Private Eyes (1980)

privateeyes

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Inept detectives investigate case.

Inspector Winship (Don Knotts) and Dr. Tart (Tim Conway) are two American detectives hired by Scotland Yard to investigate the murder of two people at a country estate in the 1920’s. Despite receiving a letter from one of the murdered victims asking them to investigate their murder the two prove to be quite inept. The various members of the mansion’s staff begin to turn-up dead one-by-one, which further deepens the mystery as a figure shrouded in a dark robe menaces the two as they investigate the case.

After the surprise box office success of The Prize Fighter, which became one of the most profitable films ever released by New World Pictures, screenwriter John Myhers, who had co-wrote that one, convinced Conway and Knotts to do another one. This one also did well earning a big profit, but for whatever reason it was the last of the Conway/Knotts comedies and they appeared together only once more in a brief cameo as two highway cops in Cannonball Run II

To some degree this is an improvement over their other one because here the entire cast is allowed to be funny and there’s none of the awkward, corny drama. Conway has a few good moments like when he stuffs his mouth full of apricots, or tries to cut a rope tied around Knotts’ hands with a sword that’s still connected to a knight’s armor. These two also get to reveal that they have a sex drive as they fight with each other over who gets to look through a tiny peephole to see the ravishing Mistress Phyillis, played by Trisha Noble, undress.

On the negative end a lot of the comedy falls flat. The opening animated bit, styled after the Inspector Clouseau Pink Panther films, is especially lame and should’ve been nixed. The running gag where the killer leaves notes where the last word never rhymes with the others is amusing for awhile, but gets overplayed. The stunts, pratfalls, and special effects are cheap and despite being filmed on-location at the Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North Carolina you really only get to see a few rooms of it making it seem like a waste.

Conway and Knotts can certainly be amusing at times, but they’ve played these types of characters for so long that they now have become predictable and boring. The Sherlock Holmes-styled parody has been done many, many times and this adds nothing new to the mix. It’s also hard to understand why if these guys are really this hopeless and everyone in the world seems to know it how they’d continue to find work and why Scotland Yard continues to give them employment and doesn’t just let them go. Inspector Clouseau was also very inept, but he always managed through irony and dumb luck to solve the case and come-out still looking like the ‘hero’ to the public, which only helped to bolster his career. These guys though don’t ever get anything right and are perpetually clueless, so why are they detectives to begin with?

A much better idea would’ve been to have placed the setting into the modern day especially since none of the humor, or pratfalls are contingent to the period. They could’ve played two guys who were out of work and saw an ad in the newspaper looking for amateur private eyes and they decide taking a stab at it as a ‘fresh start’. Then all of their bungling would make more sense and actually would’ve been funnier since the comedy would’ve had a more plausible setting.

Spoiler Alert!

Beyond just the bland comedy the case itself, particularly the final explanation, is illogical as it has one of the victims, Lord Morley, played by Fred Stuthman, coming back to life at the end as he essentially faked his own death. This though doesn’t make sense as we see a screaming newspaper headline at the beginning stating that two people were killed, or two bodies found when the car that Lord and Lady Morley were in drove into a lake, so if Lord Morley wasn’t one of the bodies then whose was it?

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: April 17, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Lang Elliot

Studio: New World Pictures

Available: DVD, Blu-ray, Amazon Video

Believe in Me (1971)

believe

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple addicted to drugs.

Remy (Michael Sarrazin) is a medical student at a New York hospital, who finds himself increasingly addicted to speed and other drugs available to him through his job. Pamela (Jacqueline Bisset) is the beautiful new girlfriend he meets through his friend and fellow intern Alan (Jon Cypher) who’s also Pamela’s brother. The two hit-it-off and soon move into together, but the romance doesn’t last when Pamela becomes aware of Remy’s addiction. He convinces her that he can handle it and even gets her to try some of it despite her reluctance. This then leads to her becoming hooked as well and their lives quickly spiral out-of-control as they both lose their jobs, their money, and ultimately their dignity.

The early 70’s was  a peak era for drug culture movies with most getting a bad rap from the critics, which included this one. Certainly it does start out cringey with a sappy love song sung by Low Rawls that not only gets played over the opening credits, but also about 30-minutes in, which practically kills the whole thing with its heavy-handed melody and lyrics. The title is not so great either as it seems to imply a totally different type of movie like have someone sticking with another person through thick-and-thin, which really doesn’t happen here and in fact its the complete opposite.  ‘Speed is of the Essence’, which was the working title as well as the title of the New York Magazine article by Gail Sheehy of which the film was based was far more apt and should’ve been kept.

However, what I did like are that the characters aren’t teen agers, or a part of the counter-culture movement, which is where all the other drug movies from that period had. The blame in those films was always the same too: peer pressure and bad influences, but here that all gets reversed. Remy and Pamela are well educated and with Remy’s background is well aware of the dangers of drugs and essentially ‘knows better’ and yet becomes a victim to them anyway. Because he’s at such a high standing initially and not just played-off as being some naive kid, makes his downfall and that of his equally smart girlfriend all the more stark and gripping.

The performances are good too. Sarrazin and Bisset met while filming The Sweet Ride, that started a 6 year relationship and this was the one project that they did together. Sarrazin has been blamed as being too transparent an actor who’s instantly forgettable and melts into the backdrop. While I’ve usually found his acting credible he does have a tendency to be passive and lacking an imposing presence, but here he’s genuinely cranky and snarly. Even has some moments of anger, which is why the movie mostly works because the character is believable. There’s good support by Alan Garfield as his dealer who gets the final brutal revenge on Remy when he can’t pay up as well a Cypher whose advice to his sister when she’s down-and-out and asking for money is shockingly harsh.

Spoiler Alert!

The film has a few strong moments particularly when it focuses on the couple’s teenage friend Matthew (Kurt Dodenhoff) who also becomes hooked and goes through a scary mental and physical decline, but the ending lacks punch. It has Remy sitting outside his apartment saying he’s ‘lost his key’ (not sure if this was meant as a code word for them being evicted, but probably should’ve been). Pamela then leaves him there while she walks to a clinic in order to get sober, which for me was too wide-open. For one thing there’s no guarantee that Pamela would’ve been able to cleanly kick-the-habit as many people enter into drug recovery suffer many relapses. Leaving Remy alone doesn’t offer any finality. Either he dies from his addiction, or finds a way out, but we needed an answer one way, or another like seeing his lifeless body lying in the gutter, which would’ve given the film the brutal final image that it needed. The movie does give an honest assessment of the situation most of the way, so why cop-out at the end and become vague? The viewer had invested enough time with this that they should’ve been given a more complete and concrete character arch.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: December 8, 1971

Runtime: 1 Hour 26 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Stuart Hagmann

Studio: MGM

DVD-R (dvdlady.com)

Martin’s Day (1985)

martinsday

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Escaped convict kidnaps boy.

Martin Steckert (Richard Harris) breaks out of jail and disguises himself as a policeman while also absconding with a squad car. Soon some other cops notice the stolen car, which has a broken rear window, and begin to inspect it while Martin is buying groceries. When Martin returns he sees the cops inside the car, but notices their vehicle, which has caught the attention of some neighborhood boys, is sitting idle. He decides to use that car to getaway, but just as he tries to get inside it the other cops take out their guns and point them at him. In a desperate move Martin grabs one of the kids and threatens to kill him, which forces the officers to put down their weapons and let him get away. During the subsequent road trip the two get to know each other and he learns that the kid’s name is also Martin (Justin Henry). A unique bond is created, but the Canadian police force, lead by Lt. Lardner (James Coburn), is hot-on-their-trail.

Richard Harris is fantastic as usual, but the majority of the film is too intent on being a family-friendly movie that it ends up having no edge. The Canadian landscape, shot in September of 1983 in the province of Ontario, is nice and gives one a good feel of rural Canada, but everything else comes-off as trite and predictable though the eclectic supporting cast allows for some added interest.

I especially got a kick out of Lindsay Wagner playing the prison psychiatrist, who tries to replicate the Canadian accent by adding an ‘eh’ at the end of her sentences. I was surprised though that James Coburn, who was still considered a quality leading man at the time, was relegated to such a small role and only seen sporadically. Karen Black does a fine job as Harris’ former lover, but she’s in it for only about 5-minutes and they should’ve had her go along on the trip with the other two, which would’ve added some much needed energy and even a little spice.

The story itself is weak mainly because it telegraphs everything out and there’s absolutely no surprises. It’s clear right from the start, that Harris, while in jail, is a nice guy with a few anger issues, but then when he kidnaps the kid we know upfront that he isn’t going to hurt him. A more intriguing way to have done it, which would’ve allowed for some genuine tension, was to have shown him getting into angry confrontations with his cellmate and possibly even his therapist, so when the kid and him are alone you start to worry how he’ll behave and then during the course of the movie he could learn to be more calm and sympathetic. Even having him threatening the kid versus telling him upfront he’s not going to hurt him, would’ve upped the dramatic ante and allowed for a wider character arch.

I also couldn’t understand why the kid wouldn’t want to go back to his parents and start missing his home life at some point. The movie portrays his mom and dad, whom we never see, as being ‘strict’, but the rules that they had for him, like not eating candy on weekdays and only on weekends, didn’t seem all that outrageous. Had the film shown some scenes at the beginning where his folks were abusive towards him then his ‘escape’ with Harris might’ve made more sense, but as it gets done here the concept becomes highly strained.

Also, for a film aimed at a younger audience the segment where Harris intentionally sets himself on fire while inside his cell was quite graphic and could disturb a lot of children viewers. The scene where Harris backs the squad car that he’s just stolen into the front wall of the policeman’s house gets botched when I noticed that the backend of the vehicle remains completely intact and with no signs of damage, which just painfully illustrates that a breakaway wall was used and not a real one. Another logistical lapse comes when Harris and the kid park their pick-up on the train tracks, which forces the locomotive to stop and allows them to holed-up the train while the kid gets trained by the engineer on how to work it. Then in the next shot we see the train starting down the tracks with the kid now at the helm, but with the pick-up on the side of the tracks and no longer on them, but  it’s never shown how did the pick-up got moved.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: February 22, 1985

Runtime: 1 Hour 38 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Alan Gibson

Studio: MGM/UA

Available: DVD (Region 2), Amazon Video

The Double McGuffin (1979)

double

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Briefcase full of money.

Homer (Greg Hodges) is walking outside one day behind the boarding school that he attends where he comes upon a briefcase that’s full of a lot of money. He then runs to tell his friends, Specks (Dion Pride), Billy Ray (Jeff Nicholson), and Foster (Vincent Spano) about it, but when they return to the spot where Homer hide it it’s gone. They then see a man named Sharif Firat (Ernest Borgnine) walking about town carrying it. They track him to a nearby hotel where he’s staying and bug his room to find out that he has hired three gunmen (Lyle Alzado, Ed ‘Too Tall’ Jones, Rod Browning) to carry-out an assassination. The boys though don’t tell the local sheriff (George Kennedy) because they’ve played some practical jokes on him in the past and fear now he won’t believe them, so they go about investigating the case on their own with the help of Jody (Lisa Whelchel) who is a student journalist and good at taking pictures with a camera as well as Arthur (Michael Gerard) who’s an uptight nerdy kid, but a whiz with computers.

After the success of Benji, a film that Joe Camp not only directed, but also wrote, produced and distributed, made over $30 million from a paltry initial budget of $450,000 he became motivated to further direct more movies for a family audience. This one though is definitely intended for adolescences and may even shock some viewers with a few of the scenes as it’s not exactly as family-friendly as Camp’s other films. One of the biggest jaw-droppers is that it features nudity, or in this case a glimpse of Elke Sommar’s breasts that occurs right at the beginning. There’s also some shots of the boys bare behinds when they go skinny dipping as well as scenes inside their dorm rooms where they are seen reading Playboy and drinking, or at least harboring, Coors Beer despite being underaged. They also swear though nothing worse than ‘hell’, which are all things that kids at that age would most likely do, or partake in, but some parents may still not be pleased and fear that it might be a ‘bad influence’ for the real young kids to see.

The four leads, which consists of country singer Charley Pride’s son, are an odd looking bunch mainly because three of them look like they’re senior high school age hanging around with this small kid named Homer who could easily pass-off as being a fourth grader. Seemed hard to believe that he’d be housed in the same room as these older guys and worse yet be playing on the same football team as he’d most likely be injured badly and better suited for the Pee-Wee division. His acting though is more dynamic than the rest, including Spano who may have become the most famous of the bunch, but here doesn’t really have much to do, so that may have been the reason he got cast despite his puny size. I also really enjoyed Whelchel, who later became famous for playing the snotty Blair on the TV-show ‘The Facts of Life’. who is engaging and looking quite young, like about 13 though at the time of filming she was actually hitting 15. Gerard as the pensive and androgynist Arthur has a few fun moments too.

The twists are entertaining for awhile though having the briefcase constantly appearing and disappearing gets tiring. Initially it’s kind of creepy and intriguing, but the segment where the boys open it to find a severed hand and they run a few feet away in fright and then go back to have it no longer there makes it seem like it’s almost magical and not realistic. Homer’s ability to unlock anything simply by using a pocket knife gadget gets played-up too much. It’s okay when he uses it to open the briefcase though you’d think something used to hold a lot of money would have a much more sophisticated lock in place, but when he’s able to continue to pick any lock in virtually any door he wants is a bit much to the point you start to wonder why does anyone even bother putting locks on doors if any kid with a small knife can easily pick-it.

Spoiler Alert!

The film’s biggest downfall though is that not enough happens. The lack of action, especially for a film aimed at the younger set, is appalling. There’s only one chase, done on foot when Borgnine tries to catch-up with two of the boys, who you’d think could easily outrun him since he was 60 at the time and out-of-shape and also in broad daylight with plenty of pedestrians on the street who could’ve easily called-out for help, which makes this moment not very tense at all. The climactic sequence really fizzles as the shooters are apprehended inside their hotel room before the assassination even is attempted, which should’ve gotten played-out more. The concept had plenty of potential, but with so little that actually happens it’s quickly forgettable and hardly worth the effort to seek-out.

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: June 8, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Joe Camp

Studio: Mulberry Square Productions

Available: DVD

Walk Like a Man (1987)

walk

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: Raised as a wolf.

Henry (Christopher Lloyd) travels with his family to Alaska in the search of gold. His oldest son Reggie though doesn’t like the cold and so after finding his fortune Henry tells his family they’re leaving via a dog sled. Reggie is told that he’s now old enough to push the sled, which he doesn’t like, so when his father isn’t looking he hops onto the sled where his mother (Cloris Leachman) and younger 2-year-old brother, nicknamed Bobo, are. Bobo ends up getting pushed off the sled and lost in the icy wilderness where, despite the arduous search by his father who perishes while looking for him, is presumed dead. 28 years later a biologist named Penny (Amy Steel) comes across a man (Howie Mandel) with a pack of wolves. He gets identified through a tattoo as being the lost son and ‘returned’ to a now grown Reggie (Christopher Lloyd), his mother and Reggie’s wife Rhonda (Colleen Camp). Reggie has no interest in caring for his brother, who behaves like he’s a wolf, but because he’s squandered his father’s fortune and because Bobo was given a $30 million inheritance, Reggie agrees to let Penny teach him how to write, so he can ultimately sign over his money to Reggie.

The script was written by Robert Klane who burst onto the scene during the late 60’s with both ‘The Horse is Dead’, a highly irreverent, politically incorrect novel, but still quite funny, and ‘Where’s Poppa’, about a man trying to kill his senile mother. The latter got made into a movie, which was directed by Carl Reiner with the script written by Klane, that’s considered a landmark in dark comedy. So, how someone goes from doing stuff that’s highly inventive to this empty-headed, bare bones ‘comedy’ is hard to fathom, but the results are ‘blah’. The plot is threadbare and hinges on a lot of slapstick scenarios that prove to be predictable and overly-extended. Instead of picking up the pace, as a good comedic scene should, it saps the energy right out making the movie, as a whole, strained and boring.

The problems start out right away during the Alaska scene, which was clearly shot on a soundstage using fake snow, where the young Bobo falls off the sled, which if you think about it is quite horrifying as there is simply no way a toddler could survive in that climate. There’s no chance the wolves would ‘raise him’ either and instead would just eat him. Also, when he gets found by Penny he’s seen running around wearing a loincloth, but if he thinks he’s a wolf he shouldn’t be wearing anything at all just like the other wolves. Where did he find this cloth to wear, or did the wolves make that when they took up parenting him?

The running joke of Reggie’s neighbor, played by George DiCenzo, getting upset because Bobo keeps trampling through his freshly paved cement driveway, is overdone. The first time it happens it’s good for maybe a slight chuckle, but then several months later it goes back to Bobo doing it again, but the neighbor should’ve learned from the past and built a fence, or partition around the cement to prevent Bobo from going on it, or at the very least not be so shocked when the driveway gets ruined again since its already happened several times already.

The only interesting aspect is seeing Lloyd, who has later described this film as an ’embarrassment’, playing the lead. Usually he does likable, but eccentric character roles, so seeing him actually carry a film, which he does well despite the mess, is interesting and in fact he’s the only thing that gives it any energy and when he’s not in it it all falls flat. Mandel on the other hand isn’t dynamic enough to make his scenes work and his wolf routine is more tiresome than funny.

Leachman steals it as the mother with child-like instincts. She does have a few funny lines and her sitting with Bobo as Penny tries to teach him to read and write and her reactions to things being almost as clueless and fanciful is Bobo’s is definitely amusing. Steel, while quite bland, is good simply because she’s the only normal one in the movie, which when doing wacky comedies it’s nice to at least have one sensible person to help ground things.

I’ll give a point to the segment dealing with a trip to mall and the infamous sneezing scene, which did get me to laugh-out-loud, but everything else clunks badly. The final courtroom battle is especially cringey. Showing clips of ‘funny moments’ during the closing credits, which weren’t all that great when we saw them the first time, and acting like it’s some sort of ‘highlight reel’ just extends the pain further. If anything they should’ve shown bloopers and outtakes of the actor’s messing up their lines, which would’ve been funnier than hearing them speak the actual ones.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Released: April 17, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 26 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Melvin Frank

Studio: MGM

Available: DVD

One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing (1975)

one2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Nannies to the rescue.

Lord Southmere (Derek Nimmo) is on the run from Chinese spies lead by Hnup Wan (Peter Ustinov) after he gets his hands on a microdot that carries top secret information. After escaping the clutches of an assassin disguised as a chauffeur he runs into a nearby building, which happens to be the Natural History Museum. It is there that he hides the microdot in the skeleton of a dinosaur that’s on display. He then bumps into Hattie (Helen Hayes) who used to his nanny and is taking a tour at the museum with other nannies. Southmere tells Hattie about the microfilm inside the dinosaur just before he faints and is captured by the Chinese. Hattie then takes it upon herself, along with her nanny friends Emily (Joan Sims) and Susan (Natasha Pyne) to retrieve the important hidden document and take it to the proper authorities.

The film is based on the 1970 novel of the same name written by David Eliades and Robert Forrest Webb, but with many changes. The book took place in the 70’s in New York City while in the movie the setting is 1920’s London. The book was also intended for an adult audience and had sex and violence in it, which got taken out for the movie, which angered the authors, who later disowned the film, as they felt the plot got too ‘dummied-down and sanitized’ in an effort to appease children viewers.

The movie really has only two amusing moments. One is where the group of nannies get on the tall skeleton of the dinosaur to search for the microfilm, which from simply a visual perspective is goofy to see and most likely will elicit a few chuckles. The second is when Hayes and company steal the dinosaur on the back of a steam lorry and the spies give chase throughout the streets of foggy London, which offers some moments of humorous reaction shots from bystanders. Otherwise there isn’t much else going for it. The opening bit that supposedly takes place in China clearly has an outdoor backdrop that is a painting and looks tacky like it was done by filmmakers that really didn’t have much heart in the material and didn’t care how cheap it came-off looking. The interior lighting is dark and dingy and having the whole plot revolve around the extreme coincidence of the protagonist bumping into his childhood nanny at the most opportune time is a bit much.

The film’s main controversy, at least by today’s standards, is Ustinov’s portrayal of a Chinese spy. To his credit he at least puts more energy into it than he did as Charlie Chan in the 80’s film Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queenwhere he seemed noticeably uncomfortable and just phoning-it-in. Yet even here nothing his character says or does is funny. The humor is intended to come from the broad caricature, which along with his sing-song sounding delivery quickly becomes tiring. Clive Revill, another white European, also gets into the Asian get-up as Quon Ustinov’s chief rival, but he proves to be just as bland. Why they needed to be Chinese at all is hard to answer as they could’ve easily been Russian, or German and might’ve been better had they taken that route.

Hayes for her part is engaging. Most people think of her as just being this sweet old lady of which she’s the perfect caricature, but here she gives her character a feisty side. I enjoyed seeing her strut, which is far funnier than anything Ustinov does and without even hardly trying. Her ordering the other nannies around like they’re on a big-time mission and her interactions with Natasha Pyne, who plays her polar opposite as this naive and fun-loving youth who approaches the whole thing as some cool diversion, are the only things that help keep it mildly watchable.

The twist ending may make it worth it to some, but overall it’s a second-rate Disney effort that’s so poorly shot and dated. I can’t imagine any kids today could get into it. It seems like the only fans of the film were simply kids back in the 70’s who saw it then and now enjoy watching again simply for nostalgic reasons, but everyone else won’t be missing much if they decide to skip it.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: July 9, 1975

Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes

Rated G

Director: Robert Stevenson

Studio: Buena Vista

Available: DVD (Region 2), Amazon Video, YouTube

The Island (1980)

island

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 0 out of 10

4-Word Review: Journalist investigates pirate hideout.

Blair (Michael Caine) is a newspaper reporter who becomes intrigued about the reports of missing boats in the Caribbean. He gets the permission from his editor to travel down there to investigate and he takes along his 12-year-old son Justin (Jeffrey Frank). The trip proves dangerous right from the beginning when the plane they’re traveling in crashes on one of the islands when the wheels of the craft fail to operate as its trying to land. They then go on a fishing trip only to be attacked by some pirates living on an uncharted island. Justin is brainwashed by the head of the group, Nau (David Warner), to become heir while Blair is put to the task of being the resident scribe and in the process becomes the source of romantic affection to Beth (Angela Punch McGregor) whose husband he killed earlier during the attack on their fishing boat. While Blair desperately searches for an escape he becomes even more worried about his son who no longer shows any loyalty to his father and instead considers himself a descendant of the pirates.

This was another one of Caine’s ‘paycheck projects’ where he’d do the film simply on the basis of the monetary offer regardless of the script quality. He has since regretted this decision and refuses to talk about it in any of his interviews while privately labeling it the worst film of his career. The script was written by Peter Benchley and based off of his novel of the same name. Since Benchley also wrote Jaws he was for awhile deemed a hot commodity in Hollywood, but after this movie tanked his status diminished completely and he was never offered another script deal again though his 1991 novel ‘Beast’ did get adapted into a TV-movie.

The main problem is the disjointed tone that comes off at times as a thriller and at other moments a comedy. The scenes of violence, which start out right away, are completely botched. The first one has what’s clearly a mannequin put in place as the victim and thus makes the stabbing sequence unintentionally laughable. The second violent episode where the pirates raid another boat has the victims not making a single sound as they’re being hacked and thus allowing their daughter to sleep through it, but I feel men and women will definitely yell out in terror as their fighting for their lives. The third raid features one of the victims trying to take on the pirates, one-by-one, karate style, but this turns the thing into a farce and makes the pirates engaging in a weird sort of way, which saps away all the suspense.

The concept that this pirate community would be inhabiting an uncharted island for centuries and not found out is unbelievable to the extreme. They come-off like people lost in a time warp who are confused and baffled by modern technology, but they’re clearly able to get off the island whenever they want, so why wouldn’t they travel to other islands, or even the mainland where they would come into contact with the modern day civilization? Even if the whole group didn’t go there would most likely be a few who’d be curious enough to want to explore what else was out there. Having the pirates get into a time machine from the 1600’s to the modern day, or be the ghosts of pirates from long ago, as wacky as those concepts may be, would still be better than doing it the way it gets done here.

The Caine character is boring and the way he gets put on this assignment is ridiculous as his boss just tells him ‘to go’, without putting up any provisions like how long he’ll be staying, where exactly will he be traveling to, how many articles would he be writing and when would they be due, or even whether the newspaper would even be compensating him for the cost. With terms this loose a person could frolic away on some tropical vacation and his employers wouldn’t have known the difference. He’s also never shown writing anything on a notepad, or typewriter, or dictating into a tape recorder, so it barely seems like he’s a journalist at all. The idea that Caine would be the only person on the planet intrigued by these disappearances is absurd too as relatives of the victims would be demanding answers and there would be other news reporters wanting to travel there in an effort to be the first to get the ‘big scoop’.

It’s also odd that a father would choose to take his son on such a dangerous mission knowing full well that others who have traveled to this area have disappeared without a trace making it seem like he’s an  irresponsible parent. The kid also gets ‘brainwashed’ too quickly, literally overnight, making it seem like he might have some sort of mental disorder if he’s able to change personalities and allegiance that fast. The idea of putting match sticks in his eye sockets and thus not allowing him to sleep would most likely dry his eyes out and blind him instead of getting him to come onto their side and like them. The pirates are also able to do the same ‘brainwashing’ with another young girl they kidnap, but how is this primitive group so adept at child psychology in ways that modern man isn’t?

Spoiler Alert!

The ending, which features Caine annihilating the entire group via a M2 machine gun is cool though it should’ve been done in slow motion to fully accentuate the violent depravity. The subsequent chase through the dark bowels of the ship between Caine and his son and Nau where you hear the creepy splashing of the sea water hitting against the ship’s bottom isn’t bad either. Unfortunately everything that comes before is a wretched mess making it by all accounts one of the worst and most inane films I’ve ever seen.

My Rating: 0 out of 10

Released: June 13, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Michael Ritchie

Studio: Universal

Available: DVD-R, Amazon Video, YouTube

The American Success Company (1979)

americansuccess

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Taking on different personality.

Harry (Jeff Bridges) is a highly passive man that gets routinely dominated by both his boss (Ned Beatty) and wife (Belinda Bauer), who also happens to be his boss’ daughter. Determined to change his ways he decides to emulate the personality of a local tough-guy, who always seems to get his way and most importantly get the women. He works with a local prostitute (Bianca Jagger) to improve his bedroom skills and then finally ‘introduces’ himself to both his wife and boss. Surprisingly the ‘new Harry’ works to perfection as his domineering father-in-law learns to back-off and no longer humiliates him. His wife too likes the change, but he plays the part so well she refuses to believe it’s the same person. When he tries to go back to his old self she rejects him wanting only to be with the tough guy who she insists must be a totally different person and she can only be happy if she’s with him and no one else.

Back in 1978 while filming Winter Killswhich also starred Bridges and Bauer, the funding for the project, which was through AVCO Embassy Pictures, was pulled leaving the shooting of the film only half completed. Director William Richert then decided to do this film in-between, using much of the same cast, in order to bring in the extra money he needed to complete the other one. The script was written in 1974 by Larry Cohen who intended it to be a vehicle of Peter Sellers, but at the time Sellers was in a career lull having starred in a lot of box office duds, so investors didn’t want to take a chance on it and Cohen was eventually forced to sell the script, which remained in turn-over until Richert finally decided to take it on. While the film failed to turn a profit and was barely released, Cohen often stated that the changes Richert did to the script helped ‘ruin’ it, he was still able to make enough through the selling of the distribution rights to resume the shooting of Winter Kills and get it completed.

On the whole there’s enough directorial touches to keep it engaging and Richert, who has a small role as one of the employees of the firm whose constant leering grin is great, clearly knows how to make it entertaining enough despite the story’s absurdities. The setting though of Munich, this was apparently one of the stipulations he had to agree to in order to get it made, is off-putting especially when the plot revolves around corporate America and is a satire on the American mindset. The heavy use of a white color makes the office interiors seem almost like a hospital and Ned Beatty, who was only 41 at the time, but with his hair dyed a tacky white color to come-off as an overbearing elderly man in his 70’s, doesn’t work at all. Since John Huston was also in Winter Kills and they were using the same cast from that one to do this one then he should’ve been cast in the part especially since he was really old and better at playing dominating characters.

Bridges is fun as he plays against his good-guy image. Some critics have considered him a bland actor whose characters are at times ‘too good to be true’, so having him turn around and be overly passive and downright wimpy who jumps in terror at his neighbor lady’s pet poodle is definitely amusing. However, the transition to the brazen alter ego is too quick and seamless. If he’s truly timid at heart then that trait should trickle through even when he’s pretending to be someone else, which doesn’t happen here, but should’ve. No explanation about how he gets this big colorful tattoo on his chest, which he wears while being the tough guy, nor how he’s able to remove so quickly when he goes back to being himself.

The biggest plus is Bauer, who started her career in Australia where she studied ballet and competed in beauty contests before coming to the US. Here she becomes the sole reason to watch the film as she’s not only gorgeous, but displays a delightful way of morphing from a spoiled rich girl persona, to demanding wife, and then back to submissive woman. Her accent helps enhance her character and plays off of Bridges well. The only issue is if she couldn’t stand her husband why did she marry him in the first place? This is a highly attractive women born into money, so there was no need to settle, so what was it about his original personality that she liked in order to get hitched? If she craved a more domineering man then why not go after that type of guy in the first place? The film fails to explain this crucial point and thus ultimately makes it shallow and empty-headed.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: September 28, 1979 (Test Screening)

Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: William Richert

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Available: DVD, Amazon Video

Movers & Shakers (1985)

movers2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 1 out of 10

4-Word Review: No ideas for script.

Joe (Walter Matthau) is a head of a large movie studio who makes a promise to a dying friend (Vincent Gardenia) that he’ll make every effort to get his concept, which is to make a movie around the title ‘Love and Sex’, made. Joe then hires struggling actor Herb (Charles Grodin) to write the script, but Herb has no idea of where to begin and seems more concerned with mending his troubled marriage with his wife (Tyne Daly). Joe then hires wacky director Sid (Bill Macy) to helm the project, but he too is devoid of any ideas and more preoccupied with his getting his young wife (Gild Radner) to go back to him.

The behind-the-scenes history of how this movie even came about is far funnier than anything you’ll actually see on the screen. It all started when Paramount Studios paid a large of sum of money for the right’s to the sex manual ‘The Joy of Sex’ because they felt the title would have a large commercial appeal. They then hired Grodin to write the script telling him it could be about anything just as long as the title of it was ‘Joy of Sex’. Grodin, like the character he plays in the movie, was at a loss of ideas, so he finally decided to base the script around his real life situation about an actor hired to write a screenplay based solely around a sexy title. When he submitted the completed script to the studio they decided to pass on it and gave the duties of writing the script around the Joy of Sex title to someone else, which later got made into a movie directed by Martha Coolidge. Meanwhile Grodin became determined to get his script made even though he could no longer used the same title since Paramount retained the rights to that. He spent 7 long years peddling the script around to all the major Hollywood studios and even a few independent ones until he finally decided to use his own money to fund it and get his actor friends to agree to be in it for as small of a pay scale as they could with Grodin himself accepting only $5,000 for his work despite being both the star and producer.

While the concept sounds funny and even novel the final product isn’t. A lot of the problem is that outside of the inciting incident nothing much happens. Everyone just sits around complaining about a lack of ideas, which soon gets quite boring and redundant. The marital spats that occur in-between, both with Grodin and his wife, but also with Macy and Radner, and even Steve Martin and Penny Marshall, who appear briefly in a cameo, is neither lively, or clever and just helps to make any already dull movie even duller. Satirizing the Hollywood studio heads isn’t exactly ground-breaking either.

I also had a hard time understanding why a big studio mogul like Matthau would want to put up a giant statue of a dinosaur in the middle of the studio backlot since it was from a movie that didn’t do well at the box office. Supposedly it was due to his friendship with the director, but to me that just didn’t jive. If the movie had done well then yes a statue was in order, but to be reminded of a flop that cost the studio money seemed very hard to imagine and too stupid to be comical. If the character’s motivations don’t make sense then it’s hard to get into the story, which is where this thing really falters.

For his part Grodin himself is quite amusing. Nobody does deadpan comedy the way he does, so his scenes still work, and there are a few humorous comments made here and there, especially by the character played by Earl Boen, but everything else just dies. The voice-over narration by Grodin, which got added later in an effort to make the movie ‘funnier’ after the responses by the initial test audiences were quite negative, doesn’t help things at all. A good movie should not have to rely on narration as everything should be conveyed by either dialogue, or action, or through other forms of visuals. Once you need narration to ‘improve it’ you already know it’s a mess.

Turning the thing into an ill-advised romance at the very end, which even includes a sappy love song, between Grodin getting back together with his wife just sinks it even further. Their fights weren’t too interesting to begin with and neither person was well-defined enough for the viewer to care what happened to them.

Grodin would later write in his autobiography of how bitter he was that the studio didn’t market the film better and the poor treatment Hollywood elites gave it, but it really is a bad movie and I think his ego got the better of him with this one. I’m a fan of his comic style and even the offbeat talk show he had during the late 90’s, which didn’t go over well with everyone and didn’t last long, but I draw the line with this. It just doesn’t work at all and can’t blame anyone for disliking it in fact I’d be very surprised if there was anyone other there, outside of Grodin of course, that did like it.

My Rating: 1 out of 10

Released: May 3, 1985

Runtime: 1 Hour 20 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: William Asher

Studio: MGM/UA

Available: DVD-R

This Sweet Sickness (1977)

sweet2

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Obsessed over childhood friend.

David (Gerard Depardieu) can’t seem to get over Lise (Dominique Laffin) who was a childhood friend of his. Now as adults Lise has married Gerard (Jacques Denis) and even had a child, but David keeps believing that she’s in-love with him and will eventually leave Gerard for him. On weekends he spends his time finishing up with a country house that he has bought, which he plans for he and Lise to live in. He repeatedly calls Lise and meets up with her in public in an effort to beg her to come back to him, but she resists while also advising him that he is mentally unwell and needs to see a psychiatrist. Meanwhile there’s also Juliette (Miou-Miou) who resides in David’s apartment building and has strong feelings for him. David is aware of her presence, but rebuffs her at every turn and yet Juliette persists. She secretly follows David to his country home and when she figures out what he’s doing the two have a confrontation.

While there’s been many movies involving stalkers and jilted ex-lovers that can’t seem to take ‘no’ for an answer this one was done when stalking was still considered an isolated phenomenon and thus there’s a lot of things that work against the modern-day formula, which is what makes it fascinating to watch. For one thing it’s not approached as a thriller, or even a horror, but instead a drama. David is not perceived as threatening, but mentally confused and needing help learning to move-on. Lise does not respond in a frightened way when he approaches, but more just annoyed.

The stalker is three-dimensional as well. One of the most intriguing moments is after Lise’s husband dies in a car accident and David convinces her to come to the country home to check-it-out. Initially she acts impressed with it and gives-off the perception that she might seriously consider moving-in, but David eyes her suspiciously, which is quite revealing. He’s spent the entire time convincing himself and others that she’s truly in-love with him, but now when she actually gives him what he wants he’s not sure he can believe her. This shows subconsciously that he’s aware she doesn’t have the feelings for him like he consciously wants to believe and he actually does know the reality of the situation, but the emotional side of him just doesn’t won’t accept it.

The addition of Miou-Miou  adds another fascinating element. It brings out how stalkers aren’t the way they are simply because they may be lonely and unable to find anyone else, which then supposedly forces them to become so fixated on one person since Miou-Miou is openly interested in him and just as attractive and yet David consistently rejects her. Her stalking on him becomes just as intrusive as David’s to Lise and in some ways just as creepy. The sex scene between her and Gerard, or at least an attempted sex moment, is quite interesting because just a few years earlier the two starred in another film called Going PlacesThere Gerard played the aggressor who rapes Miou-Miou here though she’s the aggressive while Gerard lays virtually frigid, which shows how brilliant these two actors are that they can play such opposite people so convincingly.

Spoiler Alert!

The story was based on a novel of the same name by Patricia Highsmith though there are a few key differences starting with the fact that the novel has the two in a previous, but brief relationship while in the movie they were just friends from childhood. In the book David works as a scientist and purchases the country home under an assumed identity. The Lise character is named Annabelle in the book and her husband Gerard dies after tracking David to the isolated home and getting into a fight with him where in the movie Gerard is killed when his car slides off an icy roadway. In the movie the house burns down when a drunken David knocks over a TV-set, but in the novel he simply sells it and buys a new one that’s closer to where Annabelle lives. The ending is a lot different too with the one in the movie, which takes place at a health spa, being far better and in fact it’s the most memorable moment as the scene is able to balance both an artistic and horrifying elements all at once.

Alternate Title: Tell Her That I Love Her

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: September 28, 1977

Runtime: 1 Hour 47 Minutes

Not Rated

Director: Claude Miller

Studio: Filmoblic

Available: DVD-R (dvdlady.com)