Reviews

While I have enjoyed many of Richard Schickel's previous shows, this one is really pretty much a waste of time. The writing is very boring and pedantic. Watching the show is like sitting through a particularly boring lecture in a college class you really want to enjoy. There isn't a coherent thread of storytelling and it seems to bounce between one topic to the next with little or no transition. I can't tell what the purpose of this documentary is supposed to be... is it about the stars and directors? Is it about the style and themes of the films? Is it about the history of the studio in relation to the world it is in? Is it about everything that happened at WB within specific periods of time? I can't tell what Schickel is trying to get me to take away from this documentary. It is like he has an outline and checklist of things he 'has' to cover and is just going along "Rin Tin Tin... check, The Jazz Singer... check". Where is his passion for his subject?

Clint Eastwood's narration does not pull me into the story he is telling, but then how excited can he be reading the script he was given? The interviews are mostly uninteresting and seem to be a mix of old stuff from Schickel's Men Who Made The Movies series and dropped in to remind us who he has talked to before (and maybe to save him the trouble of doing new work) and talking to critics and academics who we don't know or care about who seem more interested in impressing Schieckel than us, the audience. The camera work on the interviews could have been done by any junior high kid with a tripod and the work of the interviewer does not bring out great storytelling from the interviewees.

Another thing which is bad about this show is the editing... usually very well done in Schickel's documentaries. Some segments show the old magic... like the James Cagney and Busby Berkely segments... which do what the segments should do... make us, the audience, interested enough in the subjects that we want to get the movies we learn about. However, such segments stand out because of how bad he rest of the editing is. I have worked as a projectionist for three decades and know that anyone can cut frames, but editing is more than that. Most of the transitions between shots are very abrupt and look like one shot is dropped down before the end of the previous shot. In addition, the movies we all know are represented by the clichéd clips that we have all seen a thousand times... can he not find anything new to give us about Casablanca and Yankee Doodle Dandy, for example... and not only are all of the clips from those shows the 'usual suspects' he spends way too much time on them rather than spending the time on what we HAVEN"T seen and heard before.

I don't know how much Warner Brothers paid for this hack job, but it was too much and if I am expected to want to buy the DVD to watch this show more than once, sorry... once is more than enough. Maybe it is time for Schickel to call it quits and retire because he sure doesn't seem to have anything worth while to give to the public. I'm sure USC would allow him to give really boring lectures to film students and play his 'greatest hits' to them to show them how wonderful he is.

If you don't get it from my review... I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this documentary to anyone. Jeez, how does ANYONE make the Warner Brothers story a snoozefest? P.S. -- Even before the show starts, you know to expect something bad... the title card of the first part tells us it covers '1929 - 1941' and yet the shows goes back to the teen's and covers films into the 50s. Does Schickel not even know what his show is about or how to use a calendar?

Three months or so ago, when I first heard about the plan to release a movie simultaneously in theatres, on DVD and on TV, and to start with this one I thought it was a bad idea simply because I felt that to have any kind of an impact it would have to be done with a really strong, high profile movie that a lot of people would want to see and this movie would not be it. Now, having seen the film, it was an even worse idea that I thought.

I work for a theatre which opened BUBBLE today and, before the movie, most of the people who said anything said that they had read some good reviews about it. After finishing the movie, most people just rushed out but the ones who made sure to stop and comment on the movie to me were uniform in their opinion. In the eloquent words of one young woman on a date... "That sucked! No, really, I mean it, it sucked. It was awful. Oh, god, IT SUCKED! That was the worst piece of {prohibited word for EXCREMENT removed, although it's a quote} I've ever seen...? I mean, Jesus... it REALLY sucked! You should be warning people about this movie. You should give me my money back." Anyway, given that she, and many others seemed to have been "lured in" by some strangely positive reviews, I fell that it is my duty as a human being to tell people that this woman was being kind about the film.

I can only assume the positive reviews were an indication of the worst case of director-{prohibited word for INTERCOURSE removed} we have seen since Kubrick died and the media fell into a frenzy of journalistic necrophilia over his corpse the like of which the world had never seen. You remember that, don't you? It seemed like every film critic in the country rose up as one and shouted out as loud as they could "Oh, Stanley, I know you are dead, but I just have to show you how much I love you one move time before they dump your body in the grave and cover you over where it would be much more difficult to get to you... and I will provide my own Vaseline." I honestly believe that if all the critics who saw it had no idea about who was Responsible for this piece of {prohibited word for EXCREMENT removed},simply told it was made by a MAJOR, Award-Winning, Big-Budget Director who can get any project he wants made and do whatever he would want to when making a movie, they would have come out of it with a different opinion that what they have said. However, since they knew it was from Soderberg, those who wrote positive reviews were not honest with themselves or their readers/audiences.

For my own review, I will simply say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I have seen STARSHIP INVASIONS, QUIET COOL, TERRORVISION, and SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PIECE... hell, I have even helped put on annual bad film festivals showing films like CAN'T STOP THE MUSIC, SGT. PEPPER'S LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND, ROLLER BOOGIE and many other examples of excrement permanently preserved on celluloid. This movie is right up there... sorry... I mean DOWN there... with the worst of them. If it had at least been the work of a first time film-maker with no money, paying for it with his credit cards, his blood and his children's education fund, or maybe even by selling his children into slavery, I would have some respect for it... I still wouldn't like it but I could at least, then, respect the effort. Please note... this is no EL MARIACHI! This is the product of one of Hollywood's most renowned, respected and powerful directors who could get anything made and what he gave us was this. Fortunately BUBBLE is a short film, but Christ, it doesn't seem like it. I have never before in my life looked at my watch as many times during an 70-some minute movie as I did during this one. Do yourself a favor... if you feel a need to throw away that much of your life that you will NEVER get back as it would take you to watch this movie, simply kill yourself 90 minutes before your natural death... give yourself two less hours, one less day, hell, once less week of life rather than watch this and you will be well rewarded. If killing yourself early to avoid this film is too much to ask, then simply tear your eyes out and puncture your ears and give the money you would have used to purchase tickets to rats so that they can build nests to raise baby rats and infest the world with more vermin... it would all be better than wasting any portion of your life subjecting yourself to this excruciating and inhumane torture. Trust me on this, I beg you. I honestly don't like people enough to tell them they are about to fall in a hole because that means that I can't laugh at them but even I have a heart. I say this for the good of humanity, "Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. THIS IS A REALLY BAD MOVIE!" Oh yeah... the ones I REALLY feel sorry for are the dupes who spend $30.00 to buy the DVD before they see it on screen for only the price of a movie ticket and before they have a chance to hear what other actual movie-goers think about it. That alone becomes, in my mind, one big reason to be against simultaneous format releases... it lets people find out, or at least have a chance to find out, what others think of a movie before they invest big bucks in owning it.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Have a nice day.

In an earlier commentary, a poster named "Johnny Phoenix" includes the following:

"Writer/producer Jim Carabatos does as I mentioned before have some good moments in his story with some of his viewpoints and philosophies, but after a while it starts to seem that he just really enjoyed the superior Full Metal Jacket and Platoon and wanted to remake them in his own style. Examples are shown in scenes such as the characters fighting amongst one another and continuing discussions on the mens reasons for being there. His characterization is also lacking and a few of the men that your supposed to care about you just don't because they just aren't there for long enough or just don't have a lot of dialogue."

I want to start by saying to him the same thing I said to people who wrote in commentaries about "Dark City" that it stole its story from "The Matrix". That thing is... "Hey, Look at the release dates of the movies you are talking about. Just because you did not see a movie in the theatre when it first came out and "discovered" it later on video after you had first seen the movies you compare them to, does NOT mean that the movie YOU saw later copied anything from the other movies."

Dark City was released a year before The Matrix, Hamburger Hill was released the same year as Platoon and the year before Full Metal Jacket. Platoon and Hamburger Hill were being made at the same time and Kubrick kept super secret security on all of the film projects that he did. With all of that said, I am curious how the poster I quoted justifies saying that James Carabatsos' script was copying ANYTHING from Platoon or Full Metal Jacket.

Now that I got that out of the way, let me say that I feel that this movie, though not perfect, is infinitely superior to either Platoon or Full Metal Jacket... and I was running movie theatres when all of them were released and showed all of them and, thus, saw all of them MANY TIMES. Hollywood came out in force to worship at the feet of the great god OSTONE upon the release of the first of his "Gospels of the 60's According to Saint Oliver" and Hamburger Hill was virtually ignored as a result.

Carabatsos, who in 1977 gave us the unfairly underrated story of a vet trying to cope with the world after his return from Viet Nam (Heroes, starring Henry Winkler, Sally Field, and Harrison Ford) returns to Viet Nam soldiers with Hamburger Hill. This is a taut story from a well, written script by someone who did his hard time in the Air Cav in Viet Nam. Are there a few cliche's? Yes, but the many great things about this movie make such minor flaws insignificant. I also think that this movie is the American Graffiti of the 80s in that, if you go look at the cast list, you will find it a virtual Who's Who of soon to be stars of TV and/or movies... Dylan McDermott, Courtney B. Vance, Don Cheadle, Michael Boatman, Steven Weber. This outstanding cast gave us a movie of depth and impact without any of the melodramatic flourishes of Kubrick or the disjointed, rambling (often incoherent) stories of Stone. Watch this movie, then watch it again... then watch it again a year later (I personally watch it at least once a year and it still overwhelms me) and then go back and watch Platoon and Full Metal Jacket. If you can honestly tell me that either of those movies have ANYTHING that elevates them as better movies than Hamburger Hill (with the exception of R. Lee Ermy as the Drill Sergeant in Full Metal... the only good thing about that whole movie) I would like to sit down with you and all three movies and watch them with you and discuss them. Any takers?

This post is being written to correct information given in an earlier posting about this movie. In his comments about this movie, Mr. Talley makes reference to another film, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?". The movie he is thinking about is Richard Dreyfus' 1981 film "Whose Life Is It Anyway?". "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" was a film from they 1960s (1968, I believe) about a marathon dance contest during the Depression which starred Michael Sarazin, Jane Fonda and many other Hollywood notables (like Red Buttons). In truth, "Whose Life..." and "They Shoot Horses..." could not be more different movies and I am not sure how he could have confused the one for the other. In any case, while his other comments regarding this film are quite astute, I would caution any readers who are interested in following on his comments by watching the movie he is referencing to make sure they watch the correct film.

This movie was the best effort to bring this unique hero to the big screen. Granted, although I like her in general, Penelope Ann Miller was not as strong a Margo as I would have liked, otherwise, I thought this was an outstanding achievement. The look and feel are perfect and I loved how they made sure many of The Shadow's regular crew made their appearances... Shrivey, Roy Tam, Burbank.

The main reason I wanted to comment on this movie, however, was because of the question raised by Patrick in London about why Baldwin's nose changed shape when he became The Shadow. Lamont Cranston's hawk-nosed profile was one of the most famous trademarks of The Shadow. Alec Baldwin, however, does not naturally have that kind of look (to be honest, Lee Van Cleef may be the only movie actor in history with the correct look to have been able to portray The Shadow without resorting to make-up or special effects). Personally, I thought it was a brilliant touch to make that profile an illusion which Cranston utilizes when he becomes The Shadow. It makes it more believable that no one would be able to figure out he is The Shadow. A profile as distinct as Cranston's traditional look would make it difficult to believe that no one could put two and two together... kind of like believing that no one could figure out that Clark Kent is Superman just because he wears glasses. To me, it was just one more thing that elevated this movie above the usual superhero genre flick because it showed an appreciation and respect for the source material that Hollywood is not necessarily known for.

I am amazed about several things regarding many of the reviews posted about this film. The BIGGEST thing that amazes (but doesn't surprise me) is the number of people who post comments about "The Matrix" being the "best" science-fiction movie or even the the overall best movie ever made. Many of these people don't know much, if anything, about science fiction other that what has been popular since Star Wars appeared on the scene. How many of them have ever seen "A Trip to the Moon" by Melies, the first "science fiction" film made? How many have seen "The Day the Earth Stood Still" or "When Worlds Collide" from the 50s? How many have seen "A Boy and His Dog"? "Brazil"? "The Quiet Earth"? or any of the THOUSANDS of other science fiction films, good and bad, that have been made in the last 100 years? I haven't even gotten into animated science fiction, which, as has already been pointed out, "The Matrix" stole heavily from. To those people, I ask "How many of you even really understand what science fiction is?"

As for those who tout the "deep philosophy" of "The Matrix" or its being the "most philosophical" science fiction film ever made, I would direct them to "The Quiet Earth" from New Zealand in the 1980s, or Terry Gilliam's "Brazil"... talk about philosophy in science fiction films! What about "The Lathe of Heaven"? "The Fifth Element"? or, again, "Dark City" which asked basically the same questions as "The Matrix" a year before "The Matrix"... and which didn't go for the easy eye-candy effects which are what really (I love the fact that, in "Dark City" where most any other movie would have inserted the adrenalin pumping car chase, Proyas had a slow silent push boat ride). At least in "Dark City" the questions weren't overshadowed by the effects.

Last but not least, how can ANYONE expect to be listened to about their pronouncements of the "end all, be all" qualities of any film that has not passed the test of time?

"The Matrix" was a good movie, it had great special effects and editing and is a lot of fun to watch, but it is NOT the high point of science fiction film-making... it is not even in the top 10, and might not make the top 100... but it was popular and I guess you can't expect much more from people who think that popularity is what makes something great. They are the very "followers" who, if they were IN "The Matrix" would refuse to question the reality they found themselves in. They are the everyday nobodies who crowd the sidewalks as the pass their lives in obscurity from the day the are born to the day they die. Come on people, learn to have an original thought and think for yourselves.

I was in my mid-20s when this movie first came out and immediately fell in love with it. I watched it many times and bought in on video as soon as I could so I could see it whenever I wanted to. One of the things that struck me most about it is specifically the inability to place it in any particular place or time. I developed a theory of my own that it takes place in Purgatory... not Heaven, not Hell but an afterlife somewhere in between and no one is evil or pure... the path they will end up following is still being determined and it is up to each person to decide for themself where they will ultimately end up. Everyone in the film (with the exception of Matthew Laurance who was one of Walter Hill's stock players) is of the same general age... 20s - 30s... there are no children and no middle age or elderly people, and the all would come American cities from the period the 50s to the 80s. There is law, but no evidence of government. There is no evidence of any landscape except for urban. None of the cars or motorcycles have any identification of any type to indicate make or model. The money is not any of identifiable type and they never refer to it as dollars or any other specific currency, just "ten grand" and so on. The cities all have generic names (the Richmond, Ardmore, Cliffside, the Bowery, etc.) The technology is a hodge-podge of of the post-WWII period, from hand moved reostats for stage lights, to large hand mikes and neon, to telex machines, to television and video. The music itself lends itself to this interpretation, bookcased between Jim Steinman's epics "Tonight is What it Means to be Young" and "Nowhere Fast". Listen to the lyrics and determine that for yourselves. The dialogue is hokey... on purpose. Walter Hill also specifically tried to capture the delivery styles of of old westerns which serves to keep the dialogue from being identifiable with any specific period that the people would have lived in.

It is a shame that this movie wasn't successful enough for Hill to be able to make either of his planned sequels (SoF was intended to be the first movie of a trilogy about Tom Cody). I would have liked to see more of this world and what Hill's complete vision of it was. As it is, this movie is our only visit there and we have to deduce the whole from the glimpses we are allowed. Oh well, I can dream about you.

I liked the Matrix a great deal but I much prefer this dark vision from Alex Proyas... the genius behind the film version of The Crow. I think Proyas took more chances and relied more on the intelligence of his audience than on the Matrix's eye-candy. Besides, I am getting tired of seeing Keanu as the great savior of the world. As for why I mention both of these movies together... they are the same story. Watch Dark City and then watch The Matrix and I defy you to come up with a single significant plot difference between the two. Any takers?

I liked the Matrix a great deal but I much prefer this dark vision from Alex Proyas... the genius behind the film version of The Crow. I think Proyas took more chances and relied more on the intelligence of his audience than on the Matrix's eye-candy. As for why I mention both of these movies together... they are the same story. Watch Dark City and then watch The Matrix and I defy you to come up with a single significant plot difference between the two. Any takers?

As many have already commented, this film comes across as a pilot. I have it on good authority that the reason for this is that it WAS a pilot that was never picked up. That is why so much is not really explained or delved into... its job was to establish things to be explored in the series that never was. What many people miss is that White Dwarf, for all of its fascinating sci-fi ideas and set-ups, is actually a re-make of Akira Kurosawa's classic film "Red Beard". Many people I know who love Kurosawa's movies don't even know that one but it is worth seeking out. Unlike many of the other samurai films, it is not about warriors but about doctors at a remote hospital in medieval Japan. The always outstanding Tishiro Mifune plays Red Beard, an iconoclastic doctor who refuses to play political games that would elevate him to the serving at the Royal Court preferring, instead, to remain at his "out in the sticks" hospital caring for the people of his village who need him. Into his world enters a young doctor who wants to do his time so he can then take a prestigious position as one of the Emperor's physicians. The plots of Red Beard and White Dwarf are identical... it is only the settings that are different. Watch them both back to back and you will gain a new appreciation of White Dwarf.

First and foremost... this is NOT a children's movie. True, children can enjoy it and will laugh but, as with the Muppet Show, Rocky & Bullwinkle, the great old Warner Bros. cartoons and even the Animaniacs, kids don't really get the jokes... they are written for the adults. For example, how many kids know that a bear was the emblem of Studebaker? Or recognize Dr. John as Dr. Teeth? I have also been told that this movie is actually Jim Henson's autobiography... he, of course, being Kermit (BTW, when we lost Jim so tragically, they should have let Kermit go to... he just isn't the same without Jim) and his group builds as he pulls new friends into his magical gravity pool (Frank Oz, especially). The other great thing about MM is Paul William's soundtrack. Unfortunately, it is not available on CD and, since I don't own a turntable anymore, can't listen to the record but it is one of William's three masterpiece soundtracks from the 1970s (the others being Phantom of the Paradise and Bugsy Malone), but in college (yes, college) in 1980, I used to drive my roommate nuts because every morning as I would get ready to leave, I would listen to the record. None of the other Muppet Movies has ever managed to capture the charm or the magic of the original. They have had their moments but they are truly kids films, but at least we grown-ups have the Muppet Movie for ourselves... and a thing... whatever Gonzo is.

This is a wonderful modernized retelling of many horror standards... Faust, Phantom of the Opera, Frankenstein, etc. Overall, I do not like DePalma movies, he is one of Hollywood's great "wasted potential" stories BUT, he did give us POTP and for that we should all be thankful. When this movie came out, I was only 14 and was immediately captivated by it. To this day, I know and recognize several members of the cast simply because they were in this movie (George Memmoli, Archie Hahn, Jessica Harper, Gerritt Graham, etc.) but the true star is Paul Williams. Not only does he give a perfect performance as Swan but he wrote the whole soundtrack, too. This was only the second soundtrack album I ever bought and I have recently found it on CD so I can once again enjoy it regularly. Between 1974 and 1979, Williams did full musical soundtracks for POTP, Bugsy Malone (1976) and the Muppet Movie (1979). I love all of them and would listen to the records constantly. Unfortunately, neither of the soundtracks for BM or MM are currently available on CD which is a true loss to me, specifically (I don't even own a turntable anymore so listening to the LPs isn't an option) and to the public, in general. Hopefully that will change soon. As soon as it does, I for one will be adding both of these other soundtracks to my collection. Until then, I at least have POTP.

We'll remember you forever, Eddie.

During most of the 1980s, I was working in or running movie theatres. I showed this movie and previewed it before it even opened. The one thing which struck me upon first viewing it was that it is essentially a teen-age version of Dr. Seuss's "The Cat in the Hat", right down to the house being magically cleaned up and the last piece of furniture sliding into place just as the parents return home to find everything as they left it. I always wondered if Hughes borrowed the plot on purpose or if he wrote Weird Science without realizing it's commonalities with one of the best loved children's story of all times. Anyone have opinions on that?