Change Your Image
Mon-Star
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Phil Spector (2013)
HBO lied and defamed Lana Clarkson; should have made a film based on the facts
HBO should have fired David Mamet and made a film based on the facts that came out in the trial. The phony claims about blood splatters that were made in Mamet's film are blatant lies, as proved by the police photos of the murder scene, and evidence that proved that Spector had to be within two feet of Clarkson.
HBO could have made an electrifying film with the same cast, using the same disturbed character, but based on evidence. Pacino could have been shown walking out the back door, with the gun in his hand, after murdering Clarkson, seen by his driver, with blood on his hand. Phil Spector confessed to the murder to both his chauffeur and to a police officer at his house. The film could have shown Pacino spending 45 minutes, dipping a diaper in a toilet, and using it to wipe down the weapon and the crime scene, to cover up his crime. A nice camera angle could have repeatedly shown his phone all this time.
Flashbacks of the phone could have been shown, while his revolving door of highly paid celebrity defense attorneys asked him, "If she committed suicide, why didn't you call 9-1-1?" Flashbacks could have demonstrated that Lana Clarkson was right-handed, as his attorneys asked how the gun could have ended up behind her left foot. We could have seen Pacino place it there after the crime scene cleanup, not realizing that it could not possibly be there, if she had committed suicide. His attorneys could have been shown asking him, "If she took a gun and sat down to kill herself, why would her purse strap be hanging from her dead shoulder, as though she were ready to leave your house?
HBO could have shown a flashback of a member of the defense team stealing Lana Clarkson's fingernail from the crime scene, as they showed a member of the defense testifying about it. The truth was more compelling than the lies they tried to sell. Instead of a post script about the conviction, the film could have shown the courtroom verdict. The audience would have had a satisfying feeling that a rich washed-up record producer couldn't pay lawyers millions of dollars to get away with murdering an innocent woman.
Al Pacino is better than this. Instead of selling out, to make this defamatory garbage, he should have insisted on going all out, and playing Phil Spector as the Bad Guy that he really was in this case.
Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Outlaw in Town (1960)
Ricardo Montalban at his best!
Ricardo Montalban was the star of Alfred Hitchcock Presents: Outlaw in Town (1960), Season 6, Episode 7. He was 39 at the time, and had top billing, as the charming protagonist. You could argue that he was also the villain, so anyone who enjoyed his performances as Khan in Star Trek would surely appreciate this.
This is one of the best episodes I've seen on Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which has been airing two episodes at midnight on cable TV's Antenna Channel. Outlaw in Town has quirky humor that wasn't often seen on that show. It would have been better if they'd cast a native American to play the American Indian in it, instead of the white woman who played the part. For fans of Ricardo Montalban, this episode is a Must See!
Someone uploaded the entire episode on YouTube. Be careful to avoid scrolling down to read the comments, as one Spoiler gives away key plot points.
The Producers (2005)
Why the 2005 film did not work well
Broadway.com's interview, Nathan Lane said,"
I think we've done the most expensive Lincoln Center archive recording ever made." He's right production cost = $45 million and the US gross was $19 million. Each time I've seen the 1968 film, I thought, "They could make a good play out of this." I never saw the Broadway play, but I wasn't surprised that it succeeded. But they would have been better off just filming an actual live production of the play in front of a live audience. The 2005 film does not work - I never laughed once. The 123 minute 2005 film drags, compared to the 88-minute 1968 film. The songs don't substitute for dialogue, but pad and prolong it unnecessarily. Matthew Broderick was embarrassingly bad and Nathan Lane's performance pales in comparison to Zero Mostel.
The 2005 film should have eliminated the pointless Opening Night song, and started with the clever accounting office setting. This could have defined Bloom's character, in song, before we even meet Bialystock. It would have said, yes, it's a musical, and no, we're not telling the story exactly as in 1968. But the 2005 film inserted this song while Nathan Lane waits all day at the fountain, damaging the story. When we see how Zero Mostel convinces Gene Wilder to join in this scheme, we understand how he can talk little old ladies out of their money without having to see a musical number about it. By comparison, the 2005 film weakens Bialystock's character, since Bloom has to convince himself, without Max around.
In the 1968 film, Bialystock tells Bloom that they'll only have to ask Roger De Bris to direct the play; he's so bad that he'll take any work he can get. But the 2005 film again undermines Bialystock's character, by taking forever to get an answer - in order to insert an extravagant "Keep It Gay" number. Andreas Voutsinas' Carmen Ghia in the 1968 film was a virtual clinic on how a subdued performance can be so much funnier than the ever-smiling, overacting Roger Bart. The 2005 film could have eliminated even more of the 1968 dialogue, and had Bialystock and Bloom encounter the song the moment they walked in, with the acceptance as the first line spoken. But that brief elevator ride in 1968 was funnier than the whole 2005 production number, which um, just drags...
The way that Zero Mostel introduced Ulla in 1968 was hilarious. While expanding her role might have been a good idea in 2005, her character was poorly written: not believable, inconsistent, and just not funny. Imagine how much fun they could have had, altering the male-dominated story, by having the story end with Bloom the same way it did in 1968, but with Ulla ending up where she went in 2005 - and without her courtroom appearance! Maybe another line or two about painting over the safe's combination lock
Fans of the 1968 film would have smiled at this plot twist for 2005. Bloom's 2005 courtroom appearance defies belief.
But the biggest flaws of the 2005 film were the casting of Hitler and the actual premiere performance of the play. The Hitler whom Zero Mostel chose had wandered into the wrong tryout, and forgot his own name. Dick Shawn could be counted on to forget the script and totally screw up the author's play which is exactly what happened in that film. When Zero Mostel shouts, "THAT'S OUR Hitler," we sense that he actually HAD been a big-time producer once, because he knew "bad" as well as we do. The 2005 Hitler chosen sang well and could be expected to perform the play as written. But it is completely unbelievable that the 2005 play audience would have been initially turned off and then entertained by what they saw. (Amazingly, the 1968 costumes were far more risqué.) We can tell that the other characters on stage with Dick Shawn realize he is completely departing from the play's script. Part of the fun is that the audience thinks Shawn's performance IS Franz Liebkind's script, and The Producers couldn't have imagined that it could be entertaining. We never even know what Shawn was supposed to do. The 2005 version once again undermines Bialystock, since Roger De Bris' vision IS actually performed (and couldn't have been much different than Franz Liebkind's play.) This proves that Bialystock FAILED to choose an inept director.
Bialystock's song and speech in jail adds nothing but insult to the audience, by reviewing the whole boring film for five painful minutes. His claim in court that he's been a crook for 20 years is inconsistent with the story, and undermines his character. He may have been reduced to getting his financing from little old ladies, but he didn't actually try to defraud them until Bloom told him how. Claiming to be a failure for 20 years also contradicts the idea that he had been successful for a long time. The change in the ending is equivalent to saying "Crime pays." If they wanted to change the ending, they should have had Ulla make off with the money, while Bialystock & Bloom went to jail without learning their lesson. And maybe Ulla' mother was one of the swindled little old ladies - and the Dumb Blonde act was just a performance, to become an insider.