Little Big Man (1970)

Posted on July 25, 2025 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Raised as an Indian.

Jack Crabb (Dustin Hoffman) has reached the age of 121 and agrees to a taped interview with a reporter (William Hickey). He recounts his life events including being kidnapped by Cheyenne Indians in 1859 when he was 10 and befriending their tribal leader Old Lodge Skins (Chief Dan George) who gives him the nickname Little Big Man. He then goes on to elaborate other life events like being captured by the U.S. Calvary where he is placed in the home of a Reverend (Thayer David) and his beautiful wife (Faye Dunaway) who despite her professed Christianity is having an affair with a soda shop owner, which disillusions Jack from religion altogether. He also goes through his marriage to a Swedish immigrant named Olga (Kelly Jean Peters) and how she gets kidnapped by the Cheyenne during a stagecoach ride and Jack’s attempts to find her, which reunites him with Old Lodge Skins and leads him to meet General Custer (Richard Mulligan), who he initially admires, but eventually learns to despise.

The film is based on the 1964 novel by Thomas Berger of the same name and wonderfully mixes the whimsical style of that book into the movie and maintains overall an excellent balance between quirky moments, of which there’s many and jarring scenes dealing with Indian Massacres by the U.S. Calvary, which remains effectively disturbing and impactful despite all the humor that goes on in between. The impressive cinematography by Harry Stradling Jr. that manages to capture the Big Sky Country, filmed on-location in Montanna where many of these historical events actually occurred, in all of its glory and makes you feel like you’ve genuinely been physically transported back to that era.

The most amazing element though, which comes up right away, is the makeup effects on Hoffman where he’s made to look about as elderly as you can get and hats-off to makeup artist Dick Smith to achieve it in such an effective way. While aging of characters has been attempted in other films, I’ve never seen it so realistic as here and in fact it still holds claim even after all these years in the Guiness Book of World Records as ‘The Greatest Age Span Portrayed by a Movie Actor’. My only quibble is that his eyes as an old man appear to be blue even though for the rest of the movie Hoffman’s eyes are clearly brown.

The acting all around is superb starting of course with Hoffman and then moving onto Dunaway whose first attempt at comedy this was and she’s really funny if not a complete scene-stealer. Thayer David awesome too as her bombastic minister husband and I wished there had been more scenes with him. Chief Dan George is quite memorable as the Indian Chief, he became the first Native American ever nominated for an Oscar for his work here, in a part that was originally intended for Marlon Brando who thankfully turned it down as having a genuine Native American makes it so much more compelling. Great work too by the lesser-known Kelly Jean Peters whose frantic screams of terror, as she’s being kidnapped, I found to be both funny and frightening at the same time.

While it doesn’t affect one’s enjoyment of the movie, the film does have a few drawbacks, or moments that could’ve been done slightly better. Having Hoffman constantly come back into contact with people he had been with years earlier got a bit too cute for its own good. I was okay with some of it, like his reunion with the Indian Chief, but having him literally re-meet everyone he had known before got unrealistic and almost monotonous. I also couldn’t understand why the people he meets again don’t recognize him right away as is the case with Dunaway, as Hoffman has a very distinct face that really doesn’t change much even as he ages, so forcing him to have to remind her who he was should’ve been quite unnecessary. Same goes in reverse with the reunion with his sister, played by Carole Androsky, I immediately recognized her voice even before seeing her face, but for Hoffman it takes a long time to remember who she is, but if I the viewer could detect her voice right away why couldn’t he?

Another issue is when he meets his wife Olga many years later when she’s become a part of an Indian tribe. When he married her she had a very strong Swedish accent and due to the language barrier could only say a very few words, basically just ‘Yah’. Then, when he sees her again, she speaks fluent English, but how could she have learned that by being in an Indian tribe? Also, she had completely lost her accent, which I don’t believe would happen. I’ve known people who have lived in this country for 30 or 40 years, but where originally from somewhere else and no matter how long they’ve been here, or how ‘Americanized’ they may become they still retain their original accent, or at least sufficient hints of it.

Spoiler Alert!

There’s also issues with the General Custer character. Acting wise I felt Richard Mulligan nailed it as he integrates a great blend of comic self-importance to him, but on the satire end it goes a little too far. He gets portrayed as being a complete buffoon with a clownish logic and such a severe narcissistic ego he’s unable to realize when everyone else around him thinks he’s an idiot. There were many different issues that went into the Battle of Little Big Horn, or more commonly known as Custer’s Last Stand, and this movie answers it by saying the guy running it was a self-deluded moron, which I suppose comically and emotionally is satisfying, but doesn’t sufficiently tackle the others nuances that were also involved. There’s also the argument over the demise of Wild Bill Hickok though having him get killed by a little kid was historically inaccurate I felt it was so humorously ironic that I was willing to forgive it.

The ending, where in the book Old Lodge Skins dies, but in the movie he doesn’t, annoyed some fans as well. Director Arthur Penn admitted in interviews that the earlier script drafts had him dying, but then he felt that would be ‘too depressing’ so they had him live, but I felt with such a picturesque back drop that having him lay down for his final resting place was appropriate. He was really old anyways and had also become blind, so having him get up and be led away by Hoffman was just prolonging the inevitable anyways, so they might as well have him go down when it was his time as ‘cheating it’ like they do here doesn’t really add all that much.

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: December 23, 1970

Runtime: 2 Hours 27 Minutes (Uncut) 2 Hour 19 Minutes (Studio Version)

Rated GP

Director: Arthur Penn

Studio: National General Pictures

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

1 Comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Movies Based on Actual Events, Movies Based on Novels, Quirky, Revisionist Western

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Fun with Dick and Jane (1977)

Posted on July 20, 2025 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Suburban couple become robbers.

Dick (George Segal) suddenly gets laid-off from his job at an aerospace company and finds his financial situation to be dire. His wife Jane (Jane Fonda) tries to get a job modeling dresses but is soon fired. They then attempt to collect unemployment, but Dick is caught taking money on a side hustle, which then causes him to be disqualified. Having run out of all other options they then decide to begin robbing people. They start out small by holding up a drug store, which doesn’t go over well, and then sleazy hotels and even a TV Evangelists (Dick Gautier). Eventually Dick comes-up with the idea of robbing his old boss (Ed McMahon) as Dick knows that his boss has a safe in the closet of his office that is filled with illegal bribe money, so the couple can rob it, and his boss would not go to the police to report it.

The first half is absolutely on-target maybe even more so today as it analyzes just how easy it is to go from being middle-class to destitute in only a matter of weeks and how one’s ascent in society is totally contingent on their jobs and how quickly those places can cut their employees without much thought or concern. The couple’s attempts to rectify things by finding part-time employment that they’re overqualified for is very close to the truth as are the scenes dealing with a ‘friendly’ loan company that advertises they’re easy to work with but really aren’t. Dick’s interview with a potential employer, played by Walter Brooke, that’s interested in hiring him as long as he doesn’t get the vibes that he’s desperate is a keenly observant and a sadly true element in the real world as well. 

The film though veers away from its satirical elements when it gets too into the robbery moments, which takes up the bulk of the second half. The first one, where Dick attempts to rob a pharmacy, but only gets some condoms out of it, is quite funny, but after that it starts to become redundant. Seeing them steal from a sleazy adult hotel where the desk clerk, played by Richard Crystal, begs them not to as it will get him into trouble, but they do it anyways makes them seem callous and less likable to the viewers. The couple commit the robberies without disguises, or just meager attempts at one where they could be easily recognized in a line-up. They also at one point use their real names making it seem that they would be caught and it’s surprising that they aren’t.

Spoiler Alert!

Having them then ‘graduate’ into becoming safe crackers is too much of a stretch. They get only one week to prepare for it, which Jane feels confident they can do since they’re ‘quick learners’, but why even bother to have a safe at all if novice people can simply read up on how to crack one in only a short time and then be able to do it without a single hitch? Would’ve been better had they made partners with someone who was experienced in it and then agreed to give him half, which would’ve been more believable. Better yet would’ve been having Dick and Jane walking away with the loot thinking that they’re now ‘home free’ but then finding themselves surrounded by the police for the other robberies that they committed earlier. 

End of Spoiler Alert!

I also didn’t care for Segal’s performance who I’ve come to feel as an actor is a bit overrated. His character is obnoxious and initially laughs off his dilemma confident he’d land on his feet and remains in that arrogant mode until well into act two and even then, has a brash attitude that makes you want to see him fail versus siding with him in his predicament. Fonda is much more sympathetic giving her a far better presence to the extent it could’ve completely revolved around her, possibly as a single mother, and the movie would’ve worked better. I also really enjoyed McMahon who’s better known for his announcing work but perfectly cast as the corrupt boss and John Dehner is also memorable, particularly with the way he peels an apple, playing Jane’s father, who despite being financially well-off refuses to loan her any money and the goofy logic he comes-up with to justify it. 

This same story got remade in 2005 with Jim Carrey and Tea Leoni playing the leads, but that version doesn’t work as well. Granted I haven’t seen it since its release, but I remember that its theme is much softer and pretty much puts all the blame on Alec Baldwin, who played Carrey’s boss, and acted like he was the sole source of the problem, while this movie’s take is that the system as a whole is screwed up.  

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: February 9, 1977

Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Ted Kotcheff

Studio: Columbia Pictures

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

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Black Comedy, Heist Movies, Satire

Tagged , , , , , ,

Nothing Personal (1980)

Posted on July 17, 2025 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 2 out of 10

4-Word Review: Saving seals from slaughter.

Roger (Donald Sutherland) is a college professor who becomes aware by one of his students, Peter (Michael Wincott), that seals are being systematically slaughtered by a construction company trying to build homes in an area populated by them. Roger then goes on a crusade to stop this and hires the services of Abigail (Suzanne Somers) a young lawyer bent on proving herself. The two though come up with major roadblocks when they attend the stockholder meetings of the company. While the CEO Ralston (Lawrence Dane) seems to listen to their concerns the company still decides to push through their construction agenda prompting Roger and Abigail to find other ways to prevent the homes from going up, which then causes the heads of the company to resort to nefarious means to stop them.

The screenplay was written by Robert Kaufman and sold in 1972 but then languished in the studio’s slush pile as it couldn’t find any director interested in filming it. Then in 1980 after the success of Love at First Bite, which had also been penned by Kaufman, director George Bloomfield decided to take a stab at this one, but for tax write-off purposes it was filmed in Canada despite the setting being Washington D.C.

A lot of the issue with the movie, which was not well received by audiences or critics alike, and ended up tanking at the box office, is that it’s just not all that funny. The humor is dry and amounts to a few throwaway lines said by the characters just before the scene cuts away and if you’re not listening carefully enough, you’ll miss it though even if you do catch it it’s nothing that’s going have you rolling-in-the-aisles. Would’ve worked better had it been done as a drama, or even a thriller, as neither the comedy or romantic elements add much and in a lot of ways detracts from the main story.

While Sutherland is traditionally a good actor his presence here hinders things. He comes off initially as completely oblivious to what’s happening and only manages to get informed by Peter who’s very passionate about the cause and even interrupts a class that Sutherland is teaching to inform him about it. Sutherland immediately poo-poo’s the news and only after doing more research does he decide to take on the cause, but I felt that Peter, who gets largely forgotten and not seen again, should’ve been the one to lead the charge since he was already heavily into the issue and being a student would have more time on his hands while Sutherland was working a job and therefore shouldn’t have been able to devote his full attention to it like he does. Having a romantic relationship grow between Peter and Somers would’ve worked better as they seemed more around the same age while Sutherland looks to be more like her father.

Somers’ character is quite problematic. Initially she’s someone that wants to prove herself and be taken seriously but then turns into a complete slut almost overnight as she gets in bed naked when she invites Sutherland into her room and immediately makes overtures that she wants to get-it-on. This though is not a proper way that someone who wants to gain the respect of her peers and clients as she moves up in the business world should be behaving and therefore it’s hard for the viewer to take anything that she says or does seriously.

Too much time also gets spent on them fooling around to the point that it seems they’re more into sex than saving the seals. The movie should’ve waited until the very end to introduce some romantic overtures after they had succeeded with their mission when it would’ve been more appropriate, but the way it gets done here makes them seem like vapid juveniles with hyper hormones and not much else.

The film though really jumps-the-shark when the CEO of the company and his trusted assistant, played by Dabney Coleman, resort to criminal means in an effort to stop Sutherland and Somers from shutting down their project. Even going as far as trying to kill them by trapping them inside a barn and then setting it on fire. There are certainly CEO’s out there that can be corrupt, but they have enough money that they’d pay someone else to do their dirty work and would most certainly not be doing it themselves. Supposedly these are successful businessmen that have worked their way up the corporate ladder, so why throw it all away by so obviously going after their foes, which is something that could easily be handled through bribery.

Spoiler Alert!

The ending, which was described by one IMDb reviewer as being of the ‘surprise’ variety and makes sitting through the rest of the movie ‘worth it’, had me more confused than anything. It has Dane and company planning to build more homes on a different site that would require them to kill off more wildlife. They then get a knock at the door and when they open it, it reveals a smiling Sutherland and Somers, but it’s not clear whether they appear in order to stymie this new project or are somehow in on it. Since Dane and Coleman have annoyed expressions when they see them I think it’s meant to show the former, but the IMDb reviewer thought it meant the later and I really couldn’t blame anyone for not being sure, which makes this yet another problem for a movie that already had a ton of them.

My Rating: 2 out of 10

Released: March 28, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 40 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: George Bloomfield

Studio: American International Pictures

Available: DVD-R, Tubi, Amazon Video

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Dry Humor, Foreign Films, Movies from Canada, Obscure Movies, Romance

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Love and Death (1975)

Posted on July 12, 2025 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Attempting to assassinate Napolean.

Boris (Woody Allen) is a scrawny guy who gets overlooked by others as his three brothers tower over him. He’s secretly in love with Sonja (Diane Keaton) who he’s been friends with since childhood, yet she’s instead infatuated with Ivan, one of Boris’ brothers. However, none of his brothers are into her, so she marries someone else while Boris remains a bachelor who occasionally fools around with beautiful women like a Countess (Olga Georges-Picot), which causes her lover Anton (Harold Gould) to challenge Boris to a gun duel. Thinking Boris won’t be able to survive the dual Sonja agrees to marry him if he survives, which he miraculously does. Once married they then concoct a plan to assassinate Napolean (James Tolkan) unaware that who they’re really going after is actually an undercover double.

Allen was in the midst of writing a screenplay dealing with a New York couple who try to solve a murder, which became Manhattan Murder Mystery, but was going through a writer’s block, so he began reading a novel about Russian history, which then inspired him to write this script. Since it was nearing the deadline to have a script ready for production, he decided to submit this one, which immediately went into filming while the other one didn’t end up getting completed until 1993.

Many critics and fans at the time liked this one and it ended up making $9 million at the box office off of a $3 million budget with Gene Siskel especially enjoying it as he gave it 4 stars while commenting that he liked Allen’s return to a ‘gag driven dialogue’ versus ‘attempting to develop a story’, but personally for me I felt this was what was wrong with it. While it does start out funny as it parodies 18th Century Russian society and has one really great bit dealing with a ‘hygiene play’ warning soldiers about VD and condoms it does tend to meander quite a bit. The middle part is the most sluggish with many of the gags falling flat almost like he’d run out of ideas and was just trying to desperately throw anything in to keep it going making it come off more like an unending skit instead of a movie.

Allen’s presence while amusing most of the way becomes a bit of a detriment. Much of this can be blamed on the fact that he’s playing essentially the same character that he does in all of his movies. Case in point comes at the beginning before he officially says anything on screen and I thought to myself I bet he’s going to mention something about atheism and sure enough that’s exactly what he does talk about making it predictable and redundant. Would’ve been nice for irony’s sake had he played someone who had a deep belief in God only to lose his faith after he goes through the war, which would’ve created a nice character arc of which there really isn’t one.

There’s also the issue of him having no Russian accent nor making even a slight attempt at one. Granted Keaton doesn’t speak in an accent either though maybe you can chalk it up to her great acting that she still seems of the period anyways while Allen very much comes off like someone who doesn’t really belong there. He repeatedly makes anachronistic statements, which from time to time are amusing, but technically don’t fit within the setting. It actually would’ve made more sense to have Allen simply be a modern-day New Yorker who finds a time machine and gets zapped away into 18th Century Russia and then wanders around making comments about things, which wouldn’t have disrupted the film all that much and besides adding one little scene at the beginning showing him going into the time travel contraption there wouldn’t have needed to be anything else changed. It literally would’ve been the exact same movie and in some ways been a lot funnier, and perceptive, because of it.

It does end on a strong note as it pokes fun of Ingmar Bergman movies and even has Jessica Harper showing up. Yet I still felt most of the way it throws in whatever it can for a cheap laugh with much of the jokes, particularly in the middle, not really landing. Many fans didn’t like the way Allen crossed over to doing drama just a few years later, but after watching this I started to believe he had used up all of his comical concepts that by this time was just repeating itself and thus his foray into more serious subjects was inevitable.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: June 10, 1975

Runtime: 1 Hour 25 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Woody Allen

Studio: United Artists

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

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Farce, Parody, War Movies

Tagged , , , , , ,

Back to the Beach (1987)

Posted on July 5, 2025 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Couple revisits surfing culture.

25 years ago, Frankie (Frankie Avalon), was a hot shot surfer known as the ‘Big Kahuna’, but now he’s a middle-aged, frustrated car salesman living in Ohio.  His wife Annette (Annette Funicello) was also a part of the surfing culture and that’s where the two first met, but now she’s a suburban housewife raising a rebellious kid named Bobby (Demien Slade). Frankie longs to revisit his old stomping ground, so the family takes a trip to California to visit their daughter Sandi (Lori Laughlin) not knowing that she’s living on the beach with her boyfriend Michael (Tommy Hinkley). Frankie also runs into Connie (Connie Stevens) his old sweetheart that still has a crush on him. Annette becomes jealous of all the attention Connie gives him causing a rift between the two, so they spend the rest of their vacation doing things on their own. Annette then catches the eye of Troy (John Calvin) who chases after her while Tommy gets in with a group of punk surfers who try to take over the beach prompting Frankie to challenge their leader to a surfing contest.

The film came out at a time when many 60’s shows and movies were getting revisited usually with the same cast members, or at least those that were still alive. Frankie had been shopping around the script for many years before finally finding a taker though the studio had insisted on more campy approach, but producer/writer James Komack resisted insisting that having it a light comedy dealing with the travails of growing into middle age and being a modern-day parent was enough.

It starts out almost like Airplane!, with visual sketch-like comedy, but then meanders into being almost all talk with not a lot happening. More confrontations or dilemmas, even the comic variety, would’ve helped, but instead the second half stagnates. Frankie and Annette ‘breaking up’ is a good example as the minute after having their spat they secretly long to get back together. It would’ve been a more intriguing story had the two genuinely went their separate ways only to decide at the very end that being a part wasn’t worth it and then make an attempt to reconcile, so there would at least be some dramatic tension, which is otherwise totally lacking.

Frankie is amusing and looks almost like he hadn’t aged a day and the potshots at his ‘perfect hair’, which looks suspiciously like a hair piece, are fun. Connie enlivens things as the beach blonde bimbo and Bob Denver is fun playing off his Gilligan persona, this time as a bartender known as ‘little buddy’. Some of the other cameos don’t work as well including Don Adams as The Harbormaster who initially seems like he’s going to ruin the festivities but gets neutered away too easily making his presence seem rather pointless. Having the son Bobby dressing and acting like a punk right from the start is off-putting and not funny. Would’ve been better and allowed for some character arch had he been super clean-cut, maybe in an effort to emulate his dad, only to get ‘corrupted’ when he meets the punks and then changing his look.

Funicello’s presence was disappointing. She hadn’t been in a movie in a while and was better known to younger audiences for being a spokesperson for Skippy peanut butter, which the film does parody, but her acting is rather stiff. This was when she began experiencing MS symptoms, so that may have had something to do with it, but her character is one-dimensional. She never says or does anything outrageous and is too ‘goody-goody’ making her moments flat and forgettable. It’s possible she didn’t have the acting chops to play anything different though it would’ve been nice had she at least tried to go against her image a little.

The film ends on a high note. I enjoyed seeing Frankie back on the surfboard even if he does it in front of a green screen, but I really felt there needed to be more jokes and a faster pace. Trying to turn it into a ‘dramedy’ was not what these cartoon characters needed. A surreal edge was necessary and though it teases this concept at times it wasn’t enough turning it into a misfire that never quite takes off.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: August 7, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Lyndall Hobbs

Studio: Paramount Pictures

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

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Campy Comedy, Musical, Parody

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Muppet Movie (1979)

Posted on June 29, 2025 | 1 comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: How they became famous.

Kermit (Jim Henson) is a lonely frog living in a Florida swamp who dreams of one day making it to Hollywood and becoming famous. He then meets talent agent Bernie (Dom Deluise) who hears Kermit singing a song with a banjo and becomes convinced that the frog has what it takes to become a star. He hands him his card and tells him to give him a visit when it makes it to California. Kermit then sets-off on a cross-country trip and along the way meets several other characters all looking for their big-break including Fozzie Bear, a struggling comedian, and Miss Piggy (Frank Oz) who wants to become a fashion model. They tag along on the trip with Kermit while pilling into Fozzie’s Studebaker as he drives them to the west coast, but then they meet up with Doc Hopper (Charles Durning), an owner of restaurants who specializes in frog legs, who wants Kermit to be his new spokesmen in some commercials that he’s producing, but Kermit declines. However, Doc refuses to take no for answer and chases after the gang and using increasingly more sinister methods in order to get the frog to change his mind. 

Due to the success of ‘The Muppet Show’ creator Jim Henson was given financing to produce his own movie featuring the same puppet characters audiences had grown to love from the program. Since this would be a large-scale production great effort had to be put into making the muppets appear real and able to blend into an actual outdoor setting versus having everything done on a sound stage like it was in the TV-show. Henson refused to compromise on anything and insisted that money would not be a limitation, and this included the segment where Animal, one of the muppet characters, grows to giant proportions. Initially the idea was to keep the puppet the same size and place him on a miniaturized set, which would’ve cut down on costs, but Henson felt this didn’t look convincing enough, so instead they constructed Animal’s head to gigantic proportions that measured over sixty feet, which called for way more money and was very time consuming, but ultimately worth the effort. 

The story itself is pedestrian and relies, similar to the TV-show, with rapid fire quips and comebacks much like in old vaudeville. On the surface the humor is corny, and some could find the whole thing silly, but enjoyment comes with the puppet characters that are made to be like caricatures of humans, and their amusing responses and reactions. It’s also filled with a lot of great songs all written by the talented Paul Williams, who appears briefly. Normally in movie musicals the songs end up sounding the same and it starts to feel like we’re just listening to the same loop done over and over, but here each music bit has a distinct beat and a good toe-tapping quality, which not only adds to the fun, but actually helps move the story along versus holding it up. 

The only drawback is the massive amount of guest star appearances. There are many familiar faces, but most of them are only in it for a half-minute, or so and few of them have anything that’s actually funny to say, or even moderately clever. Performers like Bob Hope, Richard Pryor, Madeline Kahn, and Edgar Bergen, in his last screen appearance before dying just a couple weeks later, are essentially wasted in bits that add nothing and could easily have been excised and not missed. However, there’s a few cameos that do work including Steve Martin as an annoyed waiter, Cloris Leachman as a receptionist allergic to animal hair and Orson Welles who comes on near the end and has the film’s best line. Mel Brooks also quite memorable in an over-the-top send-up of a German mad scientist. 

Durning though is the one exception as he is more like a main cast member and in it quite a bit. Of course, he’s an outstanding character actor and a personal favorite and he shines here as well particularly with his attempt at a Cajun accent, but it seemed a bit ridiculous for a guy to go to such extreme measures just to get Kermit to be in his commercials. A better storyline would’ve had Kermit witness Durning turning one of his family members, perhaps one of his distant frog cousins, into a frog legs meal and thus threaten to turn Durning into the authorities and this would cause him to chase after him in order to try and keep him from squealing.  It also would’ve been nice had he shown a change-of-heart at the end and come around to being a friend to the muppets versus remaining an adversary. It comes close at one point when Durning realizes he doesn’t have any real friends like Kermit does, but I would’ve liked to have seen him come to grips with his aggressive personality and make amends to do better moving forward. 

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: June 22, 1979

Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes

Rated G

Director: James Frawley

Studio: Associated Film Distribution

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

1 Comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Campy Comedy, Movies for the Whole Family, Musical, Road Movies

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Beyond Therapy (1987)

Posted on June 15, 2025 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 3 out of 10

4-Word Review: Therapists nuttier than patients.

Bruce (Jeff Goldblum) is a bisexual who’s tired of his relationship with Bob (Christopher Guest) and thus decides to place a singles ad looking for a female companion. Prudence (Julie Hagerty) answers and the two meet-up at a restaurant, but they find there’s too many differences between them and fail to hit-it-off. Bruce then goes to Charlotte (Glenda Jackson), his therapist, while Prudence visits Stuart (Tom Conti) who’s her therapist and works in the next room beside Charlotte’s. After some counseling, and at Charlotte’s suggestion, Bob places another ad, but changes some of the personal details, causing Prudence to again answer it thinking it’s a different person. They meet at the same restaurant, but this time things click and they agree to go out again, but Bob and his meddling mother Zizi (Genevieve Page) don’t like the fact that Bruce is seeing somebody else and become determined to ruin the potential relationship as does Stuart, who once had a fling with Prudence, and wants to rekindle the old flame, but only if he can get Bruce out of the way.

The film is based on the hit stage play of the same name by Christopher Durang and while that one got rave reviews this version falls off its hinges right away and a lot of the blame should be pointed at director Robert Altman who rejected the screenplay that Durang had written and instead revised it severely causing Durang to feel that very little of his original work was left and lamenting in later interviews that his experience working on this project was an unhappy one. The story is supposed to be set in New York City, but because Altman was living in Paris at the time he choose to shoot it there, but New York’s ambience, where the single’s scene is quite strong, would’ve helped accentuate the theme and allowed for a more vibrant backdrop versus here where everything takes place in a bland cafe, or in the therapists office, with the exception of a few scenes done in Bruce and Bob’s pad, that hampers the visual flair and makes the production look stagnant and cheap. It also ends with a bird’s eye shot of the Paris skyline, but since everyone was speaking in English and without a French accent it makes it off-kilter, and they should’ve at least pretended it was New York even if it wasn’t.

Goldblum comes off as too detached and thus isn’t effective for this kind of role. Hagerty has her moments and at least gets some laughs, but her open disdain for gay people, along with some of her character’s other quirky hang-ups, may not go over well with viewers. Guest plays the gay lover role in too much of a cliched way making him seem like a walking-talking parody, while Page, as his overprotective mother, is excessively hammy and her exaggerated behavior gets in the way and doesn’t add much.

Jackson is a big disappointment though it’s not all her fault as Altman insists on shooting the majority of her scenes through the window of her office making the viewer feel cut-off from her and like she’s intended to be a caricature. Her confusion over words is more disconcerting than funny. Having a therapist that’s a bit daffy is okay and might even be good enough for a chuckle or two, but here she seems genuinely nuts to the extent that you wonder why Bruce would continue to see her. How she’s able to pick-up words said by Stuart in the other office is never made clear, they also seem to have sporadic sexual rendezvous in the room that’s in-between their offices, but this only gets implied and never actually shown though it should’ve been. Conti’s performance is annoying as he speaks in this fake sounding Italian accent, which he finally drops near the end, but should’ve done way sooner.

There are a few in-jokes in regard to Jackson that I did like. One is a refence where her son, played by Cris Campion, asks her to cry, which she does in a comic sort-of way and I think this was alluding to her performance in A Touch of Class, where the script asked for her character to cry, but she refused insisting that crying was just something she didn’t do, so here you finally get to hear her do it, which is fun. Later there’s another bit where Bob talks about the movie Sunday Bloody Sunday, a film that Jackson was in, though here he describes her as being ‘that English actress’, which is amusing, but would’ve been even funnier had, when he later meets her, he could’ve said ‘you look exactly like the English actress in that movie.’

Spoiler Alert!

While the film does become semi-engaging even with its rough, awkward start it manages to blow it up with a dumb conclusion, which has Bob shooting at Bruce with a toy gun while inside the restaurant. We already know it’s a toy because he tried to use it on Charlotte earlier, so having this extended slow-motion sequence where all the customers duck for cover, doesn’t work and becomes overdrawn instead of funny, or suspenseful. Having the group then remain in the restaurant afterwards and even get served food was equally ridiculous as anyone that would’ve caused that much of a melee would most certainly be asked to leave or arrested by the police for causing a disturbance.

My Rating: 3 out of 10

Released: February 27, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 33 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Robert Altman

Studio: New World Pictures

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

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Black Comedy, Gay/Lesbian, Movies Based on Stageplays

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Double Negative (1980)

Posted on June 11, 2025 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 4 out of 10

4-Word Review: Who killed his wife?

Michael (Michael Sarrazin) is a photojournalist tormented by fragmented memories of his wife’s murder. Paula (Susan Clark) is his girlfriend who’s trying to help him sort through these flashbacks, so he can find some answers. However, she too has things to hide as she’s busily paying off a man named Lawrence Miles (Anthony Perkins) who threatens to go to the police about what he knows about the killing. There’s also Lester (Howard Duff) a private investigator who sticks his nose too deeply into the case and finds himself at deadly odds with both Lawrence and Paula.

The film is based on the 1948 novel ‘The Three Roads’ written by Ross Macdonald under his real name Kenneth Millar. Macdonald later went on to have a stellar career writing novels about private investigator character Lew Archer and this story has plenty of potential but gets mishandled and ultimately becomes a misfire. A lot of the problem stems from the production employing three different writers who all had different perspectives on where they wanted the story to go and then relying on director George Bloomfield to cram it all together, which he doesn’t succeed at. The result is a fragmented mishmash that takes a long while to become intriguing and even then, remains interesting only sporadically. Lots of extended scenes particularly at the beginning that should’ve been trimmed and a poor pacing that barely manages to create any momentum.

It doesn’t help that the main characters are wholly unlikable and uninteresting. Clark especially comes off as arrogant right from the beginning when we see her drive by what appears to be Amish people in a horse and buggy fighting through the snow and cold while she enjoys things in her warm ritzy car, which makes her seem detached and uncaring. The scene where she’s trying to procure an important real estate deal and then gets hampered by Michael playing loud music in the other room, so she then excuses herself and promises to be right back. I was fully expecting her to yell at Michael for his misbehavior, but instead she strips off her clothes and the two make love, but it seemed like sex should be the last thing on her mind during such an serious business meeting and what would happen if the clients, who were just a door away and waiting for her return, would walk in on them? 

Sarrazin doesn’t cut it either. I know he’s been lambasted by critics in his other film appearances for being too transparent and forgettable and yet I’ve usually defended him as I feel he can sometimes be effective even given the right material. Here though he falls precariously flat. Some of it is the fault of the writing which doesn’t lend him to create a character with any nuance, or likability, but in either case he’s a complete bore and the viewer isn’t emotionally invested in his predicament. His flashback moments where he sees himself in some sort of prisoner of war camp doesn’t make a lot of sense, or have much to do with the main plot, and seems like something for a whole different movie. 

On the other hand, Perkins is fantastic and the only thing that livens it up to the extent that he should’ve been given much more screen time as the film sinks whenever he’s not on. It’s great too at seeing SCTV alums like John Candy, Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty, Dave Thomas, and Catherine O’Hara in small parts where with the exception of Candy they’re not comical but instead make a rare turn at being dramatic. Duff is kind of fun and has one great moment, really the only good one in the movie, where he gets trapped in an elevator and must escape being shot by Perkins, who has his arm lodged in the otherwise closed doors, by desperately running back and forth in the closed space that he’s given. Michael Ironside has a memorable bit too as a bar patron who becomes incensed at Sarrazin when he refuses to allow him to buy him a drink. 

Spoiler Alert!

The denouement just leaves more questions and fails to tie up the loose ends as intended. For one thing it shows Sarrazin as being the one who strangled his wife, which I had started to suspect a long while earlier, so it’s not a ‘shocking surprise’ like I think the filmmakers thought it would. It also has Perkins leaving the scene, as he was having an affair with the woman, and even briefly speaking to Clark who witnesses him going, so why he’d insist Clark needs to pay him hush money didn’t make much sense. Sure, he could still go to the police and say that it was Sarrazin that did it, but Perkins fingerprints were at the scene of the crime, so I’d think either way he’d get implicated, and Clark could come forward saying she was a witness who saw him leaving. If anything, Clark should’ve been pushing him to go to the cops versus bribing him to stay away.  

Also, the way it gets shown, Clark comes into the bedroom after Sarrazin has already strangled his wife, so all she sees is him weeping over his wife’s dead body. For all she knew, from that perspective, is that Perkins really did kill the woman and Sarrazin was simply the first to come upon her dead body and thus for it to be crystal clear Clark should’ve entered while he was still in the middle of the act versus when he was already done.

Beyond that is that question of why would Clark want to stay with someone she knew had such violent tendencies? Wouldn’t she be afraid he could get upset at some point and do that to her? Sarrazin even asks her at the very end if she is afraid and her only response is: ‘aren’t you’? This though only muddles things further cementing it as a botched effort. 

Alternate Title: Deadly Companion

My Rating: 4 out of 10

Released: May 12, 1980

Runtime: 1 Hour 36 Minutes

Director: George Bloomfield

Studio: Quadrant Films

Available: Amazon Video

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Cold Climate/Wintertime Movies, Foreign Films, Movies Based on Novels, Movies from Canada, Mystery, Obscure Movies

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Straw Dogs (1971)

Posted on May 28, 2025 | 2 comments

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 8 out of 10

4-Word Review: Man defends his home.

David (Dustin Hoffman), a nerdy mathematician, has been given a research grant and uses it to relocate to the rural countryside of England with his wife Amy (Susan George). They move into a farmhouse that was once owned by Amy’s father and they hire four men (Del Henney, Ken Hutchinson, Jim Norton, Donald Webster) to fix up the roof. The men though don’t work much and spend most of the time making fun of David and ogling Amy. After several bad encounters, including the grizzly death of their pet cat, David fires them and hopes that’ll be the last it, but things only get worse. When a teen girl named Janice (Sally Thomsett) disappears her violently drunken father Tom (Peter Vaughan) thinks it was caused by Henry (David Warner) a mentally handicapped man that Janice had shown an affinity for. Tom, along with the four other men, become a lynch mob determined to find Henry and bring him some ‘street justice’. David and Amy, while returning from a church service, hit Henry with their car as he’s running from the other men. David agrees to take the injured Henry into his home until a doctor can arrive, but the five men insist on getting inside to beat and kill Henry for his perceived crime. Since David had avoided having any confrontation with the men previously even when they had openly mocked him, they presume he’ll be a pushover this time as well, but David has finally decided to take a stand and will defend his home from the intruders in any way he can. 

While it was controversial at the time many now consider this the pinnacle of director Sam Peckinpah’s career and his directorial touches are supreme. The capturing of the brown empty vast landscape of nothingness, shot during the winter of 1971, brings out a surreal sense making it seem like the characters are living in a purgatory outer world where everything is dead and helps explain the deadness of the men’s souls that have been forced to endure their entire lives there. The climactic sequence where David’s home comes under siege is deftly handled. Normally in thrillers pounding music gets played during these segments to ramp up the tension, but here there’s only the sound of a distance foghorn, which makes it much more creepy, distinct, and helps accentuate the isolation. 

Some have been critical of the film’s violence especially at the time when there was activism going on that tried to stymie violent material on both TV and movies with the idea that violence was a ‘learned’ behavior and if people didn’t see it so much in entertainment, then they wouldn’t do it in real life. Peckinpah though saw it differently as he felt violence was an instinctual reaction that couldn’t just be ‘unlearned’ and that in certain situations it was necessary and not every conflict could be resolved peacefully, a message the film brings out quite well. 

While Susan George gives an excellent performance, as do the four villainous men, particularly Vaughan as their ringleader making them some of the creepiest bad guys in film history, I did find her character confusing. I didn’t understand why she’d marry a guy that she found by her own admission cowardly even bringing up that he was ‘running away’ from problems he was having at his university and his ‘hiding behind his studies’ in order to avoid it. She also shows no respect for his work and several times even vandalizes his chalk board that has his mathematical equations, so what attracted her to him in the first place? Would’ve made more sense had she initially idolized him for his academic status and then became painfully aware of his meekness as the film progressed, which would’ve made for a more interesting arch.

Spoiler Alert!

The film is based on the 1969 novel The Siege of Trencher’s Farm by Gordon Williams, but with many changes some of which worked while others didn’t. In the novel the couple had an 8-year-old girl, but in the film there is no child. To a degree it doesn’t make that much of a difference though when the bad guys attack the house it might’ve heightened the urgency more knowing that David was not only defending his ‘home’, but also the safety of his terrified daughter. The biggest change that the film does is that it creates a connection between Henry and Janice where Janice sneaks away with him during a church party where she invites him to be intimate with her, but in the process, he accidentally kills her, which seemed too similar to Of Mice and Men. It’s confusing too why this teen girl, who outside of her buck teeth seems reasonably attractive, would feel the need to throw herself at a mentally handicapped man, or get flirty with David, who is married. Why can’t she find guys her own age to fool around with? Knowing the hormones of most teen boys that shouldn’t be too hard, so without further explanation to her psyche, which doesn’t happen, her ‘inviting’ of Henry is quite unnatural and forced. 

In the book Henry is instead a child killer who’s being transported back to prison when the vehicle he’s in gets stuck in the snow, which allows him to escape. At the same time Janice, who’s mentally disabled, which isn’t made clear in the movie, runs away from a Christmas party where she ends up dying from the exposure to the cold, but otherwise it has nothing to do with the escape of Henry and is only presumed to have a connection by the five men, which makes more sense and the screenplay should’ve have kept it this way.

On the other hand, in the book none of the attacking men die and are only badly injured, but I think death gives it a more final resolution, so the movie scores there. I also liked how David is forced to resort to items he can find around the house, much like in the film Last House on the Left, which came out a year later, to fight off the bad guys versus the cliched machoism of having a big gun to blow them away and it also helps to show how intellectual wits can ultimately be used to overpower the otherwise physically stronger attackers. 

The rape scene in which the wife gets assaulted by not only one, but two men was another problematic moment as the book had no such segment. For one thing it makes it seem like she’s actually enjoying the attack, at least with the first one, and she recovers from it much too quickly and doesn’t even bother to tell David about it and able to go on relatively normally afterwards, which didn’t seem realistic and thus I think it should’ve been excised since it comes off as exploitive and doesn’t have that much to do with the main plot. 

My Rating: 8 out of 10

Released: December 22, 1971

Runtime: 1 Hour 57 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Sam Peckinpah

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD, Blu-ray (Criterion Collection)

2 Comments

Posted in 70's Movies, Classic, Cold Climate/Wintertime Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with a rural setting, Movies with Nudity, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , , , ,

Revenge of the Pink Panther (1978)

Posted on May 5, 2025 | Leave a comment

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Out to get Clouseau.

Philippe (Robert Webber) is a successful businessman who’s secretly the head of the French criminal underground. Some though are questioning his leadership considering him to be too weak to remain in that position. In order to squash the impending threat, he decides to make a bold move by having Inspector Clouseau (Peter Sellers) killed. Clouseau was considered a master detective by the outside world and only known to be an incompetent by those who worked with him, so by having him out of the way the drug dealers would feel relieved and thus Philippe would remain in power. However, things don’t get as planned as Clouseau manages to miraculously evade all attempts on his life. The media though mistakenly announces that he has died, which allows Clouseau to go undercover along with his manservant Cato (Burt Kwouk) to find out who’s after him.

This marked the fifth entry in the series and is probably the funniest. Initially director Blake Edwards had wanted to reuse footage that had been cut from the previous entry and then film new scenes around those, but star Sellers insisted he wanted an all-new story and that was probably for the best. Sellers by far gets the most laughs whereas in the one that came before this, The Pink Panther Strikes Again, it was Herbert Lom as the unhinged Dreyfus, that was the most memorable, but here his part becomes much more benign, though he still gets one good scene where he tries not to breakout laughing while giving a eulogy at Clouseau’s funeral. Sellers though comes out on top here especially in his disguises like when he pretends to be a sea captain with an inflatable parrot on his shoulder, or in a hilarious send-up as a Mafia Don.

It’s great to see Kwouk, who was usually relegated to the ‘fight’ scene between him and his boss Clouseau, become more involved in the story, as the two go to Hong Kong in disguise to track down the bad guys. Dyan Cannon is a refreshing change of pace. Usually, the women in these films were young models whose sole purpose was to allude sex appeal, but here she’s middle-aged, but still attractive, and shows much more of a feisty personality. She helps build a strong secondary character and is better interwoven into the plot versus simply appearing as a potential romantic interest.

Webber though as the main villain is a detriment. I have no doubt that the notoriously insecure Sellers didn’t like the way Lom stole the film as the nemesis in their last outing and wanted to make sure that didn’t happen again. Not only is the Dreyfuss character far more neutered, but so is Webber making him seem like he’s almost sleepwalking through his role. It would’ve been more interesting had his character has some personal vendetta against Clouseau, possibly because it was Clouseau who had sent him, or one of his men to jail, and now he wanted revenge. Just having him out to get Clousau because it might bolster his own image didn’t seem to be enough of an incentive and the two, outside of one comic moment where Clouseau’s is in one of disguises, never have any ultimate confrontation. Watching him get chased around his desk and cower from Dyan Cannon may have been intended as funny, but it just further erodes his villainy making him seem even more impotent than he already is. Even a comedy still needs a bad guy that can elicit some tension and this one doesn’t.

The implementation of Mr. Chong, played by martial arts instructor Ed Parker, has potential. Supposedly he’s an ‘invincible’ fighter that can beat-up anyone and not be stopped as proven when he takes down several other men while in Webber’s office but then he gets comically defeated once he comes into contact with Clouseau. While watching him go through the floor/ceiling of several apartments below as he crash lands is visually funny it would’ve been more engaging if he had come back at some point and continued his relentless attack on Clouseau albeit with injuries in order to reclaim his reputation that he couldn’t be defeated, but in the process just became more hurt and ineffective.

Spoiler Alert!

The climactic sequence that occurs in Hong Kong is a cop-out and comes-off like they’d run out of ideas, so they tried to save it with a calamity filled chase that plays more like a cartoon, or something better suited for a live action Disney movie. Introducing yet another Mafia boss, this one played by Paul Stewart, makes things too cluttered and there should’ve been just one main bad guy that was the boss of everyone. The finale inside a firecracker factory should’ve proven dangerous and in fact we do see the entire place explode from a distance and yet everyone comes out of it unscathed, which doesn’t exactly make a lot of sense.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: July 20, 1978

Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Blake Edwards

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Amazon Video, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Farce, Gangster Movies, Movies for the Whole Family, Sequels

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,