Tonight's topic: bad movies and the critics who see them...

"Ringmaster"
Overall Rating: *½


If I thought that he'd take me up on the offer, and that he'd stay put, I would happily buy Jerry Springer a one way ticket to Siberia. My opinion of "talk shows" such as his is low enough that the price of a coach fare from Los Angeles to Novosibirsk would be a small price to pay to get rid of one. I believe in freedom of the press; he has every right to put on his show, and his viewers have every right to watch it. I just find his show (based on the one or two times I haven't managed to avoid it and the countless commercials I've seen) to be utterly worthless, and I wish to have no part of it. So, when some friends of mine invited me along to see "Ringmaster," a movie staring Jerry Springer about a Springer-like program and its guests, I suspected it would be trouble. "Ringmaster" lived down to my expectations.

The movie focuses on Jerry Farrelly (Jerry Springer)--the host of a tasteless talk/brawl show. During the course of one of his shows, he runs an announcement that he's looking for someone who had an affair with her stepdad. This is perfect for Angel Zorzak (Jaime Pressly)--because between flings with strangers at the motel where she works, she is having sex with her mother's husband (Michael Dudikoff). Things are further complicated when her mother, Connie (Molly Hagan), comes home while the two are having sex--so Connie proceeds to have sex with Will--Angel's fiance. With the talk show appearance offered to them, the sordid affair becomes the best thing that ever happened to them.

As you might have gathered from the description, "Ringmaster" has more foul language, more graphic sexual content, and less real plot than some pornographic movies. The movie, however, shares the same problem that the Springer-style talk shows have--they both glorify the worst of humanity. "Ringmaster" is very defensive of these shows--asserting that some people don't like them because the guests are poor, but that the same critics relish in the sordid episodes on the evening news. I for one think that CNN told me more than I really wanted to know about Marv Albert and the Bobbitts--and I didn't like "Ringmaster's" implication that all critics of the trashy talk shows are hypocrites. National TV definitely doesn't need this sort of gossip.

Aside from putting my nose out of joint with its theme, the film itself was annoying. The whole film is jumpy--in more than one way. The film has many shots which cut away quickly--an overused technique which is extremely irritating. Add to that the way the story itself is handled: for the first half of the movie, we see various slices of Jerry's life, and alternately, of Angel's and Connie's lives. That, along with some other guests, creates a very disjointed feel which is irksome. All right, I suppose they need to establish all these things, but they could have handled it much more smoothly.

The film is not a complete loss. These antagonistic characters do get a few laughs with the verbal barbs they throw each others' way, not to mention the mixed nuts that Jerry attracts. Further Molly Hagan and Jaime Pressly do pretty good jobs in their roles--as complex (as in Electra) as Connie's and Angel's relationship is, it actually isn't completely unbelievable despite its overblown qualities. These two actresses make it work, and deserve credit on that count.

In the end, however, from the little things such as the fact that Tampa isn't in Broward County, to the big things such as Jerry Springer's self-righteousness, the movie is annoying. It is, in fact, so annoying, that it gave me a headache--I didn't have one going in, and it cleared up about ten minutes after the film ended, so I'm assuming it was the movie. As shallow and unappealing as "Ringmaster" is, it really isn't worth getting sick over.


Title: "Ringmaster"
Release date: November 25, 1998

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: *½

Aprox. run time: 90 min.
Director: Neil Abramson
Writer: John Bernstein
Stars: Jerry Springer, Molly Hagan, Jaime Pressly

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Ringmstr.htm

Added to blog site: 8/4/09

They're reading this review, too.

"Enemy of the State"
Overall Rating: ****


About two years ago, my parents and I were dining at the Olive Garden in Daytona Beach, returning from a trip to Miami to see a friend of my mother's. When we tried to pay for dinner with our credit card, it was rejected, and the credit card company told the clerk to have us call the credit card company. It turned out that our credit card company through routine monitoring of charge patterns, found a discrepancy; the cause in our case was someone who stole our charge card number, and used it to steal $4000 in electronics. An incident like that makes you wonder just who is watching you--and how closely?

"Enemy of the State" answers: the government and very closely. When Robert Dean (Will Smith), a Washington D. C. labor lawyer, runs into a college buddy during his Christmas shopping, the reunion will cause his life to unravel. His friend--who is killed shortly afterwards--drops a videodisc in his bag, and a group of rogue government agents want it back. In their attempts to retrieve it, they will break into his house, discredit him with his law partners and wife through a planted news story, and cancel all his credit cards. But Dean has a resource of his own: a private investigator named Brill (Gene Hackman) who has helped him on many of his cases and who knows how the government agents work. If only Dean can find him.

"Enemy of the State" will keep you on the edge of your seat throughout its two-and-a-half hours. Dean is never more than half a step ahead of the pursuing agents. The action never lets up. There are plenty of good chase sequences, such as those in the hotel and the tunnel.

The plot is tightly woven. There is nothing extraneous; things that, at first, seem irrelevant or insignificant turn out to be crucial. A good example is the episode where Dean tries to influence a mobster with a videotape; this seems only to be establishing character, and perhaps ironically foreshadowing--but it actually turns out to be a key point when the government agents go after Dean.

Will Smith is perfect as Robert Dean. The character is nothing new to him; we've seen this suave wise-guy lawyer before as the pilot Hiller in "Independence Day" and secret-agent J in "Men in Black." While I'd like to see more variety from the actor, he is perfectly cast for the film. Gene Hackman is also good as Brill--the man who knows every trick in the book, but wants to be left alone. This creates a nice internal conflict--rarely seen in action films--for him: save Dean, or let the government agents tear him apart and preserve his privacy. Jon Voight is also excellent as Reynolds, the bureaucrat who wants to be an autocrat. The bit characters such as Pintero (the mobster), Dean's college friend, and the hordes of nerds who round out the picture are often entertaining themselves.

"Enemy of the State" isn't perfect. Dean and Brill work, they are in many ways stock characters, as are all the characters. There is also too much implied towards the end. Though, it does make sense if you think about it, one or two lines on the subject would have helped. The film also makes frequent use of sharp, jerky cuts and electronic sounds to symbolize the extent of the surveillance; unfortunately, this technique is both annoying and cliche.

"Enemy of the State" is in many ways reminiscent of "Conspiracy Theory," and to a certain extent, "The Fugitive." It's accurate promotional line, "It's not paranoia if they're really after you," is enough to tell you that. It's not very original, and it's probably too violent for young children (its R rating is only for violence and strong language, though if I were rating it, I'd have given it a PG-13). Nonetheless, "Enemy of the State" has plenty of action to keep you entertained. If you liked "Independence Day" or "Conspiracy Theory" it's definitely worth a look for both you and that elusive "them."


Title: "Enemy of the State"
Release date: November 20, 1998
MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ****
Aprox. run time: 140 min.
Director: Tony Scott
Writer: David Marconi
Stars: Will Smith, Gene Hackman

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/reviewsbyjohn/Enemy_St.htm
Added to blog site: 7/27/09

Old movies never die--but they sometimes fade out.

"Soldier"
Overall Rating: **½

This review does contain spoilers. Be warned.

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

---

I admit it: I'm usually a sucker for the big-budget action films. So, when I saw the previews for "Soldier," I thought to myself "that'll be a cool movie." Well, not quite.

"Soldier" is the story of a soldier (quel surprise), Todd (Kurt Russell), who was born in 1996 and drafted immediately. Raised by the military, he is subjected to a psychologically and physically brutal training regimen where the washouts are shot on the spot. After his Orwellian training, he is released into the field, where his main duty seems to be shooting unarmed civilians by the dozen.

But this doesn't last, for the sinister Colonel Mekum (Jason Isaacs) has a better soldier. Genetically engineered as opposed to merely selected at birth, Mekum's soldier Caine (Jason Scott Lee) is able to run 15 miles in an hour, then best Todd and two other soldiers in a fight--though he loses an eye in the process.

Assumed to be dead (the other two soldiers are), Todd is dumped onto the planet Arcadia 234--where he finds his way to a village inhabited by survivors of a spaceship crash. Mace (Sean Pertwee) and Sandra (Connie Nielsen), being kind villagers, nurse him back to health, but the villagers vote to banish him when he nearly kills a man because of reflex training. Mace, however, realizes they made a mistake, and summons him back--just in time to save them from Mekum's troops, who are to take possession of the planet, and kill any locals.

Perhaps the best thing about the movie is the lighting and color. Nearly every scene seems dim--the military base is dark and forboding, and the planet is hazy even on the best of days. Grays and brown abound. As bleak as Todd's Spartan existence is, and as impoverished as the colonists are, this helps establish the feel. Yet, while most modern films are woefully underlit when they try to be dark--often making it impossible to see the action, this film manages to keep adequate light on the actors throughout.

There are also a number of nice little touches in this movie. For example, Sandra explains that her son, Nathan, was almost killed when an indigenous green snake bit him. Later, one of the green snakes gets into Nathan's room, and Todd tries to teach Nathan--in a manner similar to his own training--how to kill the snake. Though the lesson is interrupted when Mace kills the snake, the lesson was effective, for when another green snake slithers into his parents' bed, Nathan kills it before it can bite either of them. (This is the incident which changes Mace's mind about Todd.) Another nice touch is the use of names--often with double meanings: Bullfinch's Mythology paraphrases Virgil's description of "Arcadia," as "the home of pastoral simplicity and happiness"--appropriate for a home of happy villagers, but ironically, a garbage dump; then there's Caine--who kills his brothers in arms. And, cheap shot as it may be, you can't help but go "aw" when Todd picks up Nathan at the end.

Unfortunately, there are as many non-sequiturs as there are nice touches. How, when George Bush expected us to only get to Mars by 2020, is the American military conducting operations in other star systems by 2036? This makes no sense, is never explained, and would have been completely avoided just by setting the film 100 years later. The banishment of Todd doesn't really fit the character of the villagers--who put compassion before common sense at almost every turn--and his return without any objections is just as illogical from a character standpoint. Perhaps the biggest dud in the plot, however, is the love triangle. It's clear that Todd is in love with Sandra--but Sandra is married to Mace. Fortunately (or, for the sake of the movie, unfortunately), this doesn't seem to cause any tension among them, and when Mace is killed by Mekum's troops, the triangle has fallen apart halfway through the film.

In the end, however, what crushes "Soldier" is its own mediocrity. There is nothing really memorable or original about it. The key players have all done better. Director Paul Anderson has done much better films such as "Event Horizon" and "Mortal Kombat," as has writer David Webb Peoples--whose most memorable film has to be "Unforgiven." Leading man Kurt Russell is more hit-or-miss, with the terrible "Escape from L.A.," the good "Breakdown," and the wonderful "Stargate" under his belt. The acting overall is adequate--nothing more; it could pass in a stronger film, but here it's one more weakness. The special effects aren't very special. The story is extreamly weak--the aborted love triangle being the biggest flaw. (The preview implied that Todd's being thrown out was deliberate, and that the settlers had simply been thrown out earlier. This would have been a stronger story, I think.) There are a few really violent fight scenes for whatever appeal or repugnance they may hold--well choreographed, but fights alone don't cut it with me.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur once said "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away." In the end, I think of that quote, and hope this "Soldier" will soon grow old.


Title:"Soldier"
Release date: October 23, 1998
MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: **½
Director: Paul Anderson
Writer: David Webb Peoples
Stars: Kurt Russell, Jason Scott Lee

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Soldier.htm
Added to blog site: 8/5/09 (Spoiler alert added)

Unlike last summer, you won't get hooked.

"I Still Know What You Did Last Summer"
Overall Rating: **

Not all sequels are bad. The last two thirds of the "Star Wars" trilogy were almost up to the original, some of the later Bond films were easily better than their predecessors, and I'm still undecided on how "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" compares with "Raiders of the Lost Ark." On the other hand, the good sequels are given a bad name by the ones which fall far short of their prequels. For instance, "The Lost World" was a poor excuse to put people in front of dinosaurs again, "Speed 2" simply replaced the bus with a ship, and then there was "Ghostbusters 2," which I remember as simply being old characters with new ghosts. "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" falls into this latter category.

The movie opens with Julie James (Jennifer Love Hewett) going to confession--only to find that it isn't a priest she's confessing to, but our old friend, the psychotic Ben Willis (Muse Watson). Are we worried? No--she isn't killed two minutes into the movie; before he can kill her, she wakes up--screaming in the middle of political science class. Later that day, Ray Bronson (Freddie Prinze Jr.) shows up, and invites her back to Southport. She declines, saying she's not ready to go back. But Ray isn't the only person who cares about her--her roommate and best friend Karla (Brandy) tries to get her out of her shell by dragging her to a club and fixing her up with Will Benson (Matthew Settle). But, alas, even there, she's haunted by the man in the slicker, and must go home.

So, when Karla wins a trip to the Bahamas by guessing the capital of Brazil on a radio contest, this seems the perfect chance to cheer up Julie. Julie invites Ray, but he hesitates. In the end, when he can't make it, Karla invites Will for her. The three of them and Karla's boyfriend (Mekhi Phifer) arrive at the isolated tropical resort--just in time to meet up with Julie's nemesis.

Many elements of the film are OK, but not great. Jennifer Love Hewett and Brandy are both good enough for their roles; but their roles don't require much more than looking attractive, running, and screaming at the appropriate moments, so this doesn't really mean much. While there are a few places where it's effective, the use of music to build suspense is mostly cliché; loud music that sounds like a sample from Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" doesn't add much overall. The cinematography could also be described as a zero sum. On the one side, even though most of the film takes place in the dark, there are very few scenes where it's hard to see what's going on--this means the film avoids a vice that many modern films are guilty of. On the other side, the movie is not really memorable visually--the shots are all perfectly adequate, but nothing is really dazzling in any way.

The plot, such as it is, is handled moderately well. The audience gets a good hint--missed by the characters--that something is fishy with the vacation: the capital of Brazil isn't Rio, after all. The film also has a few surprises. Still, the movie is also predictable in many places. There is more than one scene where you know that so-and-so is going to die in a minute--with some characters, you can see it coming when you meet them. I don't think anyone doubted, either, that Ben Willis was alive and psychopathic as ever, and that Julie wasn't delusional. There were two relatively minor plot holes. How did Ben Willis survive his ordeal in the first film? We're left with the implication is that he's a better swimmer than Mark Spitz; but then, the first film implies that anyway. To talk about the other one would spoil something in the movie--to put it broadly, a character who seemed to be helpful earlier turns violent, with a fairly weak explanation of why.

But the plot's biggest problem wasn't holes or predictability; the plot was simply too thin: Julie is still stalked by Ben Willis, and has to watch friends and acquaintances die around her--all over again. If they simply dragged "I Know What You Did Last Summer" on for another two hours without changing anything else, the effect would have been the same. In the first movie, we saw some people killed with cargo hooks. In "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," we see even more people get killed with cargo hooks--and that's it. It gets old very quickly, and in the end, the film is empty.

"I Know What You Did Last Summer" was an intriguing thriller: four kids commit a serious crime, and are terrorized by an unknown witness in punishment or revenge. "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" is a superficial sequel. It has plenty of action that is like the original, but misses everything that made the original a good movie.

Title: "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer"
Release date: November 14, 1998

MPAA rating:R
Overall rating: **
Aprox. run time: 100 min.

Director: Danny Cannon
Writers: Trey Callaway (story and screenwriter), Stephen Gaghan
Stars: Jennifer Love Hewett, Brandy

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/StilKnow.htm
Added to blog site: 7/28/09 (with minor editing)

Would someone please drive a stake through the projector

"John Carpenter's Vampires"
Overall Rating: *

Vampire films don't usually do it for me. I need to be honest (unlike at least 90% of the characters in the film)--"John Carpenter's Vampires" had one strike against it going in. But subsequently, it struck out on its own.

The film opens with about seven or eight of the scruffiest men you can imagine approaching a run-down farmhouse. Lead by Jack Crow (James Woods), they're driving a jeep and what looks like an armored car; and though they look like rejects from a biker gang (except for an accompanying priest--who seems completely out of his element), they're actually vampire hunters--and they proceed to unload an arsenal of crossbows, spears, guns, and other gadgets from the truck, then break into the house, and start looking for vampires. Even though they say that wooden stakes will kill them, they always (after stabbing them with wooden stakes, and sometimes spearing and/or shooting them) do away wit the vampires by shooting them with arrows (hence the crossbow), then hauling them outside using ropes attached to the arrows and the winch on the jeep. (This seems to be the jeep's sole function--but it's an excuse to have it there, and they do need it later).

After doing away with nine vampires--but not finding the master vampire they expected to find in the nest--this crew has a party at the motel where they're staying (the Sun God Motel--the motel's name was the best thing about the movie), inviting numerous prostitutes and the local cop. The party won't last long, however, for the master vampire Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith)--who looks like a bad imitation of the lead singer of Marilyn Manson--crashes the party, and he is ticked. Cops, priests, prostitutes, vampire hunters--it doesn't matter. He kills almost everybody.

Knowing they have no chance of beating this vampire if they stay, Montoya (Daniel Baldwin) and Crow drag away the nearly comatose Katrina (Sheryl Lee)--a prostitute who'll have a telepathic link with Valek because she was bitten--and take off in a pick-up truck. Despite the hunters' head start, the master vampire flies after them, and lands on the back of the truck, but when he's shot (just once), he is thrown off the truck and becomes completely discouraged in his pursuit. Unfortunately, after driving all night, Crow and crew don't see an apparently abandoned horse van in the road (on a clear day) until the last minute, and thereby manage to wreck their truck. So what do they do? Carjack a car, go back to the motel, then split up. Montoya takes Katrina to a hotel in another town. Crow stays at the motel, and--to make sure his companions haven't become vampires--drives stakes through everyone's heart, cuts off and buries their heads, then burns the motel to the ground.

I can't do justice to the list of things which don't make sense in this film. In some cases, the filmmakers added numerous elements to solely to increase the violence and nudity--as if that would somehow make everything else make sense. Apparently, the group of vampire hunters has little trouble hiring about 10 prostitutes in rural New Mexico--but this is important because they have to be at the party so they can start running around topless and get killed. Everybody seems to shoot the vampires; this generally has little to no effect, but they do it anyhow. After he takes her to the motel as ordered by Crow, Montoya strips Katrina naked--he claims it was because he cleaned her up, but the real reason seems to have been to get one more naked woman in front of the camera.

But most things just don't make sense. They celebrate a job well done when they know they didn't get the master vampire. Not only do cops find prostitutes for vampires hunters, but while cops and priests will only watch the sexual antics, they will happily get drunk and tolerate this loud debauchery. There must be people who run the motel--for the lights are on and guests are staying there--but they don't seem to care that their motel is the scene all sorts of trouble, such as a loud party, mass murder, and motel-destroying arson. Bear in mind, these are problems with the first 45 minutes or so of the film.

James Woods is another mystery. Crow is supposedly quite passionate about vampire hunting--both his parents were killed by vampires. But somehow, while he says it's important, he seems about as passionate about it as I was about my old summer job delivering phone books three summers ago. He treats it as a job to do and get paid for, but not the center of his universe.

With the main emphasis on special effects, you'd think they'd at least be somewhat impressive. They're not. Except for the motel massacre, all the fights are in places that are too dimly lit to see what's happening. I'm sure there was plenty of blood and gore on the set, but not even vampire blood can be seen in the dark. True, they kill the vampires by hauling them outdoors--but the special effects people don't seem to appreciate that when you've seen one vampire explode into flames, you've seen them all.

In fact, just about everything in the film is seen more than once. The vampires and vampire hunters have much in common besides mutual hatred--they enjoy fighting in run-down or abandoned buildings, causing mayhem in motels, and abusing catholic priests at every opportunity--and they get plenty of opportunities since almost every scene is in an appropriate building and priests are everywhere. Nearly every line in the film contains some sort of bad language--usually the f-word. The final nail in the coffin is that the fight scenes are repetitive beyond their similar sets. Every fight seems choreographed in the same way--if there were any differences (and from the results, I'd say there were not). you don't see them in the dark. It gets dull. The first scene was sort-of exciting despite being hard to see. The later fights were boring. Only the climactic fight was different--it involved fewer people, and therefore was much less impressive than the earlier fight scenes inevery way.

John Carpenter has directed good films in the past--most notably, the endearing and engrossing "Starman." Unfortunately, his most recent work as a director was on "Escape from L.A.," which was almost as bad.

To be fair, a lot of the people who were at the theater seemed to like the film. It could be that we're talking about horror film fans coming away from their Halloween weekend film. Maybe they just found the foul language, violence, and nudity sufficient. Or it could be that I was just seeing the initial reaction--I know that the more I thought about it, the more I realized was wrong with it (in the time it took me to write this review, it lost half a star). I don't know; all I know is that it's putrid. When it comes to "John Carpenter's Vampires," I say he can keep 'em.

Title: "John Carpenter's Vampires"/"Vampires"
Release date: October 30, 1998

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: *

Aprox. run time: 105 min.
Director: John Carpenter
Writers: Don Jakoby, John Steakley (novel)
Stars: James Woods, Daniel Baldwin

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Vampires.htm

Added to blog site: 7/28/09

Explanation of ratings

[It probably goes without saying that * was and ***** was great on my old movie review website, but this was exactly how I described what the star ratings were intended to mean, so here it is. I brought it over and added this note on 8/5/09.]


My overall rating system is designed to give a rough idea of how good (or bad) a film is. The ratings range from ***** (best) to ½ (worst) in increments of ½ star. The individual whole-star ratings are described below.


***** If you had to pay $100 to see it, it'd still be worth it.
**** Buy the video for $20.
*** Probably worth $6.50 for the ticket--worth $1.50 to rent.
** Not even worth the time to see it--let alone the money.
* Don't see it unless someone pays you at least $50 to sit through it.

We're off to see the Wizard...

"The Wizard of Oz"
Overall Rating: *****


All right, I know that just about everyone has seen "The Wizard of Oz," and--with the exception of a few detractors (the Munchkins are un-P.C., and the good witch upsets a few zealots' portrayals of witchcraft)--everybody loves it. But, I wanted to make sure my service's premiere weekend would have at least one good review, and since I'd decided to see it again as soon as I heard they were re-releasing it, this particular cultural icon seemed a logical choice for a first review.

The story of Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) is as familiar as that of any movie: hounded by a neighbor--Almira Gulch (Margaret Hamilton)--she is forced to give up her dog, Toto. When Toto escapes and manages to return to her, however, Dorothy runs away, only to return in time to get swept up in a tornado. In this way, she lands in Oz, accidentally killing The Wicked Witch of the East--whose ruby slippers she inherits--in the process. However, as spectacular as Oz is, she must follow the yellow brick road to get to the Wizard of Oz and back to Kansas, meeting the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodsman, and the Cowardly Lion in the process.

Still, Oz is spectacular. Even on video, the special effects are pretty good by today's standards. In the re-release, with the sound digitally remastered, and on the big screen, the effects will blow you away as surely as a tornado. While Hollywood has developed more sophisticated techniques since "The Wizard of Oz" was first released, the film easily holds its own--indeed, I was pleasantly surprised at just how well the visual effects hold up. The most spectacular effect, is the one most overlooked in current films: color. "The Wizard of Oz" accomplishes more by being in color than any other film I can name--because some of the scenes are in black-and-white. Oz is colorful, while Kansas isn't. I'm completely used to films being in color (in 1939, most weren't), but it still wows me here. "Schindler's List" comes close--though I'd argue it's less effective because almost all of it is black-and-white (only a few scenes such as the religious service are not), and because it is simply repeating the same technique. With most other films, color makes them look more natural--nice; but few films would truly suffer from being black-and-white. "The Wizard of Oz" would.

But more than the special effects, it's the performances that make the film. Judy Garland carries her role beautifully. The Scarecrow (Ray Bolger) and the Tin Woodsman (Jack Haley) are wonderful, and the Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr) steals the show. One performance that seems often overlooked is Margaret Hamilton's: her delivery of her lines is scary--but not too scary for children; she's fiendish without being inappropriate for a family movie.

Yet, even the best performances and special effects will fall flat without a script to back them up--and "The Wizard of Oz" has such a script. Starting with L. Frank Baum's classic children's novel, the filmmakers involved with "The Wizard of Oz" have created an energetic movie. Every other line is funny. Many of the songs are catchy. Perhaps the biggest testimony is the number of cliches "The Wizard of Of" has given us; lines like "I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore," "I'll get you my pretty--and your little dog, too," and "follow the Yellow Brick Road" appear in other movies ranging from "Independence Day," to "Good Morning Vietnam,"--and in even everyday language.

"The Wizard of Oz" has a few holes: small ones such as the Scarecrow's incorrect quotation of the Pythagorean Theorem, and big ones such as our never finding out what happens with Almira Gulch and Toto. Yet, however real these problems may be, it seems almost sacrilege to bring them up in public--considering how little they detract from the film as a whole.

Director Victor Fleming had a banner year in 1939. Besides "The Wizard of Oz," he also had another little film--"Gone with the Wind." Both rank among the best films ever made, and they're tough to compare (same director, same year, G rating due to the Hays Code--and just about nothing else in common), but for my money, "The Wizard of Oz" is better.

"The Wizard of Oz" is clever, dazzling, and original. I saw it as a young child, and loved it then. I still do.


Title: "The Wizard of Oz"
Release date: 1939 (re-release: November 6, 1998)

MPAA rating: G (originally not rated; Hays code compliant)
Overall rating: *****

Aprox. run time: 100 min.
Director: Victor Fleming (some scenes, King Vidor--uncredited)
Writer: Noel Langley ("Adaptation" and "Screen Play"), Florence Ryerson, Edgar Allen Woolf ("Screen Play"), L. Frank Baum (novel), Herbert Stothart ("Musical Adaptation"), E. Y. Harburg (lyrics), and Harold Arlen (music)
Stars: Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, Margaret Hamilton

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Oz.htm

Added to blog site: 8/5/09

"The Siege" will hold you captive.

"The Siege"
Overall Rating: ****½


Based on the previews, I was expecting a lot from "The Siege." The film's plot looked intriguing. Director Edward Zwick has a great track record, most notably such movies as "Glory" and "Courage Under Fire." Denzel Washington is a top caliber actor who, among other great performances, is in one of my all-time favorite films--"Malcolm X"--though co-stars Annette Bening and Bruce Willis have some good films on their resumes, too.

I've seen about 30 new movies this year [1998]--including such highly promoted, big-name projects as "Godzilla," "Deep Impact," "Armageddon," "The Mask of Zorro," and "Saving Private Ryan." "The Siege" easily betters all of them. It's the best film I've seen this year--nothing else comes close.

At the start of the film, Ahmed Bin Talal (Ahmed Ben Larby)--a terrorist suspected of bombing an army barracks in Saudi Arabia--is arrested by U. S. forces under General William Devereaux (Bruce Willis) in the Middle East. The terrorists' response: a series of bombings to New York City. If Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington), the head of the FBI's anti-terrorism task force, didn't have enough to cope with from the bombers, he has to deal with a CIA agent (Annette Bening) who lies to him at every turn, double agents whose real sympathies are unclear, and inter-agency infighting. He is the right hand which doesn't know what the left hand is doing--and can't find out because of all the stonewalling. Add to that problem of prejudice--which runs right to Frank Haddad (Tony Shalhoub), his Arab-American second in command, and his job seems nearly impossible.

Few recent movies have had as strong a script (and an original script, at that). The film maintains suspense and/or action nearly throughout--you don't have a chance to catch your breath. Nor is the film predictable: when you expect a bomb to go off, nothing happens; when you think you can rest, another bomb goes off. There are plenty of memorable lines--ranging from the comic relief ("We're the CIA--something always goes wrong.") to the stirring (Hubbard's speech on what's wrong with the Army's approach--seen on the previews, which, sadly, somewhat dulls its impact). Perhaps the biggest strength (and the scariest part) of the script is the realism. The parallels between the fictional Ahmed Bin Talal and the real Osama Bin Laden are so numerous I thought that the fictional character was based on the real one--until I realized that the filming would have had to have been completed before Bin Laden's name hit the headlines. However, the government's rash actions--to declare martial law in response to desperate public pressure to do something--is also chillingly believable.

The excellent cinematography speaks volumes. After Hubbard's speech, the way General Devereaux (to whom he delivered the speech) and Hubbard are photographed echoes what happened seconds before. The aftermath of the bombings is haunting--typically done without a line being spoken. Pictures of police checkpoints at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge call attention to a big question: is the cure worse than the disease?

The film is not without its problems. The character of the CIA agent (Annette Bening) is a compulsive liar, but she lies unnecessarily, especially when you consider why she's interested in the case; it's implied that she almost can't tell the truth, but I think the film should have been a bit more explicit on this point. By far the biggest problem is the scene where Hubbard interrogates a suspect--giving him the third degree and intimidating him with a cigarette. Everything else in the film suggests that he is above that sort of behavior, and it hurts the film. You could make a case that he realizes it was wrong and reforms, but I still think it weakens the movie.

The problem the press has reported, however, isn't a problem at all. According to CNN, while some Islamic groups have claimed that the film encourages negative stereotypes of Muslims, director Edward Zwick has countered that one of the film's point is the danger of such stereotypes. Zwick is right; the film isn't racist. Some of the villains are Muslims; so are plenty of innocent victims, and some of the heros. The film seems honest about its portrayal of the Arab community. As the leader of the Arab Anti-Defamation League emphasizes in the film, most Arab-Americans love America and want the terrorists brought to justice. Palestinians are generalized as kind people who live under terrible conditions. One off-screen commentator says point blank, "Islam is a religion of peace." Ultimately, the theme of the movie is a warning: don't be hypocritical. Some villains claim to be Muslims, but limit their faith to window-dressing for bombings. Other villains claim to be defenders of the American way--but do it by practicing tyranny and racism. The comparison is poetic.

This is not a family film. There is graphic violence, strong language, and even some very brief nudity. Little is gratuitous (none of the violence is), but the film merits its R rating.

As great a film as it is, reviewing "The Siege" is frustrating. So many scenes in the film surprise the viewer. In many cases to specifically say "this is what makes `The Siege' great..." would be to cripple a scene whose dramatic impact comes from its element of surprise. The plot, the best lines, the most dramatic cinematography--all these feed on unexpected turns. I can't say more without spoiling the film. Go see the movie--you'll see what I mean and you won't be disappointed.


Title: "The Siege"
Release date: November 6, 1998

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ****½

Aprox. run time: 120 min.
Director: Edward Zwick
Writer: Lawrence Wright
Stars: Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Bruce Willis

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/Siege.htm
Added to blog site: 8/4/09