Leafman Reviews

Café Society (2016)

One of Woody's Worst

[3/10 · 30 July 2016]

Woody Allen cannot make a quality film every single year. He just can't. But even in his lesser efforts, the movie is always about something, whether it be a dramatic (or comedic) focus on damaged characters or maybe another of his many stabs at existentialism. In the case of "Café Society," I was confused about Woody's intent since the film is not funny, nor is it thought-provoking or really even entertaining.

True, we have Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg), another one of Allen's coming-of-age protagonists from New York who brings ‎his youthful naïveté to Hollywood of the 1930s. Bobby commands most of the screen time, but Allen did not infuse Bobby with any endearing or charismatic qualities.

For scene after scene, I found the character to be so bland and pointless that I could not root for him. Instead, we just wait for the next moment of plot to come dropping on the character's head while the new-found glamour of Hollywood surrounds him.

Further, Allen's scattershot script tries to include his oft-used device of a love triangle, and the one in this film is among his most muddled. We know that Bobby is the type who'll easily succumb to the charms/skirts of his Uncle Phil's secretary Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), and when we find out that Vonnie's boyfriend is really Uncle Phil himself (Steve Carell), we know someone's heart is going to broken by somebody in this trio.

But when Allen's script has Phil shifting his love from his wife to Vonnie, then from Vonnie back to his wife, then back to Vonnie again, we ask the question of ... why? It's not made clear to me. Consequently, it's a triangle where no one cares who's paired with who before long. And Carell's portrayal of Phil cannot make him a character we care about, as he is just as yawn-inducing as Bobby.

I also kept asking "why" when I saw the story abruptly changing focus to show us Bobby's brother Ben and his gangster ties in New York. In a curious plot deviation, we see Ben assisting with a murder plot of a mean-and-mad next-door neighbor to help two characters in the film, then later going to the electric chair for it. Again, the inclusion of this character felt so randomized, I kept wondering why we are supposed to care.

If there's a redeeming quality to this whole mess, it's the film's visual appeal. The costuming, the sets and the cinematography are all Oscar-worthy in their authenticity. Allen clearly was trying to make a piece of nostalgia here, and the LOOK of the film is simply breath-taking.

His other attempts to wax nostalgic just don't shine. Yes, we hear a parade of famous names, such as Joan Crawford, Paul Muni, Adolphe Menjou, and Barbara Stanwyck, but there's hardly anything substantive; as if sheer name-dropping by Allen would suffice to create a loving tribute to the 1930s.

Allen, at his worst, still makes films that try to do ... something. In other words, Allen does not seek to get rich off his movies by selling the masses the commercialized movie brainlessness that makes billions in box office sales. He genuinely tries to portray ideas, comedics or characters that are worthy of our attention.

That's why "Café Society" is completely baffling to me. I know Allen was trying to accomplish something. Very frequently, Woody is out to make a thought-provoking film, no doubt about it.

But I don't think the bewilderment that's plaguing my mind are the thoughts he wanted to provoke.

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

On the Right Track, but Still Light Years to Go

[6/10 · 22 July 2016]

Roger Ebert once said that the two items he expects the most from "Star Trek" are ideas and character development. I concur wholeheartedly. "Beyond" delivers enough of the latter item to elevate it well above the level of its two cinematic predecessors.

Why use the word "elevate?" Well, I personally condemned the first two "AbramsVerse" films as un-Trek-like, addle-brained "Star Wars" rip-offs. But after having viewed "Beyond" earlier tonight, I can see that first-time Trek scribes Simon Pegg and Doug Jung have injected much more zing and humanity into the iconic characters we've grown to love over the past 50 years -- more zing and humanity than the first two films put together, I'd say.

Amid "Beyond's" backdrop of phaser shoot-'em-ups, kickboxing-the- alien-bad-guy fights, starship holocausts and even motorcycle stunts (yes, MOTORCYCLE STUNTS in a Star Trek movie), we are treated to the more Earthly pleasures of the Kirk-Spock relationship. And McCoy's acerbic needling of Spock. And Kirk reflecting on how he lost his dad years ago. And Spock's reaction to the (off-screen) death of Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) is quite touching, as played by Zachary Quinto.

All the actors in this Trek fold, in fact, seem to have grown in their roles this time around. The chemistry between them flows freely and is even ticklish at times. The Pegg/Jung script certainly has a better handle on characterization that the Orci team did.

Unfortunately, the film does not succeed on every level (for me). Once again, the overall plot borders on comic book-level dramatics, with an over-wallop of Star Wars-type explosions. And in the middle of all? A flat-footed. boring villain who is bent on getting an artifact in Kirk's possession so he can use it to kill many innocent Federation citizens. Why? Well ... because.

The talented Idris Elba is stuck with the neanderthal-like role of Krall, a ruthless "alien" who craftily lures Kirk & Co. through a nebula into his home space. Once there, the Enterprise grapples with an immense army of "bees", which are thousands of one-man ships that end up pulverizing the Enterprise and capturing its crew, except for a few who end up on the planet below in escape pods (Kirk & Chekov, Spock & McCoy ... and Scotty).

With the Enterprise literally being destroyed in the first 20 minutes, the movie then becomes a series of chases and fight scenes on Krall's planet, but those are still interspersed with some effective character moments involving Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Chekov and Scotty.

So, anytime we see Krall or his storm troopers (my borrowed Dark Side word for his mindless henchmen) on screen, menacing or killing a poor hapless crewman or trying to do wrong, wrong, wrong things to Kirk and his mates, the movie becomes a generic actioner off the assembly line.

By contrast, anytime we see Spock and McCoy trading barbs -- even bonding together when Spock thinks he might be dying -- the movie comes crackling to life. When we see Scotty forming a friendship with Jaylah, a native warrior-type girl on the planet, the film shows us how a Trek character can be a fun and entertaining counter-point to a simple-minded alien.

That is why I found the opening minutes of the movie to be the most satisfying: Kirk is reciting his Captain's Log and during his voice-over, we see glimpses of these characters and the rest of the crew as the Captain describes how each of them is handling life in space. Soon after, we see Kirk and McCoy toasting a drink of whiskey (taken from Chekov's locker) celebrating James T.'s birthday.

For me, it's a shame that Pegg and Jung (and director Justin Lin) didn't try to capitalize on more of the easy charm and heartwarming qualities that these characters can offer us. Instead, this film subjects us to more of the same sort of stuntmen-laden, CGI-drowned action that plagued the first two films ... that is NOT what Star Trek is all about.

Ebert nailed it: Trek -- good Trek -- is ideas and character development. Obviously, these days, box office cash no longer comes from ideas, for sure. But character development? Absolutely. And this movie made more than a few baby steps in that very direction.

Now if the next film can take giant strides in that same direction, we might have a pretty durn good Trek film -- for a change.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

The entire franchise is now in 'Darkness'

[1/10 · 16 May 2013]

Since it has now become (dilithium) crystal clear that J.J. Abrams and his team of writers have COMPLETELY dismantled the entire Trek universe we once knew -- the one that was built so meticulously by Gene Roddenberry (and later, Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer too) -- we must now embrace a Trek product that will likely insult and disgust most purists, plus any ticket buyer who wants something more than a movie enjoyed by ADHD attention spans.

This "Into Darkness" film continues where the 2009 effort left off, and with much the same approach, but the decibel level is harder on the eardrums this time: more explosions, more stunts, more fisty-cuffs, more chases (both in space and Terra Firma), more phaser shots and more temper tantrums from Kirk and Spock both.

I could rhetorically say something like, "WTF? Why is this STAR TREK? WHY!?!?!?" and then launch into a heated Trek-purist diatribe attacking the intellectually-challenged, comic book-level screenplay penned by Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. But instead, let us try to examine the movie as a space-bound rip-off of the "Die Hard" franchise, which obviously are the terms on which the film hopes to succeed.

The film's plot presents a saturnine, black-overcoated menace named John Harrison (played woodenly by Benedict Cumberpatch), who starts blowing up buildings in London, then shooting at a roomful of Starfleet's top brass during a staff meeting. He then escapes to the Klingon homeworld to hide out, and will presumably resume his mysterious rampage against the Federation later.

But not if James T. Kirk can help it. Even if it means starting a war with the Klingons, our risk-taking Captain gets the green light from Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) to warp the Enterprise over to Kronos, armed with some secret missiles and an undercover mission imperative. As Kirk tells his crew over the intercom, "Let's go get the son of a bitch."

Such a standardized, by-the-numbers action yarn has succeeded in efforts produced by the Jerry Bruckheimer stable, for example, or even the second "Aliens" movie. But here, the film feels so overstuffed with chases, phaser beams and mortal combat, it's much like the second Indiana Jones movie from 1984; after a while, we become numb to the "excitement" and viewing this movie is like riding a roller coaster that simply won't stop, even long after the rider has had enough "thrills."

****SPOILERS START HERE ------ Further ruining the film is the decision by Orci and Kurtzman to "unmask" John Harrison as Khan, the genetically-engineered super-baddie from the original Trek that the late, great Ricardo Montalban elevated to legendary Trek status. By forcibly shoving Khan into the "Into Darkness" storyline, the writers seemed almost desperate to include a familiar face as a crowd pleaser, but I found this "unmasking" about as convincing as a cheesy moment in a daytime soap opera, and it is essentially where I gave up on the film (about when the third act began).

From there, the movie worsened (for me) because soon after, we are then supposed to shed tears for our gallant Captain Kirk sacrificing himself in the Enterprise's warp core chamber to save his ship and crew. Orci and Kurtzman try to duplicate the same touching moment from the "The Wrath of Khan" (when Spock dies) by practically duplicating some of the dialogue from that 1982 film. They are reminding us that they know their Star Trek, but I found this moment to be gimmicky and as such, it registered a complete emotional zero.

Spock himself, as written by Orci and Kurtzman, also seems little more than a gimmick in these films now, especially at the film's climax, which uses our ever-logical Vulcan as a John Rambo wannabe, as he mercilessly pounds his fists into Khan's face, all in the name of revenge for the loss of his pal Jim Kirk. Much of the movie portrays Spock in the same simplistic manner, and his point-counterpoint interaction with the all-more human Kirk has none of the old magic that Shatner and Nimoy once provided so effortlessly.

As I said earlier, forget the fact that this movie is a horrifying abomination for Star Trek purists. Instead, just consider the fact that we have a new franchise, one where you check your brain at the door, don't concern yourself with characterization, and just ignore the words, "…to boldly go where no one has gone before." (those words were spoken by Chris Pine at the fadeout, and hearing them after watching THIS film was a moment of bitter irony for me, I might add)

I wish J.J. Abrams would stick to the new "Star Wars" films and leave it at that.

Studio One: Twelve Angry Men (1954) Season 7, Episode 1

I Call it 12 Angry Men 'Lite'

[5/10 · 28 December 2010]

By watching the Studio One version of "12 Angry Men," I knew I would be viewing an historic curio. This is 50 minutes of television unearthed from a "time capsule" (so to speak) and I believe it should be viewed from that perspective.

Comparing it to the 1957 feature film (or even the 1997 remake) would be unfair, since this Studio One installment clearly shows the limitations of time and budget, to say nothing of the primitive constraints of live TV in 1954.

Reginald Rose's essence of the story (teleplay turned screenplay then stage play then teleplay again) featured 12 men slowly -- and sometimes frighteningly -- analyzing a court case where a young man who murdered his father is finally found to be innocent of the crime. The 1957 motion picture showcased this with top-flight actors cramped in the ambiance of a one-set jury room, complete with distinctive character nuances and a heartfelt epiphany by someone at the end.

Studio One brought us Robert Cummings (noble juror #8) and Franchot Tone (hostile juror #3) as the two leads, both of which seemed like one-note TV performers that lacked the psychological complexities Rose wanted in his tableau.

Though the story is more or less identical in the TV version, I found the rapid-fire pace of the dialogue (perhaps unique to a live hour of television back then) negated many of the story's crucial dramatic moments. Tone's and Cummings' scripted lines often seemed rushed to me, and Tone's frequent twitchy arm-waving for emphasis did not help either.

Edward Arnold, as strident racist juror #10, provided a marginally reasonable antagonist (though also somewhat one-note and cardboardish to me), but Paul Hartman's high-octave portrayal of juror #7 quickly became tiresome and provided little contrast to Tone, for example, who offered a similarly shrill presence.

Contrast was also non-existent for the talented Walter Abel, who could only play juror #4 with some vague hint of smarts, not at all like the thoughtful intellectual offered by E.G. Marshall three years later. Again, given the time limit, Rose could not write this juror with the complete, multi-dimensional scripted material.

The rest of the jurors lacked any sort of distinctiveness, except for Joseph Sweeney as old man juror #9 and George Voskovec's foreign-accented juror #11. Since both graduated to their same roles in the 1957 big-screen classic, they perhaps reminded us that this Studio One version was Reginald Rose's "rough draft"; the perfected work would be coming soon.

SPOILER: Imperfection (to put it mildly) is all-too-evident in the teleplay's flimsy and abrupt conclusion, which had Franchot Tone simply throwing up his hands in exasperation as he relinquished his "holdout" status as the lone guilty vote. With virtually no emotional or dramatic payoff at all, the ending is what I would call an EXTREME letdown.

Under the limitations it had to face, Studio One's "12 Angry Men" is still worthwhile as a piece of history. But it dates pretty badly 56 years later, and suffers even worse from the superior incarnations that would follow.

Star Trek (2009)

This 'reboot' can get 'the boot'

[2/10 · 10 May 2009]

Since I've been a Trekker for more than 33 years of my life, I think I do have the right to offer a negative opinion of this film, as it did not work for me on really any level. I've noticed the praise that has been lavished on the movie, both on Rottentomatoes.com and here in the IMDb.com user comments, but that does not change my perspective in the least.

After giving "Star Trek" a repeat viewing today (Friday was my first time), I can perceive that the talented JJ Abrams has now attempted to dumb down the Trek film franchise to a more conventional space action/adventure level. In essence, the special and unique qualities of Kirk, Spock and the other classic characters have been forfeited so they all can serve a script which is in the same fight/chase/shoot-'em-up popcorn category as "The Matrix," "Spider- Man," and yes, "Mission: Impossible" -- all of which were big money-makers because they delivered mindless entertainment.

Trek, for me, has been at its best when it gives MIND candy -- as opposed (or in addition) to EYE candy. Kirk and Spock could face a moral dilemma or they could tackle a space problem while their subsequent adventure gave us viewers intellectual ideas to chew on, and mind fodder that stayed with us long after we exited the theater/TV room.

In this new movie, we are treated to a storyline that features a vicious Romulan from the future named Nero bent on revenge. So, he travels back in time to try and destroy the planet Vulcan (and later, he targets Earth as well) with his evil, powerful "red matter" weapon that he stole from the Vulcans.

Such a kiddie-oriented, cartoonish plot is -- in my opinion -- more suited to an episode of "Lost in Space" than the thoughtful moral fabric of the Trek universe. And I believe the element of time travel in the movie serves to underscore how hackneyed and clichéd the story really is; we've seen time travel in Trek so many times that I'd be ready to call this movie "Back to the Future, Trek Redux 100."

As James T. Kirk, Chris Pine tries his best to portray an engaging, larger-than-life young captain-in-the-making but instead, Kirk comes off as a cocky, loud-mouthed egomaniac in this movie. The iconic William Shatner made Kirk an icon with equal components of dashing heroism and introspective self-doubt.

Pine's Kirk, however, is a simplistic, cardboard caricature that alternates between irritating moments of smugness (grinning while he eats an apple because he'll pass an academy test -- one in which he cheated to win) and shrill moments when he is battling and yelling at his chief nemesis, Spock. As scripted by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, Kirk has none of the charisma or personal conflict that embodies the very soul of our favorite starship captain.

Spock, as embodied by Zachary Quinto, may be even more ineffective. I found Quinto's line reading to be expressionless, flavorless and flat. Granted, Quinto is trying to personify an emotionless Vulcan, but to me, he's little more than a mannequin whose stiffness makes Spock a yawn-inducing presence and a thoroughly unlikable version of the fresh and believable innovation personified for so long by Leonard Nimoy.

To serve this story, Spock is called upon to arbitrarily throw Kirk off the Enterprise in an escape pod (just because Kirk beat up two security guards), make out with his fellow bridge officer Lt. Uhura in the turbolift (seems she had Ponn Farr pills to trigger Vulcan liplock techniques), as well as yell, scream and use violence while responding to Kirk's attempts to make him angry. Such moments further suggest to me that Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams mostly cared about "packaging" Star Trek (AND Spock) into an action yarn that suited their version of a money-making machine that would satisfy non-Trekkers ... NOT the people who have adored Spock for nearly 40 years (as I have).

This conventionalization of the Star Trek universe is also evidenced in the movie's fight scenes, which, to me, are headache-inducing and edited to be nothing more than a fast- moving blur. When Kirk and Sulu parachute down to take out an enemy "drill" on the planet Vulcan, a couple of Romulan thugs come out to welcome them and give us a few sword- fighting/fist-cuffing mighty blows for our heroic Kirk/Sulu action tandem. Unfortunately, the sequence, for me, showed a chaotic mix of jumbled camera angles, all of which negated the sense of personal combat intended for the audience.

Nimoy himself may be symbolic of this entire enterprise (pun intended). At the prunish age of 77 (his age during principal photography), Nimoy returns as Spock once again in a supporting capacity. Only this time, Nimoy's too-old Spock looks (and sounds) more like the personification of walking death with defective Vulcan dentures and practically shows how the filmmakers are trying to tell us what the "old" Star Trek represents in modern times: it's dying, it's outmoded and it's time to reboot it with a NEW approach and NEW ideas.

Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman do just that with high production values, convincing optical effects, flashy alien sets as well as the hunkier versions of our familiar Trek heroes. But the movie cannot win in the areas of character, intelligence and heart, the items which mean so much to me. This movie may break some box office records and may lead to a couple of sequels, but it cannot convince me that Trek — REAL Trek — is dead, gone and soon to be forgotten.

Thanks, guys, for killing Star Trek under the guise of "reviving" Star Trek.

The Odd Couple: Together Again (1993 TV Movie)

Pleasant enough reunion for two iconic TV characters

[6/10 · 20 November 2008]

Most TV reunion movies do little more than reunite the original cast members and revisit the same story ideas that worked the first time around. After all, that's what the audience expects, right? You don't bring back everyone's beloved characters and have them doing UNfamiliar things on screen. Viewers like those characters for what they WERE, and they expect to see them repeat the same moves.

"Odd Couple: Together Again" exemplifies this in how Felix and Oscar are reunited in the same apartment (or at least, they CLAIM it's the same one), rehashing the "neat vs. sloppy" clash, among other events in their lives. Some of the scripted comedic lines are fairly amusing, while others are lukewarm and less sharp.

This TV movie's chief asset is a certain warmth that comes from seeing these familiar characters (and actors, for that matter) reunite. Watching them renew their ties of friendship and seeing them bond possesses more entertainment value than the jokes in the script, which are a decided mixed bag.

Gone are the brilliant wisecracks from the '70s show; since the original stable of Garry Marshall, Jerry Belson, Mark Rothman and Frank Buxton are nowhere to be found, we settle for the tone and pitch of writer-director Robert Klane. I think Klugman and Randall manage to carry the often tame material expertly.

Felix strolls through Oscar's messy bedroom for the first time in many years, and Felix comments on each item of garbage he finds. Again, it's a pleasant enough sequence, but in the hands of the old writers, it could've been much funnier.

Felix is noisily vacuuming in Oscar's living room at four in the morning, and when an angry, half-awake Oscar comes storming in, Felix pretends to open his eyes and says, "Oh ... OH! I must've been sleep-cleaning!" Oscar responds by doing some "sleep-messing" and then threatening "sleep-murder."

I could totally envision the old TV writers coming up with a hilarious tit-for-tat sequence instead, where Oscar could sneak in and unplug (or sabotage) the vacuum to set up a sight gag where the vacuum blows up in Felix's hand, or some similar sight gag that ends up with Felix fuming like it used to be. You get the idea.

The strength of Klane's effort lies in the more serious moments, not the least of which is dealing with Klugman's post cancer-surgery voice. Obviously, Klugman's scratchy, toneless rasp had to become Oscar's voice, and Klane gives Oscar some genuine emotionally touching moments. The idea of Felix helping him through his disheartening loss leads to some nice bonding moments, and again, they are much more effective than the comedic sequences in the film.

I'm guessing that this telefilm flopped. The reason I'm guessing that? Randall stated in an interview from many years ago that he and Klugman had "just made" a reunion movie (or something like that), and another Felix/Oscar movie was coming. It never came, obviously, so I can perceive that "Odd Couple: Together Again" just didn't have a strong creative or viewer-ratings impact.

Also, there is no DVD release. No VHS tape exists either. All five seasons of the original series are now available on disc, but "Odd Couple: Together Again" is not (as of this writing). I believe the film is flawed, but it's not deserving of the obscurity it seems to have achieved. It's OK! A mixed bag, to be sure, but definitely worthwhile.

Mirage (1965)

Absolutely perfect thriller transcends Hitchcock

[10/10 · 19 November 2008]

This film blends every last element of its production into cinematic perfection: Gregory Peck's commanding presence, Peter Stone's witty and intelligent script, Edward Dmytryk's sure direction and feel for narrative, as well as one of Quincy Jones' best early dramatic scores. The result is an engrossing amnesia suspenser that entertains from start to finish.

Peck, as he did in Hitchcock's "Spellbound" 20 years earlier, plays a reactive type of role by portraying David Stillwell, a cost accountant in NYC who soon finds out he has amnesia. Meanwhile, in the Unidyne building where David works, a power blackout has occurred, and a top-brass, world-renowned executive named Charles Calvin appears to have jumped to his death from the 27th floor.

Is Calvin's death somehow tied in with David's amnesia? In scene after scene, Peck draws us into David's plight. At the beginning, David is leaving the Unidyne building after a routine day at the office (except for the blackout). Next, people like his usual bartender and the doorman are inexplicably wondering where he's been, saying "long time no see." Then, David's life of mundaneness is suddenly being threatened by gun-toting menaces.

Peck is masterful at embodying the right amounts of sympathy, confusion and maddening frustration as he goes through the paces of a living nightmare where he has no control of reality, and can trust no one.

Stone interweaves even more intrigue into the script as time goes on, planting significant clues that may come into play later ... or may be false leads. Who's the "Major?" Why has David never heard of him? Is this beautiful brunette named Sheila (played by Diane Baker) who keeps following David through this nightmare a friend or yet another foe? And why does Charles Calvin's death seem to be the focal point of all this? David didn't even know him.

The appearance of very familiar character actors such as Kevin McCarthy, George Kennedy and Jack Weston make "Mirage" all the more fun, but Walter Matthau may have the film's most important and colorful supporting role as the wisecracking, likable private detective Ted Casselle.

I believe this was Matthau's last "minor" role before he won stardom (and an Oscar) with Billy Wilder's "The Fortune Cookie" in 1966. As Casselle, Matthau is a virtual joy to watch, making Stone's scripted barbs crackle with life off the page, and providing an effective guiding presence for Peck's confused and tortured character; the scenes with Matthau and Peck furnish some of the film's best moments.

************************SPOILERS BELOW**************************

The film's final 10 minutes prove to be an effective denouement, as Stone and Dmytryk unleash flashback after flashback to settle any unanswered questions with the viewer. However, the speed at which David finds out what has happened and who did what is quite dizzying, and requires a very sharp eye for detail at that point.

I found the sudden flood of exposition to be somewhat confusing, but still challenging. After all, we were watching and paying attention during the film's first 90 minutes, so we should be able to piece together all the bits of the past with the present, right? ... it is highly doubtful that a film requiring this much of an attention span would be made today.

One last thing: the on-location black-and-white cinematography in NYC is on-key with the dramatics (and the chases) in the film, and it enhances the mood of the plot perfectly. So, in essence, "Mirage" succeeds on every level to provide us with one of the most effective thrillers of the 1960s (or ANY era) and one of the most overlooked films of all time. Don't miss it!

Cool and the Crazy (1994 TV Movie)

"90210" meets "Rebel Without a Cause"

[24 August 2001]

I never saw "Beverly Hills 90210," but I did see "Rebel Without a Cause". It's possible that this film could be a hybrid of both with its "who's going to sack up with whom" dramatics, as well as the occasional flashes of gang violence and car chases. This story, however, is set in the '50s.

Alicia Silverstone and Jared Leto were high-school-sweethearts-turned-young marrieds-with-an-unplanned-child couple who struggle to find themselves amid a marriage gone sour. Alicia is cheating on Jared with bad-boy Joey (Matthew Flint, in a loud, obnoxious performance), so Jared decides to get even.

The film's jazz soundtrack adds some ambience to the film, and the seedy look of L.A. during the fifties is OK, but on the whole, "The Cool and the Crazy" is mainly for fans of the stars. Ralph Bakshi might want to stick to his cartoons from now on...

Scavenger Hunt (1979)

One of the UNfunniest movies ever

[6 June 2001]

To say this film is a disaster is like saying that the sinking of the Titanic was a little boating mishap. UGH! One gag after another in the movie lays an egg, the actors don't even look they're TRYING to save the awful material, and the novelty of the all-star cast wears off within the film's first 15 minutes. I became interested in this movie thinking the cast alone would make it worthwhile ... BEWARE! This movie is horrible! Believe Leonard Maltin, as he is not too far wrong - if anything, one "BOMB" is not enough.