wife Glenda (Goldie Hawn) a public defender who has remarried to Ira (Charles Grodin) who’s running for attorney general and fears that the notoriety of having his wife’s ex-husband on-the-run from the law could hurt his chances of getting elected. Glenda decides to help Nick by letting him stay in an unused bedroom above their garage while trying to keep him hidden, so Ira won’t find out. This scheme leads to many close calls and misunderstandings while also reigniting Glenda’s feelings for Nick, which she thought she had gotten over a long time ago.

While it may seem hard to believe now screenwriter Neil Simon was at the time, having just come-off his success with the hit The Goodbye Girl , considered chic with young adults particularly on the romance end and this film was the peak of that period as after this his material became increasingly more nostalgic. This works mostly because it remains focused on Simon’s patented one-liners and funny conversational quality, which is quite amusing though it would’ve been nice had it attempted to branch out into other forms of comedy like when Chase and Grodin have a physical fight that is never shown and instead we just hear the noise of it from inside the kitchen while the camera stays stationary in the other room. The visual gags and pratfalls from a funny fight could’ve helped add another dimension to the humor and thus I found this moment to be a missed opportunity.

The acting is uniformly wonderful particularly Chase in a role that takes full advantage of his glib, sardonic delivery probably better than any other film role he’s been in and this most likely was a result of Simon doing a 2-week rehearsal period where he observed the stars interacting with each other and made changes to the script based on the personalities of the performers. It’s good to see Hawn in a more mature role. Before this she played spacey-blondes who were young and on the fringe of society, but here she falls comfortably into a middle-aged setting of a career woman maintaining both a job, home, and marriage and showing the juggling act that this type of lifestyle requires. She’s also not the sole source of humor, but instead reacts to the zaniness around her with funny facial reactions. The supporting cast such as Yvonne Wilder as the heavy-accented Latina maid and T.K. Carter as the wise-cracking chauffeur who hasn’t fully gotten rid of his old ex-con ways are quite amusing too as are the pack of dogs that Hawn owns and proceed to run all over the house at all times.

Grodin was the only character that doesn’t really fit. I found it strange why someone who doesn’t like dogs and can’t stand the way they sleep on the bed that he shares with Hawn would want to marry a woman who was so into them. Outside of the fact that they were both lawyers I didn’t see what else connected them and it seemed like a mismatched marriage. On the other-hand I found it interesting he wasn’t portrayed as a jerk. In most romances were the old partner comes back into the picture the new guy is played-up in a way that makes the viewer dislike them and where you want to see the woman going back to her old flame instead of staying with the cad, but here that’s not the case, which works to some degree, but also hurts it.

Spoiler Alert!

The issue with the second husband really comes into play at the very end when it becomes painfully obvious that Simon couldn’t think up a way to resolve the dilemma and comes-up with one of the dumbest finales imaginable where Hawn and Grodin go driving into the wilderness during a rain storm, have a car accident in which Grodin gets injured and she treks off into the woods only to find an isolated cabin with Chase inside. The movie stops with a freeze-frame of Hawn’s face revealing a broad smile once she sees Chase opening the door making it seem like the two spent a cozy, romantic night in the cabin while Grodin remained suffering inside his stranded car, which wasn’t exactly humane.

Personally if I had written the script I would’ve done it differently, which I realize might’ve been considered ‘too edgy’ for 1980. However, since Chase’s character had been in a Mexican prison for awhile I would’ve had the experience bring out the dormant gay side of him. This could’ve helped explained why the two criminals came to his place to force him into a bank robbery was because they were guys he knew, or former lovers, from jail and they figured out where he lived and hence tracked him down to be a part of their scheme. This would help explain the opening as having them stake out such an extremely isolated place, which didn’t seem to even have any roads leading into it, just to find a willing victim never really made much sense otherwise. The Grodin character could also have some dormant gay desires, which would explain why his sex life with Hawn wasn’t so great. Chase could then take-up permanent residence in the room above the garage where he could, at different times, ‘service’ both Hawn and Grodin and the three could share a happy alternative lifestyle, which being that the story takes place in coastal California wouldn’t have been all that outrageous or unusual.

Another possibility would be to have Grodin played-up as being more into his political career than his marriage and thus pushing Hawn away, or he could just become sick and tired of all the dogs in the bed at night and decide to leave her, which would be understandable as I wouldn’t like sleeping with dogs either. In either case Hawn would be free to run back to Chase and the audience wouldn’t have had any problem with it.

The worse scenario though is how it ends here with Hawn selfishly getting it on with Chase, or at least implying this, while the man she’s married to remains stuck in pain inside a cold, damp car for who knows how long. At some point she’s going to have to decide which guy she wants more, or if she’ll just remain hopping between the two, but some finality needed to be given instead what amounts to a pathetic cop-out by a writer who clearly didn’t want the challenge of having to figure it out.

If anything I would’ve had her with a different facial expression. During the movie she was constantly hyperventilating with this shocked look every time she’d see Chase drop-in and that’s what we should’ve seen as the film’s final image.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: December 19, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Jay Sandrich

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Amazon Video

Pieces of Dreams (1970)

pieces1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Priest breaks his celibacy.

Father Gregory (Robert Forster) is a priest working outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico with a mainly Hispanic church membership. He had been dealing with a 15-year-old boy who was in-trouble with the law only to be called into the hospital late one night to learn that he’d been killed while trying to steal a car. It’s there that he meets Pamela (Lauren Hutton) a social worker from the local community center. The two share widely different viewpoints particularly on the topic of abortion, but despite their differences the two eventually fall in love and their relationship turns intimate. Gregory feels guilty about this due to his vow of celibacy and tries to hide the affair from Paul (Ivor Francis) an older priest whom he lives with and is known to have a prying eye. Gregory decides to ask for a leave in order to get his thoughts together, but learns that trying to find a job on the outside with little work experience can be a difficult task. While he avoids Pamela in order to figure out what direction he wants to take his life the other priests put pressure on her to break it off permanently while trying to guilt-ridden her that she’s destroying a ‘good man’s career’.

This was an unusual career move for Forster who had just completed his signature role in Medium Cool where he was seen running around naked with a nude woman inside his apartment during a provocative moment, so I guess he wanted to tackle a completely different type of character for his next project in an effort to avoid being typecast, but it doesn’t really work. He’s a fine actor, but his streetwise personality trickles through and he never really comes-off as being all that devout and thus making the career arch very expected and no surprise at all. The voice-over narration that he has during the first act, in an attempt to convey to the viewer his inner thoughts, was not needed and off-putting.

Hutton is quite beautiful. She hit her career peak with her work in American Gigolo when she was already middle-aged, so seeing her still quite youthful looking is a treat, at least to the heterosexual male viewer, and you could easily see why she was a former model. Ivor Francis, not necessarily a household name, but competent character actor during the 60’s and 70’s, is quite good as the domineering senior Priest who has his own character flaws that he tries to cover-up even though he’s more than happy to readily expose the ones he sees in others. Will Geer also shines, but isn’t seen until the tail end playing a clergyman who has an amusing line when he tells Gregory that the celibacy demand for Priests ‘will soon be going away’ even though 50 years after this was filmed nothing has changed.

The theme dealing with how religion in theory is meant to be comforting, but in practice can become something that torments people by making them feel guilty and fearing the wrath for what could be considered to others as being minor infractions, like having sexual thoughts, is on-target though not necessarily ground-breaking. Some of the other issues will seem quite dated like the married woman who fears using the pill, or any other type of contraception, as it goes against the teachings of the catholic church, though through the decades this is no longer considered as much of a ‘sin’. There’s also the scene where Gregory lectures a youth who’s in jail for smoking cannabis about how he’s ‘thrown his life away’ while pot is now legal in many states.

The real problem, or when the film ultimately ‘jumps-the-shark’, is when Gregory goes to bed with Pamela, which came off as way too seamless and rushed. Up until then the couple really hadn’t had much in common and were usually arguing over political issues and weren’t for that matter even officially dating. It seemed to me that if someone like Gregory is made to feel extremely guilty for even thinking about sex that is ability to actually perform it would be questionable. Having him run away from her when he started feeling the urge and then avoiding her due to the temptations that she gave him would’ve made more sense then just having him casually hop in the sack without a second thought like he’s just a regular guy on the make and wearing the priest collar is some sort of performance art.

What the filmmakers apparently thought would be a compelling question of would he, or wouldn’t he stay in the church is ultimately given the placid treatment. The romance angle isn’t convincing and despite some good conversational dialogue, and nice on-location shooting of New Mexico in the autumn, the story fails to resonate making the movie woefully trite by the time it finally ends.

pieces2

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: September 23, 1970

Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes

Rated GP

Director: Daniel Haller

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD-R (MGM Limited Edition Collection), Amazon Video