Change Your Image
planktonrules
I also write for Influx Magazine--where many of my opinions and reviews are also posted.
http://www.influxmagazine.com/
http://www.planktonrules.com/
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2467618/comments?order=date&summary=off
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Treason (1933)
Enjoyable even if the premise is rather dumb.
The premise to "Treason" is ridiculous. The story is set in the days following the end of the US Civil War. A group of rebels refuse to surrender and instead declare the 'Republic of South Kansas' and they continue raiding and robbing and destroying. While this actually did happen a few places (for example, Texas didn't surrender until three months after the war was over everywhere else), the film becomes ridiculous because the leader of these outlaws is a cute lady, Joan Randall (Shirley Grey)...a well-coiffed woman who looks more at place in a 1930s drama or romance than a B-western! Agent Jeff Connors (Buck Jones) is sent to apprehend Randall and put a stop to their nonsense....and find the list of folks who are backing this darling lady in her quest to restore the Confederacy.
The biggest problem is the whole lady in charge angle. Had the woman been tough, strong and mean, it might have worked. But having a lady who looks like a debutante made the story very hard to swallow. Apart from this, it's actually a decent film...not great but a decent time=passer.
The Shadow Laughs (1933)
A typical sort of 1930s plot...done rather poorly.
In the 1930s and into the 40s, a popular sort of film were murder mysteries where non-policemen decide to investigate and prove to be smarter and more effective than trained detectives! In many cases, these know-it-all amateurs were newspaper reporters, but school teachers, doctors and many others seemed more adept at solving crimes than the dopey police!
"The Shadow Laughs" is such a film....with a fast-talking reporter who investigates crime and is much more successful than the law. However, unlike most of these films, it's an incredibly cheap picture....far cheaper than the many made by Monogram and other tiny studios of the day. Apparently, Trojan Pictures wasn't quite as good as the other so-called 'poverty row' productions.
The film begins with a bank robbery performed by a bank employee. But in a REALLY badly written scene, the thief tells his unseen accomplice that he's NOT happy and plans on going to the police....a stupid cliche which means that the guy will soon be found dead. Is anyone THAT stupid??? And, because of this, the cliche is a bad one.
Now, enter the nosey and very pushy reporter. He shoves his way into the investigation and is able to make the cops, not surprisingly, look pretty dumb.
The dialog is bad, the production very cheap looking and there is only one reason I would recommend the movie....to see Cesar Romero in his first film. But to me, this isn't enough reason to watch a movie that is essentially like 10000 others...but much more poorly made.
The Savage Is Loose (1974)
A real crowd pleaser....NOT!
"The Savage Is Loose" is an exceptionally well made film, hence my score of 5. The acting is very good, the direction very nice and the story is interesting. However, it's also about incest...which isn't a topic that's bound to interest most viewers! Because of this, it's not at all surprising that the movie bombed at the box office....and imagine the surprise of those who watched it and didn't know that the film would be so Oedipal!
When the story begins, a family has been shipwrecked on some island. There's enough for them to eat but the chances of rescue seem very dim...and as the story goes, this seems even more unlikely. So, the father (George C. Scott) teaches the boy about survival...and over time, the kid grows into a sort of Tarzan wannabe. But as he ages, there is a HUGE problem...the only available sexual outlet is his mother...and you can rest assured the father isn't about to just hand her over to the frisky young man!
The film is realistic and surely Oedipal impulses would be a serious problem in such a situation. But it's also nasty...and something we really don't want to see in a movie...at least not the average person! Not a film I particularly enjoyed, though it's very well made.
The Bible: In the Beginning... (1966)
A 'spaghetti Biblical epic' that shouldn't offend anyone.
During the 1950s, Biblical epics were the rage....and brought Hollywood a ton of cash. Some of these films were very good (such as "Ben Hur") and some were incredibly silly (such as "Samson and Delilah")...but they were profitable. However, this magic formula faded in the 1960s and suddenly these movies began losing money...and such was the case with "The Bible: In the Beginning...". However, despite losing at the box office, it is a surprisingly good film when seen today, as unlike the other Biblical movies before it, this one actually stuck very closely to the source material and didn't have a lot of silly additions (such as in "The Ten Commandments" with Edward G. Robinson's ridiculous character). Additionally, while many of the Biblical epics had questionable 'additions' to the plot which might make many religious people object to the new content, this film would likely not offend anyone. Heck, it was made by some atheists...and so they even would probably get something out of the movie!
The film consists of much of the book of Genesis...the creation, Cain and Abel, Noah, the Tower of Babel and Abraham. Much of it is told by the narrator (John Huston) who reads from Genesis as you watch.
The movie has incredibly nice special effects (particularly the creation sequence and the ark filling up with animals) and looks lovely. It's interesting to see the story's reverence for the source material. Well made if also a bit long-winded. In hindsight, breaking the film into two might have helped in this regard.
Minstrel Man (1977)
While not politically correct, it is an important part of our culture and history.
I noticed that the reviews for "Minstrel Man" were all very positive but many complained that the film isn't available on video of DVD. Well, although some say it might be because of political correctness, the fact is many 1970s made for TV films never came out on cassettes or DVD. And so, when you see this film on YouTube, ignore the 'banned movie' slogan slapped on it...no one or government banned it. This isn't to say that folks would be eager to show the film...which is kind of sad.
Now as far as political correctness goes, I can see that some would automatically become offended about any film with the word 'minstrel' in the title. After all, minstrel shows usually featured white men in black-face doing parodies of blacks....and the parodies were often very unflattering. Now here's an odd but seldom talked about truth....some of the very famous minstrels were actually BLACK men pretending to be white men pretending to be black!! In other words, they took control of their culture and the debate! As such, it's an important part of our history...whether it offends us or not. Because of this alone, I recommend you see the movie.
The main reason I saw this movie is because it stars Glynn Turman....a sadly underrated actor. Yes, he did make a terrible film ("J. D.'s REVENGE" is just godawful and I'm sure he regrets having made it)....but he also has many amazing performances and I wish he got the recognition he deserves. He is brilliant in films such as "Men of Honor" and his TV parts ("The Paper Chase" and "Fargo") are mesmerizingly good. I'd love to one day tell him in person how much I appreciate his acting. And, not surprisingly, here in "Minstrel Man" he's on the top of his game.
The film is set in the post Civil War era in America. Sadly, a black man who performs as a minstrel dies of a heart attack...leaving his two young sons to try to continue the act in order to eat. One hopes to one day become a successful musical composer...the other wants to rise to the top in the white-dominated minstrel circuit. The film shows their successes, failures and struggles, as the country wasn't exactly welcoming towards black men at that time.
Overall, the film is a well made look at a mostly lost part of our heritage...for good or for bad....like "Roots" or "The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman" or "Bingo Long and His Traveling All-Stars". Well worth seeing.
Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay! (1948)
IMDB is wrong...this film was not Marilyn Monroe's first.
"Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay!" is one of the most unfortunately named movies of all time. For this reason alone, I avoided watching the films for some time. However, when I learned it was among Marilyn Monroe's first films, I decided to watch it.
Speaking of Monroe, IMDB's trivia says that this film is considered Monroe's first movie appearance. Well, this is wrong. She had a larger, though uncredited, part in "Dangerous Years". Much of her part in "Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay!" were edited out of the film.
The title is a reference to a call that folks used with their mules. And, the film is about a young man ('Snug') whose life is tough. His father runs away from home at the start of the movie and his step-mother is a harpy. As for her son, he's a brute...and makes Snug's life horrible.
The story is about how Snug acquired a team of mules which were thought to be untrainable. And, through love, patience and the like, Snug is able to make his mules pay. Much of the film is about some underhanded attempts to steal away the mules from Snug.
This is a decent film....one probably targeted more to families and older children. The acting is fine and the story worth seeing. But don't watch it for Monroe...you can barely tell she's in the movie.
Dangerous Years (1947)
A really bad B-movie...but one still worth seeing for some viewers.
"Dangerous Years" is one of the worst courtroom dramas I've ever seen. It's filled with ridiculous twists...ones so bad that I found myself laughing as I watched. However, it STILL might be worth watching, as it's Marilyn Monroe's first film.
The story is awful...but the actors really tried hard and the acting is NOT the problem (aside from one young lady whose acting on the witness stand is really silly). The problem is the writing. It's filled with several really ridiculous plot twists.
When the story begins, a group of teens are committing a burglary. Their leader is a young adult, Danny (Billy Halup), and when a social worker catches them, this punk kills the social worker. The remainder of the movie is about Danny's court trial. Now here is where the story falls apart. First, Danny learns that the girl he grew up with in an orphanage just happens to be the Prosecutor's daughter! What a crazy coincidence. But later, in another twist, he learns that the girl is really NOT the Prosecutor's long-lost biological child...HE is!!! Apparently, the woman in charge of the orphanage changed records in order to convince the Prosecutor that the girl was his biological child he never knew about....but in reality the boy was his child through some affair with a now dead woman. And, a woman from the orphanage shows up in court and intends to tell everyone that Danny is the Prosecutor's son! The scene is ridiculous and the lady jumps up in court and without finding out WHY and WHO she was or letting the attorneys learn more, the judge just tells her to step into the witness box to testify!! Now it gets even crazier...as she's about to tell everyone that Danny is the Prosecutor's son, she DIES of a heart attack!!!! And, the young man, ready to take his deserved punishment, doesn't tell anyone the truth because he doesn't want the girl to know the truth AND because he deserves his punishment!! None of this made any sense and really was impossible to believe....and left me mad that I'd even wasted my time with the movie.
As far as Monroe goes, she plays a waitress and has a few lines near the very beginning of the film. Nothing remarkable here...and her delivery is very different from later movies, as she sounds quite a bit different. This alone is the ONLY reason to watch this crappy movie.
The Power and the Glory (1961)
Where are the Mexicans?
"The Power and the Glory" is a made for TV movie that apparently was a big to do back in 1961. This is because the copy I saw on Tubi had both the commercials AND an announcement that several shows were being canceled for the week in order to show this special movie. Sadly, it wasn't all that special.
The film is set in the early part of the 20th century in Mexico. You might be very surprised to learn that this very Catholic nation persecuted priests for a couple decades...jailing and expelling most of them. The story is about one priest (Laurence Olivier) who is a lousy priest...but one who has managed to evade the authorities.
There were two major problems with this film. First, none of the principles in the film were Mexican nor did they seem very Mexican. It was the norm at the time for such casting and I hate it not so much because of political correctness but realism. Seeing George C. Scott and Roddy McDowell, for example, as Mexicans really took me out of the story. Second, the performance by Laurence Olivier was dull and lifeless...surprisingly so. It looked almost as if he didn't want to be in the film it was so sluggish and uninteresting. Overall, a mildly interesting but very flawed film. Worth skipping but not terrible.
Righteous Kill (2008)
Apparently De Niro and Pacino hated it...but I didn't.
According to IMDB, stars Robert De Niro and Al Pacino disliked this film and consider it among their worst. Surprisingly, I thought it was a pretty good film.
The story is about a detective who has had enough and has decided to do something about it. Instead of accepting that bad people often get away with crimes, he decides to become the avenging angel and kill them! The problem is that he likes it...and after a while it becomes obvious he is a serial killer and not just some guy dispensing justice.
The movie has a decent script and some nice twists. I think the attack on the female cop late in the film didn't make much sense and the acting was occasionally a bit over-the-top. But it WAS entertaining and offered a few surprises. Worth seeing despite the negative reputation of "Righteous Kill".
Barry (2018)
There ain't nothin' like it!
I just finished binge-watching "Barry"...and having seen all four seasons over three days sure indicates that I liked the show. It's excellent...and much of it is because it's about the most unpredictable TV series I have ever seen. In other words, the show really excels at originality.
The story is complicated but essentially is the story of an assassin (Bill Hader) and his weird notion that he could be an actor. So, between going to acting lessons and practicing his craft, he's out committing various atrocities for hire! And, it's often VERY violent...yet oddly funny.
So if I loved this show so much, why do I only give it a 9? Well, the first three seasons are perfect...and the final one, at times, is a tad disappointing. Part of this is because the usual humor is absent and the show ends in a way that no doubt will feel a bit unsatisfying. Some people die who you wish wouldn't and some survive who you'd really like to see die! But overall, it's an amazing and fresh show...one you should see IF you can take the violence...and wow is this a violent and adult show!
Against All Odds (1984)
A confusing and sexified remake of "Out of the Past"
"Out of the Past" was one of Robert Mitchum's better films. It was a lovely piece of film noir with an unusual romance with Jane Greer. "Against All Odds" is a 1984 remake which turns out to be a lot more confusing and 'sexified' (with some very rough language to boot).
Jeff Bridges is Terry Brogan, a pro football player at the end of his career. Now you'd think he'd have some sort of plan for his future, but he doesn't...nor does he seem especially bright. The rest of the film seems to confirm this...as well as that he's not an especially likable guy either.
After Terry is dropped from his team, a severely mentally unstable rich friend (James Woods) hires him to go to Mexico in search of the team owner's daughter...a woman who is also highly mentally unstable. Once in Mexico he finds her (Rachel Ward) and instead of telling his unstable friend, he begins a hot sexilicious romance with her. Then, things get really weird, dangerous and confusing.
I think the film, while interesting, has two problems. First, there are so many plot twists that I think the film might have been better with a simpler script. A good example of this is late in the film when Richard Widmark's character actually has to explain to the unstable woman what is happening and why! Second, and this is much more important, none of the characters in the story are the least bit likable...including Terry. They're all scum....and this makes it hard to care about any of them. Unless you have a film like "Downfall" or "The Bunker", it's important that you have someone to root for in a film...and here I just wanted bad things to happen to all of them.
On the plus side, the film has some lovely location shooting in Tulum, Mexico. It also has some nice music. In other words, it's a pretty slick looking movie. Slick...but hard to connect to as you watch.
My advice? Watch "Out of the Past" instead.
Taps (1981)
The acting was tremendous.
The plot to "Taps" is difficult to believe and is by far the weakest aspect of the movie. It's sad, as the acting is stellar...with the likes of Oscar-winners George C. Scott and Timothy Hutton in the lead and a lot of incredibly talented newcomers, such as Sean Penn and Tom Cruise. They are all terrific...and I have no complaints about the acting. As far as the plot goes, it really requires you to completely suspend disbelief in order to watch it.
The story is set at a military school. General Bache (George C. Scott) is a career military man who has a dynamic personality and is idolized by the kids in the academy. However, the school's board of directors has decided to close the school after the next school year. To make it worse, soon some neighborhood jerks create a confrontation with the cadets during a dance held at the school. In the commotion, the General accidentally shoots one of the ruffians. To make it worse, the General soon has a heart attack due to the stress of the events. The kids respond by deciding to hold on the the school...arming it like a garrison and daring outsiders to close it! As the story progresses, things escalate...due in part to idiots who didn't just ignore the kids and let them play soldier until they tired of it.
The film is interesting...but as the film progressed, the story just became less and less believable. If you can ignore this, it is pretty exciting and the ending full of energy and chaos.
Birdman of Alcatraz (1962)
Well made...but the film made a hero, of sorts, out of a monster.
"Birdman of Alcatraz" is a very well-crafted movie. The acting is very good and the script really make you respect and perhaps even love Robert Stroud, the so-called 'Birdman'. And, while it is true that Stroud loved birds and made himself an expert on them, the film does a great disservice by making him seem soulfull or decent. In reality, Stroud was a monster who was sent to prison for killing someone...and one there, he was incredibly violent...stabbing one inmate and murdering a guard. Clearly he was no hero. Yet, the film glosses over this and Burt Lancaster (a fantastic actor) makes him seem likeable...or at least decent.
The bottom line is that if you want the true story of Stroud, look elsewhere. If you just want an entertaining but fictional film, by all means watch it.
Secrets & Lies (1996)
a phenomenal movie...as well as a very emotional and painful one.
Script that was improvised.
Photogrpahs telling little stories
music a bit intense==good but loud.
Don't seem like actors.
Some might struggle with accents/dialects.
Awkward scenes other films might avoid.
DIrector Mike Leigh specializes in making films about real folks...not the sorts you see in most other movies. Occasionally, he's made other sorts of pictures, such as his Gilbert & Sullivan bio-pic, "Topsy Turvey". But what he's really known for and specializes in are stories about seemingly ordinary English working folks. I've seen a few and really enjoyed them, so I thought I try his most famous movie, "Secrets & Lies".
The story is told through small vignettes...vignettes that aren't obviously related. However, as the story progresses, the parallel stories eventually merge. It's a most unusual style of storytelling...and he's really mastered this style.
As far as the story goes, I don't want to say too much, as it would spoil the plot. Suffice to say, it's about a young woman who is searching for her birth mother....and the fact that the woman is black and mother are white are the LEAST of the concerns when all is said and done. The story culminates at a VERY emotionally charged birthday party...one where all sorts of secrets are revealed...and, hopefully, this results in a stronger, happier family...or not.
This is a film that is NOT for all tastes. It is told almost like a series of home movies, with actors who don't act or look like actors but real people. But its unconventional style really work and I beg you NOT to stop watching the movie...as it really kicks into high gear the last half hour or so. Not to be missed.
12 Angry Men (1997)
The word 'unnecessary' certainly comes to mind.
Originally, "12 Angry Men" was a live teleplay which was performed in 1954 for "Studio One". A few years later, many of the same cast members returned...and this time with Henry Fonda in the lead. The film turned out to be a masterpiece...one of the strongest movies of the 1950s and one that proved that WRITING and CHARACTER ACTORS are more important that action and big budgets. In 1997, for some inexplicable reason, some folks decided to remake it. Why? Were the TV version or first film flawed in some way? No way! So why did they produce this remake? I dunno...laziness?! Perhaps.
In most ways the film is like the previous versions, though when the story begins, you have a courtroom scene...something NOT in the other versions and something that is really unnecessary. Not bad...but unnecessary. Likewise, the portion about the psychiatrist is new...not in the originals. Why was it so otherwise similar? Well, the same guy who wrote the teleplay ALSO wrote this updated version.
So is the film necessary? No. The first film was perfect and featured some of the best character actors Hollywood could offer...as does this remake. But why see a remake when the first movie was perfect? In other words, there's nothing wrong with this 1997 version...but it just isn't necessary when we have a classic film already. The only big improvement in this 1997 film is that it's nice to see a more racially diverse jury...though it does exclude women...and as IMDB indicated, it was because the title "12 Angry People" wouldn't have the same impact.
Overall, an exceptionally well made movie...one that deserves to be seen...but only if you try one of the earlier versions first. It has many powerful moments...and I cannot discount that. It just isn't exactly original.
Angus (1995)
A must-see for teens.
"Angus" is a movie I had little interest in seeing. After all, it's more a film designed for teens. However, as I've recently been trying to see as may of George C. Scott's movies, as he was one of the greatest actors of his generation, I thought I should try "Angus"...even though it's a teen movie and Scott is only a supporting actor. In hindsight, boy am I glad I saw this picture!!
"Angus" features a story we can all related to. It's about an awkward chubby kid (Charlie Talbert) in high school whose life has been hellish thanks to a vicious, yet inexplicably popular bully, Rick (James Van Der Beek). Rick's latest attempt to make Angus feel like dirt is his fixing the voting to make Angus the prom king...so that Rick can mock him. Much of the movie is about Angus trying to sum up to courage to attend the dance...or just quit and walk away instead.
This touching film is one you might want to see with some Kleenex nearby. It's quite sad in places and there's a very good chance you can relate to him, as there are a lot of 'Ricks' in school...kids who look good but are down deep little monsters.
Overall, a very well written movie that strikes a painful nerve in nearly all of us. Well worth seeing, not just by teens, but anyone.
By the way, the language does have a bit of tough language. Well, while as a parent it made me a tad uncomfortable, as an ex-high school teacher, it also sound REAL....so I cut it a lot of slack.
The Whipping Boy (1994)
Surprisingly watchable for adults.
"The Whipping Boy" is a movie made for the Disney Channel and is based on a popular children's book of the same title. I mostly saw it because I've been trying to watch as many of George C. Scott's films as I can find...though, as it turns out, he plays only a relatively minor character.
Based on the costumes, the story appears to be set in the fictional country of Bratenberg at about 1800 (give or take a week). The story begins with two very poor orphans scraping to get by. However, when the odious young Prince sees them, he decides to have the boy taken prisoner and made his new whipping boy. Now, I have no idea if a 'whipping boy' is a real thing or something made up by authors. Regardless, the whipping boy's job is to be beaten instead of the Prince every time the Prince is bad...and this horrid monster is VERY bad and the whipping boy pays the price.
After various shenanigans, the whipping boy decides to run away...and the Prince follows him because the King is so angry at the Prince he's planning on actually whipping the horrid Prince instead of his proxy. Soon the pair are kidnapped and are going to be held for ransom. Can they manage to escape? And, will the Prince remain a horrid monster for the rest of his wretched life? And what about the whipping boy's sister...what happened to her in all this?
This story clearly is focused on entertaining kids, though it is still enjoyable for adults...so if your kids sucker you into watching it with them, then it won't be so bad! The story is interesting and the acting generally good. Plus the location shooting is actually very nice and the film has a few decent object lessons for kids. However, I wouldn't show it to really young kids...a few scenes might be too intense for the 5 and under crowd.
Pals (1987)
Not bad...but I can't help thinking it could have been a lot better.
"Pals" is an okay made for TV movie starring George C. Scott and Don Ameche. It's a comedy and both actors have done SOME comedic work...but neither seem to be innately funny nor have the comedy instincts the film could have used. Additionally, the script makes the mistake of having one of the characters transform himself into a jerk.
Jack (Scott) and Art (Ameche) are two old men who are friends. One day, they're on a road trip with Jack's mother (Sylvia Sidney) and they stumble upon a car with a suitcase full of money in the trunk. Soon, the hitman who owns the car arrives and tries to shoot them as they run away with the money.
When they later count the money, there's more than $3,000,000 in cash and so the two come up with a plan. They fake their deaths, abandon their homes and create new identities and buy a mansion as well as a fishing business. Soon the killer is on their trail...as Jack behaves like a jerk and pretends to be from 'old money'. And, considering how jerky he's behaving, I'm rooting for the hitman!
I think making the characters more sympathetic, having funnier actors in the leads AND eliminating the slide-whistle would have helped this movie a lot. As it is, it's not bad but you can't help but think it should have been better. Additionally, the longer I watched the film, the more I just wanted it to end.
The Ryan White Story (1989)
Get out your Kleenex.
Because I lived during the era when HIV/AIDS was a HUGE worry, I remember pretty clearly the sad case of Ryan White. The boy contracted AIDS as a result of his treatments for Hemophilia...and folks in his community were so scared of the illness. After all, not a lot was known about the illness at that time. The school board responded by expelling Ryan...and the boy was the center of a media frenzy. It was a sad story...especially when so much of the rhetoric surrounding this was hateful by the folks in his community and the White family was treated abominably. Because of this, I basically spent much of the film in tears...and I think this is going to be the case with most viewers. It's a sad, awful story...no matter how it's told. This film is a made for TV movie that came out a year before Ryan's death.
So is the story well done? Yes. I am not sure how much they changed facts to make the story more cinematic...but it is very effective in presenting the story. Well acted as well...and well worth seeing.
Curacao (1993)
Curiously uninvolving.
As the title would suggest, this film was made on the Caribbean island of Curacao. However, though this is a beautiful location and the film is about spies, it's a surprisingly uninvolving tale...one that never really piqued my interest.
The story focuses on two men. Stephen (William Peterson) is ex-CIA and apparently he ticked off his bosses...so they banished him to this island and took away his passport. The other is an older man, Cornelius (George C. Scott). He was involved in some insurance scam and was also pretty much banished to this island. None of it is very exciting...and sorting it all out by the end of the film is a chore.
I think one of the worst things about this mediocre film is how often instead of really SHOWING things, they talk about them. There is some action at the end...but otherwise, it's a curiously uninvolving story. I think they actors tried...but the script felt like it was riddled with plot holes and was re-written one time too many.
China Rose (1983)
This should have been more interesting than it actually was
"China Rose" is a made for TV movie starring George C. Scott. Now considering the location shoot and that Scott was a magnificent actor, I really expected more from this film. It wasn't terrible...but it also really wasn't good.
Burton (Scott) has come to China looking for information about his son's whereabouts. It seems he went to China over a decade before and has not been heard from since. However as he and his guide (Ali McGraw) travel in mainland China, the trail seems to lead back to Hong Kong. There, he keeps getting conflicting stories...that the son is dead as well as that he's alive! What is really going on here?!
With this plot, it was surprising that the film itself was just okay. You'd think organized crime and the rest of the story would have been pretty exciting. Additionally, the Scott-McGraw matchup didn't work for me...especially when, out of the blue, there was romance. Overall, an okay film with a downbeat ending...nothing more.
The Rescuers Down Under (1990)
Not necessary....but still pleasant
This film is about the further adventures of Bernard (Bob Newhart) and Bianca (Eva Gabor), two sweet mice to have dedicated their lives to helping animals in trouble. The first film was a nice diversion and is worth your time.
As I watched "The Rescuers Down Under", I wondered if there was any compelling reason to make the film. After all, was "The Rescuers" THAT popular a film to merit a sequel? And, aren't there other Disney franchises that would have worked better as a sequel? The answers to both is yes....but the film is worth seeing. Why? Well, the animation, while not among Disney's best, is still quite nice. And, Bernard and Bianca are pleasant characters. I just think that perhaps the hunter (George C. Scott) might be too intense a character for younger viewers. Worth seeing but far from a must-see.
The Murders in the Rue Morgue (1986)
Very good...aside from the accents.
"The Murders in the Rue Morgue" is a story by Edgar Allan Poe and it's set in Paris. However, oddly, the accents of most of the actors are American...with a few Brits thrown in as well. In fact, no one sounded very French...and that is a problem with this TV movie. However, apart from that, it's closer to the original story than the more famous 1932 version and is well made.
Sort incredibly violent murders have taken place. Some folks have been ripped to pieces, another shoved up a chimney...and it took five people to pull the body out when the police discovered the murder scene. The local police are perplexed and when they arrest a man who obviously did NOT do it, retired Police Inspector August Dupin (George C. Scott) is awakened from his lethargy and he decides to investigate.
The acting, generally, is very good. Scott was a genius actor...and here he's, as expected, terrific. I thought Rebecca De Mornay was a bit weak (she seemed the least French-like of any of them) and Val Kilmer was fine. The best part of the film is the location shooting in Paris. Overall, a very good film version of the story.
The Exorcist III (1990)
Rarely did I expect so little yet got so much out of a film.
I expected "The Exorcist III" to be a giant dumpster fire of a movie. After all, "The Exorcist II" is among the worst films of the 1970s. Yet, surprisingly, even with the changes being added to the film last minute, it's a fascinating and chilling picture.
Some truly horrific murders have been taking place....murders that were deliberately cruel and sacrilegious. Now here's the creepy part...the m.o. Of the killings are identical to those of the Gemini Killer...a man executed years ago! Obviously, something extraordinary is going on and Kinderman (George C. Scott) is assigned to investigate the case. The trail leads to a maximum security ward in a hospital...one where it seems impossible for any of the dangerous psychotics to get out to commit these problems. To quote Bobby Boucher's mother "It's the devil" that is behind these horrific killings and how a mere human policeman can stop them is a puzzler!
The film's plot isn't perfect but it never is dull and the final ten or so minutes of the film will possibly scare the crap out of you! A very good film...I just wish they hadn't called it "Exorcist III", as it made me incorrectly assume it would be crap.
By the way, this is probably one of Scott's best and most underrated performances.
The Secret (1992)
An important film, considering how common the problem is.
The setting for "The Secret" is most unusual, and I appreciate that. It's about a family of cranberry farmers who live in Nova Scotia, Canada...and I liked seeing the unusual locale.
The Dunmore family lives in Nova Scotia. Grandpa Mike (Kirk Douglas) runs a small store and his son Patrick (Bruce Boxleitner) is a cranberry farmer. The two do NOT get along very well...and Patrick really resents all the time and attention Mike pays to his grandson, Danny. This stems from Mike not being there much for Patrick as he grew up. Mike never read to Patrick or helped him with his homework...and Patrick seems REALLY bent out of shape about this.
While Danny is a terrific athlete and a nice kid, he has a secret. The boy cannot read and has been faking it for years. But now his teacher has noticed and is trying to get the Dunmores to get Danny tested to see if he has a learning disability. But, inexplicably, Patrick is so against it that he seems a bit crazed (a MAJOR problem with the story actually). So, Grandpa takes Danny to Boston to be assessed...and when Patrick learns he puts a stop to it. But this abortive visit to a clinic isn't all a giant mistake, as Mike decides to take the appointment because he, too, has a secret...he cannot read either.
The film is odd. The acting is generally very good (especially for Douglas). But the character played by Boxleitner is poorly written...too extreme, too angry and too unlikable. He is almost like a caricature, not a real person like everyone else in the story. It's a shame, as otherwise it's an excellent film and Boxleitner is a fine actor...given the parts for him are well written. The film talks about a very common and important problem, dyslexia...so common that it's very possible you or someone you love is struggling with the disorder...so try to look past this problem with Patrick.