Tag Archives: Review

The American Success Company (1979)

Posted on March 21, 2024 | Leave a comment

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 Kills, which 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

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Black Comedy, Obscure Movies, Romance

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Movers & Shakers (1985)

Posted on March 17, 2024 | 1 comment

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

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Obscure Movies, Satire

Tagged , , , , , ,

This Sweet Sickness (1977)

Posted on March 14, 2024 | Leave a comment

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 Places. There 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)

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Cold Climate/Wintertime Movies, Foreign Films, French Films, Movies Based on Novels, Obscure Movies, Thrillers/Suspense

Tagged , , , ,

Blind Date (1987)

Posted on March 10, 2024 | Leave a comment

blind1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 0 out of 10

4-Word Review: Don’t get her drunk!

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Rating: 0 out of 10

Released: March 24, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 35 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Blake Edwards

Studio: Tri Star Pictures

Available: DVD, Amazon Video, YouTube

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Farce, Movies with Nudity, Romance

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Equus (1977)

Posted on March 7, 2024 | Leave a comment

equus1

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 6 out of 10

4-Word Review: Teen blinds six horses.

Martin (Richard Burton) is a disillusioned, middle-aged psychiatrist who gets tasked with finding out why a 17-year-old boy named Alan (Peter Firth) blinded six horses one night in a stable with a sickle. At first Alan is uncooperative during their sessions and will not speak to him and instead sings out commercial jingles repeatedly, so Martin must go to Alan’s parents (Colin Blakely, Joan Plowright) in an effort to find some answers. It is here that he learns the mother is highly religious and taught her son that ‘God sees all’ particularly when it comes to sexual transgressions. Alan though has replaced God with his obsession with horses and idolizes them instead where he essentially makes them his ‘deity’. Martin now must try to break the boy away from this fanaticism in an effort to make him ‘normal’, but realizes when he does that the kid will cease to have passion and become like Martin himself who no longer has any emotions for anything including his own wife whom he no longer shares intimate relations.

Director Sidney Lumet has always had a penchant for turning plays into a movies and with some of them he’s had great success like with 12 Angry Men, but some of his other efforts did not fare as well. This project was met initially with a lot of apprehension, but overall Lumet’s directorial flair adds a lot and cinematically it works for the most part. The effort to get away from the staginess of the story by having several scenes done outdoors, like Martin having a discussion with his friend played by Eileen Atkins, about the case while raking leaves I felt really worked. Again, with cinema you have to have the characters doing something during the dialogue even if it’s some sort of chore as there’s nothing more stagnant than talking heads in a movie. The opening sequence done over the credits is well done too as it features Martin dealing with hostile patients hitting home the point of how burnt-out with his career he is without having it told to us and the white color schemes accentuates the tone one is most likely to see in hospitals.

The controversy came with the portrayal of the horses. In the play there were performed by muscular men inside a horse costume, but for the movie Lumet decided they needed to use real animals. This is okay until it comes to the scene where they get blinded. The play version only intimates the violent act, but with the movie you actually see the sickle go right into the horses’ eyes, which is so realistically done I don’t know how they did it without hurting the animal. This was way before computer effects, so just be warned if you’re an animal lover these scenes may be too graphic to bare and could easily take some viewers out of the story to the extent they may not be able to get back into and might just turn it off altogether.

The casting is a bit problematic. Both Burton and Firth played the roles in the stage version, but by this point Firth was no longer looking like a 17-year-old, he was in fact already 23. I admire his bravery to ride a horse in the nude in one of the movie’s more memorable moments, but he still resembles adult features physically taking away the innocence of the character and the shock of how someone so young, i.e. a teen. could commit such a vicious act. Burton too looks too worn out having spent this period of his career battling alcoholism. Some may say that this fit his role, but his presence seems at times almost lifeless and like he’s just walking through his part. The segments where he speaks directly to the camera become long-winded, stagey and aren’t effective.

The story itself may not work for everyone. It was inspired by a true event, which occurred in 1954, that playwright Peter Shaffer heard about, but did not actually investigate. Instead he wanted to come up with his own hypothesis on how someone could do what this character does without learning the real reason that motivated the actual culprit. Some may find the teen’s motivation here to be interpretive and revealing while others will blow-it-off as pseudo psychology and not able to fully buy into. For example certain viewers will find the scene where the father catches the boy kneeling in front of a picture in his bedroom of a horse and ‘worshipping it’ while wearing a make-shift harness to be quite disturbing though with others this same segment may elicit a bad case of the giggles instead.

My Rating: 6 out of 10

Released: October 14, 1977

Runtime: 2 Hour 17 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Sidney Lumet

Studio: United Artists

Available: DVD, Blu-ray

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, Drama, Movies Based on Stageplays, Movies with a Hospital setting, Movies with Nudity

Tagged , , , , , ,

Without a Trace (1983)

Posted on March 4, 2024 | 1 comment

without

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Her child goes missing.

Susan (Kate Nelligan) works as a college professor while also raising her 6-year-old son Alex (Danny Corkill) as a single parent. Alex normally walks 2-blocks to his school every morning in their Brooklyn neighborhood, so Susan thinks nothing of it when she waves goodbye to him as he turns the corner towards his school while she goes the other way to her job. However, when she returns home and finds that he’s not there she begins to worry. She calls her friend Jocelyn (Stockard Channing), who has a daughter the same age as Alex, only to learn that Alex never showed up to school that day. She then immediately calls the police and Detective Al Manetti (Judd Hirsh) becomes the lead investigator in the case to find the child.

The story is loosely based on the real-life case of Etan Patz who disappeared one day while walking to school on May 25, 1979. Not only did he become the first child to appear on a milk cartoon for missing children, but it also inspired Beth Gutcheon to write a novel, which was a fictionalized account of the his case that was later purchased by producer Stanley R. Jaffe in the amount of $350,000 to turn it into a film, of which Gutcheon was hired to write the screenplay.

While the film has a riveting quality that keeps you watching it does also have a certain ‘genteel atmosphere’ that critic Leonard Maltin complained about in his review, that keeps it a bit sterile for its own good. The film acts like child abduction is almost a novelty that’s rare to happen and shocking when it does though kids can go missing each and every day in this country. The detective states that children can be sexually molested by adults though if children came forward about it they’d ‘never be believed’ or ‘taken seriously’, which is something that I think has certainly flipped the other way in this day and age. He also brings up the subject of child porn, which gets called ‘chicken porn’ here, and parents respond in a naive way to this concept, which again is something I think most adults in this era would’ve been familiar with its existence and not act like they’re being told about something completely new they had never heard about.  The police also ‘set-up-shop’ in the women’s apartment turning it into a virtual police station and remain there day-and-night for 6-weeks, which I couldn’t see happening now.

The sequence with a psychic, played by Kathleen Widdeos, I found unintentionally laughable. Her ‘visions’ are quite vague and when she gets pressed to give something specific, like the license plate number of the car, or identity of the kidnapper, she can’t. Yet the mother acts relieved when the psychic says the child is still alive, but since her ‘information’ is so nebulous she could be a con artist making it all up and no one would know the difference.

David Dukes, who plays the ex-husband and father of the child, who at this time was best known for playing the man who tried to rape Edith Bunker, in a memorable episode of the classic TV-show ‘All in the Family’ of which he received several death threats, plays the only character that shows any emotion and thus the only one who stands-out. The movie also examines the detective’s home-life, which I didn’t feel was needed. Normally I say it’s good when we learn more about a cop’s private side, but since he wasn’t the film’s protagonist I didn’t find it necessary and only helps to lengthen the film’s runtime, which was too long anyways and could’ve neatly been told in only a 90-minute time frame instead of 110 minutes.

I did come away liking Nelligan’s performance, some critics at the time labeled her as coming-off as ‘cold’, but I felt she did alright, but was kind of disappointed that Stockard Channing didn’t get the lead instead. At the time Nelligan was considered the up-and-coming star while Channing had been mostly relegated to comedy including two failed sitcoms, but in retrospect Channing has become the better known actress and proven to be highly versatile, so seeing her in the part of mother would’ve been quite interesting and she might’ve even been able to do it better.

Spoiler Alert!

My biggest beef though is with the ending, which is much different than in the actual incident. In the Patz case his body was never found and it turned into a cold case for many years before a man named Pedro Hernandez came forward in 2012 and confessed to the crime. Here though the boy gets found alive having been kidnapped to help take care of a man’s disabled adult sister, but it’s very hard to fathom how much help a 6-year-old could be expected to give an adult woman nor has there ever been in the annals of crime where a kidnapping has been done for this reason. Having the kid immediately answer the door of the home he is supposedly being ‘confined in’ hurts the tension and would’ve been more suspenseful had the police had to search the place before finally finding him hidden somewhere. Also, if the kid is able to open the front door then what’s stopping him from running out at some point and finding help?

The fact that a neighbor woman named Malvina Robbins (Louise Stubbs), who lives next door to the kidnappers and keeps calling the police about it, but they ignore her, really hurts the credibility of the Manetti character who we’re supposed to like and he’s portrayed as being ‘super dedicated’. If that’s the case then he should’ve followed-up on every single lead he could’ve even if he thought some of them might be ‘cranks’ it shouldn’t matter because you just never know. The fact that he doesn’t do this even after she calls the police hundreds of times makes it seem like a dereliction of duty who should be investigated for not  following up and certainly not some ‘hero’.

I realize most audiences want some sort of resolution and making a movie like this that doesn’t have one might prove frustrating, but in real-life a lot of cases like these don’t get resolved, or if they do the findings are a grim one. To have a movie stay realistic the whole way only to tack-on a feel-good ending does a disservice to the many parents whose missing children never come home and thus hurts it from being as insightful and compelling as it could’ve been.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: February 4, 1983

Runtime: 1 Hour 50 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Stanley R. Jaffe

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Available: DVD-R, VHS

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Drama, Kidnapping Movies, Movies Based on Actual Events, Movies Based on Novels, Movies that take place in the Big Apple, Obscure Movies

Tagged , , , , , , ,

The Gambler (1974)

Posted on February 29, 2024 | Leave a comment

gambler

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 5 out of 10

4-Word Review: Can’t control his addiction.

Axel (James Caan) is a college professor with a serious gambling addiction. He enjoys making bets on anything and everything whether it’s in a casino, over the phone betting on sports games, or out on the street playing one-on-one hoops with the neighborhood kids. No matter how much he loses he can’t stop from continuing the same pattern. When he owes $44,000 to the mob and they come looking for him and threatening his life he’s forced to ask his mother (Jacqueline Brookes) for the money and despite her disapproval she gives it to him out of her life savings, but then instead of paying off his debt he just uses it to gamble some more.

The screenplay was inspired by writer James Toback’s own life experiences and was initially written as a semi-autobiographical book before he decided to turn it into a script. The film is intriguing to a degree as gambling addiction is not anything that I’ve ever fully understood, so trying to fathom why some people would put up such huge sums of money to make a bet that they know they have a very good chance of losing, and even if they do lose will still continue to go on making bets anyways is baffling to me. Toback makes good efforts to try to explain the psych of a gambler’s mindset, which mainly gets revealed through Axel’s lectures to his class and at one point during a conversation with his bookie (Paul Sorvino) where he admits he could beat him with safe bets in competitions he was sure to win, but that this wouldn’t give him the same adrenaline rush, or ‘juice’, that placing a more riskier bet would.

Even with these explanations it still becomes gut wrenching watching him spiral out-on-control and dig himself deeper and deeper in a hole until you feel almost like turning away as it becomes genuinely painful, and frustrating, at seeing someone self-destruct the way this guy does. There are some very powerful moments including the scenes where the mother begrudgingly takes her money out of the bank to help him for fear he may lose his life if she doesn’t and her pained expression on her face as she does it really gets etched in your mind. Axel sitting in a bathtub listening to the final moments of a basketball game that he’s also bet big money on where the final score doesn’t go the way he wanted is also quite compelling.

The acting is strong with Caan giving a great performance that Toback originally wanted to go to DeNiro, who campaigned heavily for it, but director Karel Reisz choose Caan instead, only for Caan to state in later interviews that he hated working with him. Comedian London Lee, wearing an incredibly garish bowl haircut, is good in a very sleazy sort of way and Burt Young has a dynamic bit as an enforcer who tears up a lady’s apartment when her boyfriend is unable to repay what he owes. James Woods can be seen in a small role as a flippant bank teller though overall I still felt it was Brookes who steals it as the concerned mother and I was surprised she was not in it more nor that she didn’t get an Academy Award nomination as she really should’ve.

Despite a few powerful moments the pace is slow and there’s a lot of periods where it gets boring and nothing much happens. A lot of the blame goes to the fact that the main character has very little of an arch. He starts out already with the addiction gripping him and we can see what a problem it’s causing and the rest of the movie just continues to hit home this same point until it becomes redundant. It would’ve been better to have seen him before he had gotten into the whole gambling fix took over his life and personality, which would’ve created a far more interesting and insightful transition.

My Rating: 5 out of 10

Released: October 2, 1974

Runtime: 1 Hour 51 Minutes

Rated R

Director: Karel Reisz

Studio: Paramount

Available: DVD, Amazon Video

Leave a comment

Posted in 70's Movies, College Life, Drama, Movies that take place in the Big Apple

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Fast-Walking (1982)

Posted on February 25, 2024 | 1 comment

fastwalking

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Guard helps prisoner escape.

Based on the 1974 novel ‘The Rap’ by Ernest Brawley the film centers on prison guard Frank Miniver (James Woods) a pot smoking man who’s unhappy with the low pay of his current job and helps supplement his income by pimping prostitutes to the local Mexican laborers. Wasco (Tim McIntire) is a prisoner at the jailhouse Frank works at who has many outside connections. When a black political prisoner William Galliot (Robert Hooks) arrives at the prison Wasco fashions to have him assassinated by Frank, but Frank has other ideas. He’s already made a deal with Galliot to have him sprung from the inside and in so doing he’ll be given a cool $50,000. Wasco become aware of this other deal, but insists that Frank follow his plan, or he’ll put a hit on Moke (Kay Lenz) an attractive, sharp-shooting lady friend that Frank’s been sleeping with who is also Wasco’s girlfriend. Will Frank choose money over the girl, or will he have a plan-B of his own?

Filmed on-location at the old Montana State Prison building in Deer Lodge, Montana the film has an interesting look to it, which helps accentuate the characters. The American west has always had the allure of escape and individualism, so the rustic landscape here brings out not only Frank’s need to get out of the shackles of his dead-end job, but the prisoners as well. The small town setting has a sort-of renegade vibe where everyone is eager to  push-the-envelope of the law and feeling more than confident that they can get away with it. The guards seem almost as corrupt as the men they incarcerate and in some ways even worse. The entertainment is not seeing good conquer evil, but more with which side will manage to out con the other.

The story takes its sweet time getting told with the entire first hour spent just showing Frank’s on the job frustrations before it even gets to the prison break plan. It works more as vignettes than a plot with one amusing moment taking place in the visiting room with one prisoner named Ted (Sydney Lassick) more fascinated with Moke taking off her panties underneath her skirt than with what his own wife (Helen Page Camp) is saying who sits directly in front of him. The cat-and-mouse game that Frank plays with Moke who each challenge the other with their rifle skills with Frank shooting flat the tire of Moke’s motorcycle from a long distance only to have Moke do the same to Frank’s tire on his jeep while he’s driving it is a lot of fun too.

The acting is excellent and the film’s main driver. Lenz looks great, both with her clothes on and off and this marked her career peak as her roles after this were of the supporting variety, or stymied in obscure, low budget flicks. Tim McIntire is also quite good in his second-to-last feature before his untimely death. He spouts a lot of dialogue, which seems almost like a never ending rant at times, but he conveys it in such a snarky, articulate way that it’s still fun to listen to though I was confused why, being a prisoner himself, he was allowed to sleep in the same room as the guards and even socialize with them out in the open. At first I thought he was a guard since he’s given a lot of their responsibilities including lowering the lever each morning that open up the other cell doors. I could only presume that given the corrupt environment and the fact that he was Frank’s cousin that he was given some under-the-table leverage to get these perks and privileges, but it would’ve helped had it been explained better, or given some backstory.

It’s also interesting seeing M. Emmet Walsh here doing yet another nude scene. He has an aging, out-of-shape body type that you’d think no one on this planet would want to see naked, nor would ask to, and yet in a span of 2-years his bare body figured prominently in two different films. In Straight Time he gets his pants pulled down while chained to a fence overlooking a busy highway, which I thought was edgy enough, but here he again gets shown sans his clothes this time from the front side where you get to see underneath his bulging belly his little wee-wee dangling about as he stands outside the front door and yells at Woods who is pulling away, which makes for an image you may want to forget, but might have problems doing.

As for the action there’s not much of it. Sure there’s a couple of shootings, which are quick, and a few fleeting scenes of prisoners falling to their deaths, but that’s about it. No riots, rapes, knife fights, or prison yard fist-fights all stuff that most viewers have come to expect with these types of movies and thus unless they get into the subtle quirkiness may leave disappointed. The inmates are also strangely docile and respectful of authority and even though they greatly outnumber the guards and at times could easily over power them they don’t, which makes it seem not as gritty as it could’ve been though others may not mind this and instead enjoy the film’s offbeat quality including Lalo Schifrin’s bouncy score.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: October 8, 1982

Runtime: 1 Hour 55 Minutes

Rated R

Director: James B. Harris

Studio: Lorimar Productions

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

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Movies Based on Novels, Movies with Nudity, Prison Flicks

Tagged , , , , , ,

Three Men and a Baby (1987)

Posted on February 23, 2024 | Leave a comment

threemenbaby

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Infant on their doorstep.

Peter (Tom Selleck) is an architect, Michael (Steve Guttenberg) is an artist, and Jack (Ted Danson) is an actor. All three live in a large apartment in downtown Manhattan. None are married and spend most of their time, when not working, hosting lavish parties and dating beautiful women. One day a baby gets left at their doorstep while Jack is away starring in a movie that’s filming in Turkey. Peter and Michael find the infant and attached note stating that it’s from one of Jack’s previous girlfriends whom had a brief fling with while starring in a play. The two men have no idea how to take care of it, which leads to many amusing mishaps. Once Jack returns they find themselves in even more chaos when drug dealers appear at the apartment looking for a package of heroin that had also been delivered there.

This is the American version of the French hit Three Men and a Cradle and while I’ve been routinely critical of most Hollywood remakes from European films this one, which was directed by Leonard Nimoy, makes many improvements on the story. There’s nothing that’s hugely different, but there’s enough small changes to the plot that helps fill in the caveats from the first one.

One of the things this one does better is it shows the men’s partying side, which the first one didn’t do as well as it started pretty much right away with the baby’s arrival and only elaborated about their wild ways while here, in perfect movie fashion, we see it. Although a bit garish, I enjoyed Michael’s artwork that gets drawn all over the outside walls of the apartment and creates a rather surreal look. There’s also definite strong 80’s vibe that permeates almost every shot at the beginning from the colorful lettering of the opening credits to the theme of ‘Bad Boys’ by Gloria Estefan and the Miami Sound Machine, which was a big band back in the day. There’s even Guttenberg doing a corny imitation of Robin Leach from ‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous’ though anyone that didn’t live through the decade will most likely not get that one.

The characters are much better defined with each having a distinct personality. While his movie career never really took-off Selleck shines as the leader of the group due to him being the oldest and at times the most stern. Guttenberg, with his boyish face, is perfect as the immature and clueless one while Danson scores as the eccentric actor. I liked that the men continued to work their jobs even as they looked after the baby, while in the first one they would just call in ‘sick’, which became excessive and unrealistic. In fact probably the funniest moment in the whole movie, at least for me, is when Danson is on stage rehearsing a play with the baby strapped to his back.

Even the drug dealing scenario gets handled better. In the first one the guys return the drugs to the dealers by putting it into one of the babies diapers and then tossing it into a trashcan in a park, but here the men use the opportunity to catch the crooks in the crime by having Guttenberg secretly filming them as they take the drugs back and there’s even some legitimate tension as they try to outrun them when the bad guys catch-on to the scheme. I also liked that the dealers infiltrate the apartment while a babysitter is there as in the French version the infant gets left alone and even though it was supposedly only for a short time was still irresponsible.

There’s a girlfriend character as well, or in this case ex-girlfriend, gets added for Selleck, she gets played by Margaret Colin, and reveals how Selleck just automatically presumes because she’s a woman she’ll know exactly what to do with a baby even when she states she doesn’t. This I felt finely observed how the different sexes can misjudge the other, or project characteristics onto them that they may not actually have.

Spoiler Alert!

Even the ending is a bit better though there’s still the issue of the girlfriend leaving a helpless child at someone else’s doorstep without warning, or making sure there would be someone there to take care of it, which in the real world would be dangerously reckless. At least though there’s more action as the three rush to the airport to try to stop the plane the girlfriend is on with the baby while in the French version the three guys just sit at home moping around, which isn’t as interesting.

It’s still problematic that the girlfriend, played by Nancy Travis who speaks with an accent, moves into the apartment with the bachelors to help take care of the kid. This though goes against the title as it states Three MEN and a baby, so I felt the Travis character should’ve just given up her parental rights and let the guys do all the parenting since they had become better at it anyways.

End of Spoiler Alert!

The only change that I didn’t like is when Danson brings his mother, played by Celeste Holm, to see the baby and tries to get her to agree to take care of it for awhile. In the French version the Jacques character tries the same ploy with his mother only to learn, to his shock, she has no interest in raising another kid and wants to spend her retirement having fun like traveling the world, which I felt was a good statement on ageism and how not all seniors want to be stuck being homebodies. Here Holm’s acts like a strict parent who doesn’t want to be bothered with a kid because Danson needs to ‘grow-up’ and learn to amend for his mistakes though if she was really a proper parent she probably should’ve warned him when he was younger to always wear a condom, so he wouldn’t have gotten himself into this mess in the first place.

This is also the scene that became a bit notorious back around August of 1990 when a rumor started that an image of a little boy, who it was said had killed himself in the place where it was filmed, can be seen in the window that Holm and Danson walk past. Granted it does look a little spooky at first, but upon second glance you can plainly see that it’s actually a cardboard cut-out of Danson wearing a top hat. The whole film was shot on a soundstage in Toronto and not a house where any boy past or present had ever lived.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: November 23, 1987

Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes

Rated PG

Director: Leonard Nimoy

Studio: Touchstone

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

Leave a comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Comedy, Movies for the Whole Family, Movies with Nudity, Remakes

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Three Men and a Cradle (1985)

Posted on February 19, 2024 | 1 comment

threemencradle

By Richard Winters

My Rating: 7 out of 10

4-Word Review: Stuck with a baby.

Pierre (Roland Giraud), Michel (Michel Boujenah), and Jacques (Andre Dussollier) are three bachelors living in a swanky apartment who routinely bed hot women and throw wild parties. During a party one of Jacques’ friends informs him that he has a package and wants to have it delivered to their apartment for safe keeping. Jacques agrees and then goes flying off to Japan for a month as an airline steward. Pierre and Michel then find a baby at their doorstep that gets left by Jacques former girlfriend. Thinking this is ‘the package’ they begrudgingly bring her in and try caring for her despite having no idea what they’re doing. Meanwhile the actual package also gets delivered, which is a small box secretly full of heroin, which they think nothing of until the dealers arrive looking to pick it up and mistakenly take the baby instead.

A highly insightful look at bachelors and their ineptness and downright ignorance at infant care is brought splendidly to screen, at least with the first act. There’s many keen moments as they run around to pharmacies not knowing what sized diapers to get the kid, or the type of baby food, thinking it’s ‘all the same’ and needing to constantly go back and speak to the female druggist for clarity.  In fact the first 30-minutes are probably the funniest and could’ve just kept it at that theme and been a success though having Jacques away so much starts to make it seem like the title should’ve just been ‘2 Bachelors and a Cradle’ since the third one is little seen until much later on.

I also really adored the kid who is able to somehow cry on cue. Most infants are understandably hard to control, but this one reacts to the scene and situations perfectly and is in it surprisingly a lot. In most other films dealing with babies they usually get only shown in a crib for a few seconds here and there, with these shots spliced in, but here she’s like a genuine character that’s in it almost as much as the main ones. We also see her grow where at the end she’s doing her first walk and it’s cool that the ‘music’ done over the closing credits amounts to recordings of her baby blabbering.

Where the film starts to fall-off a bit is with the drug dealer side-story. I think the baby chores that the men had to go through could’ve been enough to carry it and adding in the crime thing made it seem unnecessarily exaggerated. It’s also ridiculous that the dealers tear up the entire apartment, and I mean they literally ransack the place cutting up and breaking all the furniture to the point that’s it’s an extraordinary mess. Then suddenly a little later it all goes back to normal, but how could they find the time to clean it all up while also taking care of the kid? This clean-up would’ve quite frankly taken many weeks and buying all new stuff, so this should’ve at least been shown, but instead it gets portrayed like they’re genies who can seemingly turn a trashed place into a clean one with a snap-of-a-finger.

The characterizations are rather weak as Pierre and Michel respond to things too much the same way and have very little distinction between them and could’ve easily morphed into being one person. The idea that these guys could just call off from work for not only days, but weeks at a time without even giving an excuse as to why and not lose their jobs for it seemed implausible. Granted the French culture isn’t a workaholic one like in America, but it’s pushing the bar to the extreme here and might’ve been more amusing seeing the guys taking the baby to their work and trying to somehow still get things done.

Spoiler Alert!

My biggest beef though comes with the girlfriend named Sylvia, played by Philippine Leroy-Beaulieu, who has the audacity to leave a helpless infant on somebody’s doorstep, walks away, and doesn’t think anything of it. What’s to say some stranger couldn’t come along and snatch the kid up before the occupiers of the apartment find it? What’s to guarantee that the guys in the apartment are even going to want to take the baby in, or if they do won’t inadvertently harm the child since they have no training on how to handle it? The fact that she returns months later with this bright beaming smile demanding to see her baby immediately like she’s some loving mother entitled to her kid whenever she pleases makes her seem even more outrageous. In most jurisdictions her behavior would’ve been considered reckless child abandonment and her parenting privileges taken away. Instead of handing over the baby she should’ve received a very stern lecture

Granted the film tries to make-up for this by having her return to the apartment saying she can’t keep up with the mothering duties and agrees to hand the baby over to the men. She also gets shown lying in the baby’s crib in a fetal position in order to symbolize that she’s immature, but still for a playful comedy this has some serious undertones that it glosses over, but are still readily there if you think about it.

My Rating: 7 out of 10

Released: September 18, 1985

Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes

Rated PG-13

Director: Coline Serreau

Studio: Soprofilms

Available: DVD

1 Comment

Posted in 80's Movies, Comedy, Foreign Films, French Films, Movies with Nudity, Obscure Movies

Tagged , ,