nitratestock35 Reviews

The Cleveland Show (2009–2013)

watered down Family Guy

[10 October 2009]

"Spoiler Warning!" After watching the first two episodes, I really don't know what to make of this show. It is the most watered down version of any kind of sitcom (animated cartoon or live action)I have ever seen.

The central character, Cleveland Brown, is as uninteresting as it gets, he is just kind of overweight (not obese), mild mannered and not too bright, but far from being the totally clueless idiots such as Homer Simpson and the protagonists of Family Guy and American Dad!. The fact that he is voiced by a white guy without the balls (apparently) to go for a real great parody of African-American speech "Yo whass going' dawn y'all!" doesn't help - hey c'mon your fellow black voice actors can take it - this is 2009 for gawdssake! And all the characters (that skinny redneck neighbor is soooo lame, I want to barf!) and gags are "been there - much better". There ars even complete inconsistencies: I mean Cleveland's stepdaughter is obviously designed to be smokin' hot, c'mon she wears a tube top and she is very well aware of her hotness (the straightened hair and the great looking white streak are a dead giveaway) yet no comment has been made nor any raunchy humor has been built around that....

The baby brother is a poorly designed version of Stewie from "Family Guy". Cleveland Jr. is just disgusting. No way we can feel for him.

There are just two reasons I can think of why this looks as if it has been made bad on purpouse: 1) Seth McFarlane has a clause in his contract with Fox to make a spin off and he made it as weak as possible, so it hets axed ASAP.

2) Seth went to very subtle humor telling us: all "black" sitcoms these days have to be so politically correct that no form of raunchy humor is possible - that's my way of showing it. O.K. but that still means it will be cancelled soon - that's no way to treat any character. Not Cleveland Brown anyway.

I hope there is a third reason, because I WANT to like this show. I like the characters - I just don't like the screen writing. I like Cleveland's wife/highschool sweetheart who made the big mistake to go for the more confident/hunky guy. She still is kind of hot in her 40s! I want her daughter to be a babe who breaks some serious heart (c'mon she's way hotter than most of the "popular" ditzy gals from "Family Guy". And I want her baby bro to have some dark secrets, and I WANT Cleveland to have a dark secret himself, so all his mild mannered behavior are just the surface - and all we have seen yet is deceiving - the real juicy stuff is yet to come.

Mr. Seth: if you think a black (x'cuse me: African-American)sitcom is too sensitive an issue for a guy from New England - hay, bring in more people of the "real deal" to help you out (so the show gains some credit) and make fun of that - big time, as you always do!

House M.D.: No Reason (2006) Season 2, Episode 24

Great closer for Season 2

[10/10 · 14 July 2008]

Spoiler Alert!!! Not all surprises revealed in detail, but still: please do not read any further if you haven't already seen this episode. ....................

Already from the pre-title opening on I knew that this one was going to be different. Not the usual case of someone suddenly suffering severe pain, seizing, etc. Instead we are in the middle of House and his team discussing a (gross and a little absurd looking - a small hint) case - then something happened which already gave me the clue that this is going to be about "is this real? Is it a dream?": the scene where House is attacked by an intruder. It all plays out in a surrealistic and unusual-for-a-House-episode style.

I think this episode pays in a large part homage to movies like "Jacob's Ladder" and "Fight Club": everything we see during the main story is in one single person's mind. The final revelation (hardly a twist since it is signaled long before) might also be just the writers fooling us again: The case they where discussing (man with swollen tongue) at the very beginning of the episode was perhaps only in House's imagination (at any event the whole treatment-gone-haywire during the dream/hallucination was not real)- and he asks for some medicine being given during surgery because he knows/remembers from his "dream" that it will perhaps heal his leg pain (or maybe not). House without painkillers and cane in Season 3? No way.

Some great philosophy and some great clues about what makes Dr. House really tick (as if we didn't know already). He is like Sherlock Holmes: he tries to be ice cold, arrogant and distant - hiding a heart of gold to protect himself and all others - to be as unbiased as possible, even though House is a modern version with biting sarcasm and great humor thrown in.

I am sure there are lots of in-jokes and movie references thrown in by the writers in this episode. I will look for those on future viewings. Brilliant!

Das Millionenspiel (1970 TV Movie)

Great film, just one observation (attention: may contain light spoilers)

[8/10 · 22 June 2008]

This is definitely a great made-for-TV film and much has been made how realistic it was. So realistic that it fooled some people into believing it was a real show as opposed to a movie. I think it is an excellent movie, there is just one problem: the style is very movie-like (the camera for most of the time is "invisible" for the actors). It is explained that many camera teams are filming/recording/transmitting all the time to cover the events. But there are many scenes like when the "victim" is in a house under fire, the camera operator would be in danger of being shot and the camera angles are "cinema" -like, not anything like documentary footage. the same when the "victim" decides to fool the taxi central station by changing his mind where he wants to go. Where is the car with the camera team and why does the "victim" behave as if he wasn't filmed even though we see close-ups of him all the time and a freeze-frame of this exact footage in the main studio of the program as if it was transmitted video footage? A lot of contradictions here. Might have been fine back in 1970 where people didn't ask that many questions..... Just my humble input. Still a German TV classic and I am glad it has been aired a few times again recently after decades.

Robbi, Tobbi und das Fliewatüüt (1972)

Pioneering work

[10/10 · 4 June 2008]

Just wanted to say that the German DVD set (digitally restored)is wonderful. I just bought it. It still captures the early 1970s look of pioneering film/TV technology - but just a little cleaner so it still looks good in 2008 and in the future. The path of the story - obviously - is not as fast as it would be nowadays, but it still is great to watch. The main theme: we can have robots as our best friends, but what do they "feel" for us - is never really answered. And (excellent) adult stuff such as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner - more than a decade later - don't offer better answers. Robby the robot will be forever one of my best childhood friends. The story: oops, can't tell it. Just: there is suspense and enough story to keep it all very interesting. Thank you Armin Maiwald and your team and helping hands for creating such a classic. I hope this will be well dubbed and shown in other countries.

Einmal im Leben - Geschichte eines Eigenheims (1972– )

A slice of early 1970s Germany

[8/10 · 21 November 2007]

This three part TV movie is not only very entertaining - still today in 2007, it also provides a good insight into the human nature - on a light and amusing level. We also get a good idea about the complete financing plan and how everything turns out more expensive in the end. We get correct figures, many written out for us in numbers.

This movie was done with painstaking research on the subject.

Mild mannered Herr Semmeling, the father and husband is our identification figure. He is also the Narrator. Occasionally characters break "the fourth wall" and talk directly to the audience, providing insight into their lives and points of view, some reveal a greedy side (such as the architect), some reveal the reality for people working in this cutthroat business (such as the electrician). Herr Semmeling is a wonderful, typical German figure (everybody knows someone exactly like him) as portrayed by Franz Lichtenhahn (who is born in Switzerland but not a trace of an accent in his German): he is a bespectacled, pedantic nerd and somehow a whiner, yet he is intelligent, well meaning and just tries to make it through this ordeal of building a home near the end of the German economical post-war boom.

The ensemble cast consists mainly of top-shelf actors. The different accents (German dialects) - especially from the blue collar workers - are excellently done. The actors tone it down and talk clearer than real-life people would, so it can be understood by anyone in Germany. In some German films - like in any country I suppose - this is poorly handled and results in plain wrong or fake accents. Not here. BTW: I love to hear Uwe Dallmeier (from Hamburg) pulling off a decent Frankfurt accent, complete with that typical "no B.S., keep it real, down to earth" tone. Like when he looks at that ridiculously cheesy and totally useless 50 piece sofa set and asks Frau Semmeling: (Translated:)"What kind o' junk is that?". Finally someone says what everybody is thinking! Many more situations like this.

There are a few gags (the outhouse running gag, the neighbor with the bicycle, things breaking and ill-fitting, and even some light slapstick comedy), but it is never overdone, so the movie remains essentially a drama - and a wonderful document of high class German TV-film-making and a perfect piece of early 1070s nostalgia. I gave it an 8 out of 10.

Tom Sawyers und Huckleberry Finns Abenteuer (1968)

A classic, but dated

[7/10 · 27 March 2007]

I saw this four part mini series a few times during the early 1970s in my native Germany. The first time still on a black-and-white TV set.

I remember being all excited about it and knowing that it was not a US production (even though it took place in the US), but still I loved every minute of it since it was about distant places, memories and adventures - so far away from the day-to-day life in Central Europe back then.

Watching it now it seems rather dated. The low budget shows, filming took place in Romania at the river Donau, sets are rather small (Aunt Polly's house has - poorly - painted backgrounds) and even though done with love care and craftsmaship, the only existing river steam boat (standing in for a few) is a boat dressed up to look vintage American a "side wheeler" as known to experts. Exhaust steam coming from underneath the paddle boxes where no paddle wheels are seen (because there are no): wrong! - it would come out of steam pipes that run along with the twin funnels.

Also: the German language version sounds really dated by now. There is an old fashioned "1930s Berlin low life backyard language" used by Tom Sawyer's voice and the Narrator somehow sounds too "preachy" and "patronizing" (wherweas Huck Finn sounds too educated)- perhaps that already was evident back when the movie first was aired - even though a quite a lot of dialog has been lifted~literally out of the German issues of the Mark Twain stories.

Still a classic - to be treasured - that brings back fond memories to people who were children back then, but it definitely is dated by now.

ABBA in Concert (1980 TV Special)

Essential.

[8 November 2006]

Really great concert footage. I remember seeing this (or parts of it) on TV many years ago - in the early 1980s. It starts off as an ABBA on tour feature, covering the US leg of the tour, but the London part contains a lot of complete songs.

I know that back in 1979/1980 it was hard to film live concerts. The choice was either low res video (with the typical smears and other artifacts) or film (35mm or 16mm), the latter looking so much better but being much more expensive and cumbersome. This looks like being filmed in 16mm and the DVD being made of an excellent negative. I can be wrong though. Not much detail in the shadow areas - it won't print on film stock used available back than anyway, but color, sharpness and texture are excellent. Even as we speak digital video still isn't quite able to produce that beautiful, polished and silky image as a good film production can.

The music is - of course - terrific. Great arrangements, great performance and incredible sound, wonderfully mixed - as close to perfect as it gets. A must have for any ABBA fan. Nice bonus material with reconstructed full length tracks on the DVD too.

Citizen Verdict (2003)

moral play with many loose plot ends

[6 October 2005]

Alert: ***might contain mild spoilers***

The basic idea has been used in countless books and films. The media (especially TV), lead by greedy and corrupt people (focus is on one character story wise) turn a very serious real life issue into a circus. This is of course all about ethics.

I liked the look and feel of the movie, a mixture between (fake)live TV broadcast, documentary style interviews and dramatic film footage. I loved the(purposely)cheesy CGI used for the opening of the TV show 'Citizen Verdict'. I actually liked to see Jerry Springer in this - he is winking an eye at himself, which one can either see as distracting or as a bonus. I go for the latter. Of course Springer can't act. He is not an actor, he is a TV show host - which is totally different. The difference between Jerry Springer and the 'real' actors very well counterbalanced by the 'interview' footage. One character seems to be a real-life judge or lawyer, also with no 'acting' abilities - and is very believable and I agree with what he says, as much as I agree with some of the others.

In any case the movie is very far fetched in its basic premise. I no next to nothing about the US justice system (having seen hundreds of courtroom dramas definitely isn't enough) but I can't believe that the scenario is even remotely feasible: people can vote guilty or innocent without any prove that they have even seen one second of the TV show (=trial). Nah...

I also think that the characters of the prosecutor and the defense attorney are very unclear. There are definitely many loose story threads.

The film ends with all characters agreeing that the US justice system as it is is still the best possible. In many a movie I would have thought: come on! A satire and now you are pulling out??? But I agree with the ending: a film cannot be clear enough about its message when it comes to the legal system and death penalty. Yet, I really didn't get the 'point' of the movie. Is the hole system corrupt? Is it just the Jerry Springer character? Whom does he stand for? Armand Assante (the defense attorney) is a hot shot, so he should have known from the start that the whole thing is manipulated, or let's say 'controlled' by someone. The ethical issues, the politics are all oversimplified and the plot threads to fussy. What about the mail prostitute who testified in trial that the victim actually was into S'n'M? Oh yes, he was bought. But a flavor of yet another fuzzy and loose plot thread remains...

two out of four stars: plus: the 'Harry Dean Stanton rule' also applies to Roy Scheider: they never appear in a bad movie.

Almost forgot: the soundtrack is excellent! The songs as well as the orchestral underscore.

Downfall (2004)

Best "Final days" movie yet

[10/10 · 1 May 2005]

Recently I am getting more into Adolf Hitler by reading books written by such accomplished authors as the late Sebastian Haffner. I am German spending my first 24 years in Germany and both my parents went through through WWII so I have some idea - and a strong personal interest - of what it was like. "Downfall" (Der Untergang) comes closest to the idea I have not only about the final days in Berlin but of WWII in general. The dialog is straight out of the period with only some minor compromises. German accents were (and still are) so different from each other that they have to be "softened" into "Hochdeutsch" to some extent in order to make everything understandable for audiences. I believe this is the case in any country.

Of course Bruno Ganz delivers the very best Hitler portrait I have ever seen. He just nails the man. There is a human drama within his sick "nature selects the strongest" philosophy which tries to suck you into him. That is the most diabolical part of Hitler the man.

I was totally absorbed by the impeccable photography by Rainer Klausmann which is pin sharp and has the colors exactly look like period color photography with emphasis on cyan (blue green) and yellow. I was surprised to see nothing that looked CGI. The beautiful musical score by Stephan Zacharias, mostly a small string orchestra playing melancholic tunes, suddenly joined by an oboe bringing some "hope" after the capitulation is official, is spot-on.

Overall acting is absolutely impeccable finding the right balance between period feel and some added weight with perhaps only Joseph Goebbels being the weakest portrait - but the man was so unique that I am unable to blame Ulrich Matthes' otherwise impeccable portaial with the accurate slight Cologne area accent.

This movie is very similar in tone to Wolfgang Petersen's "Das Boot" By showing the war as accurate as possible the movie automatically turns into an anti war film. The movie clearly avoids any comment about the war. It just brings you into the heart of Berlin during the last days of WWII.

This movie was long overdue. Sir Alec Guinness' and others tried it earlier but Adolf Hitler cannot be translated into any language. Who better to make a WWII movie viewed from the German side than the Germans? And again: Bruno Ganz' performance is 100% Oscar material - but of course Adolf Hitler is too hot an issue to be considered. Maybe the Academy is right - this madman must never be anything even close to an idol. In any case: this movie is much better than the foreign film Oscar winner "The Sea Inside".

Der Untergang, The Downfall: Highest rating!

Robots (2005)

Literally Blue Sky

[25 March 2005]

This wonderful movie tells the age-old story of a young man (one day - very soon - this will be possible for girls as well, I trust) leaving his family in the small town and going to the big city (of course New York or its parallel-universe equivalent) to pursue his dreams. In his attempts he is also provided with the chance to free the oppressed "working" class which provides a bunch of colorful and lovable characters. The initially weak ones have a chance to show courage and characters apparently powerful reveal their weaknesses. This has been the theme of countless popular theater pieces and movies in the past and this formula will certainly never age.

The name of the animation studio: "Blue Sky" certainly also reflects the way the look at the world and I am delighted to see that they complete the studios competing in the GC animated field to the number of three after Pixar and Dreamworks. Robots certainly is comparable to the best Pixar and Dramworks have produced so far. The incredibly stunning visuals are a happier "daylight" and much less gloomy version of what Tim Burton films, "Dark City" and "Lemony Snicket's a series of..." are envisioning. These are parallel dimensions made of our dreams and memories. The forms and designs in Robots range from Victorian mid 19th century clockwork mechanics over 30s art deco, 50s sci-fi (the era our hero Rodney Copperbotom seems to come from) until the highly modern "new edge" design which seems to provide the design concept for the villains.

John Powell's original orchestral score is wonderful, impeccably performed and recorded, and sets the mood right from the start. The choice of songs "sprinkled" throughout the movie is very good.

The "working class" heroes provide a colorful (in fact each one - in a small group - has his or her own unique color) background and great opportunities for a comedy style that reminds us of the "Marx Brothers". Robin Williams' incredible voice talent almost outshines all others. Mel Brooks seasoned and powerful baritone comes a close second. Paul Giamatti is wonderfully annoying as Tim the mischievous gate guard. By the very nature of their roles Ewan Mc Gregor (Rodney) and Halle Berry (Cappy - the corporate secretary coming over to the good side falling an love for Rodney) can't show the full range of their voice talents - hence I see no point for criticism here.

The makers obviously had a lot of fun creating a world that totally defies logic - including all the robot characters that perform tasks and movements defying all laws of physics except the ones firmly established in "cartoonland". There are Rube Goldberg style inventions - providing the mechanics for roller coaster style rides - made of copper tubing, spring loaded see-saws etc. complete with the reference of the egg-laying chicken provided by Fender (Williams). Flintstone/Jetsons style analogies of every day life tasks are everywhere. This movie is a dream for design artists. There is a lightheartedness and good spirited nature to it without sacrificing some "edge" coming from the typical pop references, the very funny zany slapstick humor and the all too true social comments - all delivered with zest.

This is certainly a movie aimed at smaller children and their parents. No obvious attempt has been made to capture the (coveted) teenage audiences which may find the "family values" and overall "positive simplicity" to uncool. I can only applaud Blue Sky studios to make a movie about good old fashioned values that will never out date, going to great lengths updating them for today's demanding audiences.

The Ring Two (2005)

Uneven and not enough material for a sequel.

[3/10 · 21 March 2005]

**Warning: may contain mild spoilers**

The Ring Two may not be a completely missed opportunity but I feel it could have been so much better. I am sure the fact that this movie tops at the box office is almost entirely due to the reputation of the first movie which is much better.

I left the theater with no aftertaste from a creepy feeling - which I was in fact looking forward to. What lingered on instead was the memory of the endless shots of Naomi Watts' and David Dorfman's faces. Naomi Watts hits the right note looking a mixture between scared, upset and angry. David Dorfman isn't bad at all for a child actor but the "posession" clearly was too much for him to handle and I never saw Samara looking through his face except for the makeup and he (she) calling her "Mommy" instead of "Rachel". The trouble might be Hideo Hakata's direction - he couldn't come up with different vocal mannerisms for Aidan (Dorfman) to channel Samara.

There is no storyline at all here except for the one where Samara wants to become alive through possessing the body of Aidan and how his mother tries to fight back. There is no background story to speak of and Rachel's research on Samara's life is totally nonsensical.

Samara's powers are also completely nonsensical to say nothing of her institutionalized mother Evelyn played by Sissy Spacek who talks the typical crazy gibberish containing deep meaning and messages. I really didn't care to analyze any of it. It was clear that it all has been hammered out too fast.

There at least two huge plot holes which I was unable to swallow (this probably is discussed elsewhere):

1) Aidan (possesed by Samara) flees unseen from the hospital after killing the psychiatrist through telepathy and no one comes after him even though the authorities are alarmed and very specific about Rachel not seeing him since they (mistakenly) suspect child abuse.

2) Rachel is willing to "kill" his son by drowning him in a bathtub so that Samara goes out of his body. Doesn't sound like much of a plan to me. The Samara part: O.K. but the loving mother does not think one second how to prevent her son from dying and she does not even make any attempt at reanimation or get the water out of his lungs. Or does she know much more about the supernatural than she admits? I don't think so.

The only sequence I really liked was at the Farmer's Market including the very effective bathroom mirror scene.

I sadly missed all the creepy symbolism of the fist "Ring" that seems to know more about our collective subconsciousness than we do.

Rachel's line: "I'm not your *beep* mother!" sounds like something written for Sigourney Weaver in the "Alien" series.

This is too few material for a second feature film. I feel compelled to saying that I would accept this only as "new additional footage" in a special DVD edition of "The Ring (1)".

Sideways (2004)

Finally Paul Giamatti in a leading role/message is subtle but spot-on.

[21 March 2005]

When I finally saw Sideways, I didn't walk into the theater to see what all the fuss is about but instead I was expecting to finally see a movie featuring Paul Giamatti, playing Paul Giamatti, in a leading role. That's exactly what I've got and some more.

This is the story of two middle-aged high school buddies on a one week trip through California's wine country to "let loose" (=wine and women) just before one of them gets married. This is not your average "find yourself" road movie, the real story and message lies beneath and that requires some effort from the viewer.

The movie has a slightly dreamy and raw feel to it - the photography is slightly grainy and of soft contrast , sometimes paying homage to '70s cinema especially in the (few) scenes using split screen and through the wonderful soundtrack (so besides wine and women there's song here as well but again in a subtle and tasteful way) featuring an excellent piano/drums/bass trio with vibes, flute and strings. The soundtrack doesn't try to be "post modern" or "trendy retro" (nothing wrong with that either of course), this is simply great music and hits the right tone for the tragic comedy which it is.

This movie isn't for everyone as I mentioned above. I had to work my way into this film until I was able to extract a message. This is actually a good sign since I don't like films that shove the message down my throat. The movie contains lots of comments on our society, hypocrisy and midlife depression.

It might be a bit painful for some people (not excluding myself) to admit that they identify a lot with Paul Giamatti's Miles: not exactly Hollywood romantic lead looks, he can't stand himself, he is filled with self pity, negativism and cynicism, and when he finally shows some courage it is a rather subtle change - just like in real life.

The four leading roles (in fact every role down to the smallest bit) are perfectly cast and wonderfully acted. Thomas Hayden Church (more of him, please!) is delightful as the womanizer cheating on his soon-to-be wife at the same time trying everything to get his buddy laid. Jack (Hayden Church) is every bit as neurotic/psychotic, whining and self-absorbed as Miles, but he doesn't admit that to himself on a conscious level. There is a wonderful ambiguity to both male lead characters. The women, even though far from one-dimensional, play little more than support for the male leads with the focus firmly on Miles. The movie might have benefited from some more background story on the women - maybe revealed in a conversation between both woman alone, but that's just me rambling.

The end - which I will not give away here - is very satisfying and does not show how Miles (Giamatti) gets his whole messed up life back together, but a pretty good guess is that he is on the best way.

I am happy knowing that Paul Giamatti is on his way up. I was waiting for a movie like that for quite a while. He is way too good an actor (he almost stole and ran away with the 2000 movie "duets") to be limited to playing sidekicks such as in "Paycheck".

Writer/Director Alexander Payne didn't fall into the trap of getting too artsy, too much "Indie" or too "low brow" with this movie. Like the wines which are described in this movie, it takes some time to be appreciated for it is subtle and there is more to it than what meet the eye at a first glance.

The Aviator (2004)

great movie with an "updated" period feel

[4 February 2005]

Martin Scorsese is undoubtedly one of the great living masters of motion pictures.

The Aviator succeeds as a motion picture, not so much as a drama. I think this has to do with the changing of times. Persons looked, spoke and behaved totally different some 70 years ago. The actors all generally look too sweet, too gorgeous for the roles of real-life actors they portray (that is: when compared 1:1 with the originals).

When we look at the original actors on old movies or newsreels, they were much edgier, much louder and in a way even cruder. People in general clearly have become sweeter looking and more soft spoken. Even the most brilliant casting would not be able to produce a closer resemblance - and I cannot think of a better cast.

Of course Cate Blanchett stands out for her Kate Hapburn portrayal not only concerning the voice and behavior but also the hard part: beneath that skinny, bright, talented, tomboyish upper class chatterbox there was a gorgeous and lovable woman who does care. Remarkable (both the original Kate and Cate (destiny?) Blanchett !

On a technical level the movie fully succeeds. The computer generated effects fit seamlessly into the live action. The carefully controlled colors and film grain are an eyeful to behold. There is a lot of testosterone in this movie as well. Pure male pioneer spirit. The aircraft all look breathtaking - of course men can better understand why one would drool over the deafening sound of an old radial engine and why someone's heart would pound faster just by looking at all these classic precision crafted Mitchell movie cameras (I am still drooling). This definitely is a movie about (and for) boys and their toys.

I found it more than adequate that no attempt was made to "explain" Howard Hughes obsessive compulsive behavior. We are just presented with the drama of that mental disorder. Any "explanation" (I am still not over the ending of Hitchckock's Psycho) would have taken away from the mystery of the man.

The same goes for Huges' totally insane business decisions with his loyal personal employees doing the best to hold everything together. We don't know if Huges' was acting on instinct, impulse, knowledge, relying on luck, had a vision or something else. That's the whole point: no one knew. It is a surprise how articulate he appears opposite Alan Alda (brilliant as usual) during the public hearings.

Leo di Caprio gives a great portrait. Of course he looks more boyish and more handsome than the real Hughes, but we are living in the 2000s and our minds interpret persons in a different way now. In a way this movie updates the characters for the actual times we live in.

The women in this movie all look drop-dead gorgeous, not like their real life counterparts but most likely very much as they appeared to someone some 70 years ago.

One small observation: great English stage actor Ian Holm, still best remembered as Ash the robot from Ridlety Scott's Alien, is once again totally underused in a role as a sincere scientist. Please give that man some better roles in the near future. Nevertheless a nice touch.

Great movie - the three hours flew by. Literally.

Ladder 49 (2004)

movie and theme are inseparable

[2 February 2005]

Ladder 49 is very hard to judge because its theme - American fire fighters post 9/11 - goes under the skin of anyone but the most insensible viewer.

The movie instantly reminded me of the earlier Mel Gibson vehicle "We were soldiers" which is very similar in tone and has many parallels including the worrying wife hoping a certain car will never stop in front of the house.

In a way the two films are versions of the war movies directly post WWII but more thoughtful and melancholic in tone.

Even though a bit hard (and perhaps unfair) to compare, I prefer "Ladder 49" to "We were Soldiers". Maybe one reason is that by the very nature of a fire fighter movie, no politics are directly involved.

This is a movie stripped from subplots and deeper character studies. It is very high on melodrama but it works very well on that level. Its heroes are not testosterone-driven but rather silent and maybe even mellow in tone. Even the usually tough-as-nails Robert Patrick is at his most likable here.

Joaquin Phoenix is brilliantly cast as the lead. I was reminded of James Caviezel's portrait of the soldier in "The Thin Red Line" who appears to be mild mannered but volunteers to be among the first to face the enemy. "Ladder" certainly will catapult Phoenix to a firm place as an A-list actor. I try very hard to see his performance unclouded by emotion. As far as I can manage it still stands as flawless. I expect standing ovations if Phoenix shows up at this years Oscar ceremony.

John Travolta does a very decent job at playing it straight, sincere and honest.

The action scenes are great and look very real. Unlike the Ron Howard's "Backdraft", "Ladder" is not fascinated by flames. These are always seen as a deadly menace, no place for pyromaniacs here.

Yes this movie plays it safe and straight and the melodrama is cranked up to heart-breaking levels - but it does a fine job of saying a well deserved thanks to fire fighters. By keeping deeper personal matters of the characters and little side plots out of the way the movie is free to just portray the spirit of the main characters. It is not about a career, about a dream, about underdogs making it and finally get their reward. This is not even about how blue collar people are more pure, do the "real" work and whatnot. This is about a spirit, which IMHO is one large step ahead. This message cannot be understood - it must be felt. I don't see any real hypocrisy in this movie: the message isn't sold through any kind of corporate image. Absolutely no "let's all carry on no matter what!" CD by a rock/pop group or artist for sale here.

The classic "The Towering Inferno", IMHO still the best of the 1970s disaster flicks, comes along as total schlock by comparison. Of course the latter was made 30 years ago in a totally different kind of world.

It is hard to foresee how well Ladder 49 will stand the test of time. I think it will do just fine. Joaquin Phoenix alone is worth the price of admission.

Paparazzi (2004)

straight forward revenge movie Paparazzis as bad guys

[20 January 2005]

Well my summary says it.

Please forgive me by mentioning the characters by the names of their respective actors.

The Paparazzis where just a group of four thugs giving Cole Hauser (I foresee a nice career here BTW, Hauser has a quiet menace and energy, but he lacks some range), new to Hollywood action movie star success, a hard time.

The payoff is totally overblown. I stopped rooting for Cole Hauser when he started to set up the deaths of the Paparazzis. O.K. the car crash scene (a comment on Princess Diana's untimely death) and some of their methods and background explained by the investigating LAPD detective shows them as real scumbags, but the very straight revenge plot without even a hint of a plot twist makes Hauser's actions unjustified. I also didn't like the last reaction of the detective (I know you killed the thugs but I won't tell anyone because I support you). I would have loved a plot where the guys get killed accidentally in a way not intended by Hauser or where the detective steps in and pays for it with his life - just to keep ethics in place.

I need people to do much worse things than threatening to "visit your son in the hospital" (which was even later revealed as a panic reaction) to justify beating them to death with a baseball bat and carefully set up a plot to frame the worst of the baddies for the death.

A real hack job by the screenwriters to make a movie with a small setup and a huge payoff. Worth only to see Cole Hauser, Tom Sizemore (can't be wrong casting him) and Dennis Farina.

Vila Faia (1982)

well, it was the first one

[12 December 2004]

Vila Faia is currently being repeated on the new Portuguese cable channel "RTP Memória" (RTP memory, of course). That's why I decided to comment.

I am not exactly the most adequate person to comment on this series since I am not Portuguese-born. When the series was aired first, I didn't understand at all what they were saying. Now, after living here over 20 years I of course understand it probably better than anything coming from my native Germany.

I am surprised that no one has commented yet on this Portuguese TV series. It marks the first Portuguese attempt to produce an epic and melodramatic TV series molded exactly after the Brazilian "telenovela". It can't be accurately translated into English (soap opera being the closest) because the whole idea behind this format - a melodramatic epic usually showing parallel stories of rich and a poor characters spanning over a hundred episodes running well over a year - is Latin/Latin American. Yes the British have done that long ago but the whole feel is totally different because it's a totally different culture with totally different values and behavior.

To my best of knowledge the "telenovelas" actually originated in Mexico - at least this is the country currently producing the highest number of these.

Vila Faia was back then, and still remains, at best a shy attempt at the format. The story, camera work, lighting, production values, timing and much of the acting are very weak showing a great lack of experience.

The story evolves around a rich family of wine producers and their troubles. The great Ruy de Carvalho, a stage trained actor, manages to bring weight and importance to a rather dull script trying to portrait the "real Portugal" but it doesn't provide any insight. It actually only portrays the way the Portuguese would like to see themselves - I find the attempts at showing the decay of the rich and powerful people somehow half hearted. But back then viewers had to make do with this series, and I'm sure many people found it most entertaining to see something familiar on the TV screen instead of the Brazilian, British and American material which was dominating.

The other actor worth watching is Nicolau Breyner, playing the troubled alcoholic truck driver (he manages to be kind of sober when driving though). Breyner also directed the actors. I don't want to belittle anyone else but most performances are frankly weak - the transition from stage was pehaps too hard to handle in this first attempt.

O.K. one exception: Manuela Marle, playing the girlfriend of the rebel son of the rich family, is so gorgeous that she hardly needs to act anyway.

Part of the problem definitely comes from the experimental stage the format was in back then. By now, over 20 years later, the very same actors, most still work, do excellent jobs with the same format that has become a standard in Portugal by now. The stiff "where and how should I look? Never mind." style with ridiculous over dramatization and bad timing is gone and replaced by a more relaxed and flowing style. Still the Brazilian telenovelas, most of these aired in Portugal as well, are miles ahead regarding the acting. Maybe Brazilians are always acting...

The music, if I'm not mistaken by the late Thilo Krassmann, is surprisingly good. It is in part molded after Brazilian music with rich harmonies and beautiful melodic lines, mostly used for transition as opposed to underscoring. This style is gone forever - in any country - by now, replaced by pop songs and more trendy stuff.

Good to hear that once they had real musicians trying to play beautiful music. I don't say it still should be that way, the approach has run its course, it's just nice to hear that is was possible once, a long time ago.

This series is of value because it marks a beginning. Worth only for the great performances of Ruy de Carvalho and Nicolau Breyner - and the pleasant music.

Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972)

Good to see more of Phibes and his magical/Gothic/Art Deco world.

[10 December 2004]

Just saw the movie on DVD. I have never seen it before and I am glad I found it. Of course this is an almost unnecessary re-working of the first movie but it is great for those like myself who can't get enough of Vincent Price's Phibes.

The British cast is very stiff here and the almost chanting 'Harvard Univeristy drama teacher' voice of American actor Vincent Price (when he is thinking/transmitting to Vulnavia as opposed to the stark tone when he uses his electromechanical speaking apparatus) provides grandeur and menace. This is a very challenging role since the story is badly underwritten (everything just exists and appears, no explanations), the dialog is pompous and overwritten and Price must work with no facial expression (or better: with an absolute minimum). He did that with bravura in the first pic and he only slips during the opening close ups at the organ where his facial muscles move a little too much, but I still accept it.

I must admit that I had some difficulties watching such a low budget movie. First I didn's understand what happened. What? The house is in rubbles, torn apart by the villain who stole the papyrus? When? The house was there just a second ago. I thought it was meant to be some kind of theatrical language I didn't understand. To my embarrassment on second viewing I found out that Price says: 'Let's go upstairs' and the organ, like in the first movie acts as an elevator. I missed the visual explanation.

The shot which shows Phibes and the new Vulnavia (where the heck does the beautiful female servant come from? Is she a ghost? Sure not: the writers couldn't come up with any explanation.

Period) rising into the rubbles clearly is a camera moving downward and there is a pitch black background. I needed to re-learn to listen more to dialog. The visual overload of today is hazardous to these kind of films which of course have worked much better in their time.

I agree with most of the comments that state that the deaths are less imaginative than in the first movie but I like this fact that this sequel was made only two years after the original - the look and feel are similar even if some of the lushness is missing.

I like the two policemen acting as a semi working-class, people with a common sense and humor, counterbalance to the Gothic "Phantom of the Opera style" Phibes. I like the way they have given up trying to catch Phibes and these of course are the two we can identify with, yet there is too little material here and some of the scenes with the policemen look like a family gathering from the first movie and of course as in so many sequels: the acting becomes a little too self aware.

The villain, his hoping-to-be wife and his henchmen are all very dull characters so this is basically a Vincent Price/Peter Jeffrey movie with wasted but welcome guest appearances from Terry-Thomas and Peter Cushing. Both wonderful actors with careers mostly made of making the most of bad material.

The 1970s version of late 1920s British Art Deco (since the Paris-fair that introduced the Art Deco style was held in 1925, I'd say it should be rather early 1930s but the cars look more late 20s in both movies) plus the theatrical, magical, Gothic, deep menace of the price-less (pun not intended) Phibes as only Price could have played makes this very low budget film a little treasure, even if it's basically only for those, like me, who can't get enough of the magical world of the wonderfully abominable Dr. Phibes.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

couldn't be better (contains mild spoilers)

[14 November 2004]

Of course both parts of kill Bill are actually one movie so I take the liberty referring to both parts emphasizing on part 2.

I like this movie so much because I can see no compromise, no hollywoodization, not a shred of it. Tarantino remains faithful to underground and indie movie making, but the photography and sound are both impeccably done and of the finest quality.

I love the wackyness of it. I already screamed laughing - in a happy way - when I saw the opening of Volume 1. A typical early 1970s title card saying "feature presentation" together with low quality distorted and whining (due to worn out machinery and prints that happened sometimes) trashy period music which ends with that typical noise coming from poor splices in optical sound tracks which were still widely used until a short time ago. The timing of this bit is so well done that we can expect that everything that follows during both parts will be that good. It is.

Tarantino trashes and loves every material at the same time. The choice of music is impeccable ranging from James Last/Gheorge Zamfir 1970s elevator muzak to these shrill synthesizer sounds used in 70s Kung Fu flicks. The Japanese female 1950s style rock 'n' roll band is too good to be true.

I don't know how Tarantino and his editor make it but the editing is just perfect. This is a mix of tempos, styles and lighting that probably violates all rules ever written - and it works. Tarantino did't fall in love with camera gimmicks though. Yes there is that typical 1970s fast zooming-in complete with the sloppy focussing, but Tarantino uses it very sparingly and more controlled. The whole two part movie also has us thinking about our own taste. We have to admit that secretly we like many thinks about what is officially considered bad taste. Not all of it that is.

I also like the fact that it is not Thurman herself disposing off Michael madson the stip club bouncer and the typical loser,loner,cowboy. He is too much of an American icon, also: except for Bill himself this is all about women. The story finds a great way to kill off Madson.

Of course the movie only works because of Uma Thurman. Tarantino practically constructed the movie around her. She is the movie. Thurman can be arrogant and deeply hurt at the same time, she is pure eye candy yet she has that edge necessary for her role. No matter how much of a superhero and ruthless killer she is, the moment where she is reunited with her daughter works completely. The trash movie spoof is lifted for a moment and her weeping and screaming of pure joy and relief in the bathroom for a moment is genuine - just as some few moments during the movie were such as when she was buried alive and tried to get out, but that still was within an absurd surreal context. Maybe Tarantino was trashing the movie "The Vanishing" in a way: that's what Kiefer Sutherland should have been doing...

Anyway it shows how much Tarantino controls the level of reality/absurdity and spoof. Nothing is left to chance.

I like the way the genuine tenderness is maintained during the end titles which are done in early 1950s style complete with period lettering and back projection plate, all in black and white. The level of spoof/trashing is only mild here and the mood remains happy, yet with a winking eye (literally BTW).

This is not made by someone greedy or full of himself. This is brilliant who loves movies with style. I like the fact that Tarantino never tries to be intellectual or artsy. He remains firmly in his own wacky world close to Sergio Leone's.

I wouldn't change one frame in any of the two Kill Bill parts.

The Poseidon Adventure (1972)

a classic, but aged by now

[9 November 2004]

Just as for some of the people who commented on this movie, this was one of the first movies I actually sat through in the theater and followed the dialog. I must say I didn't like the dialog parts very much back then - I found it all way too heavy and overplayed - and I like it even less by now but working my way to the great actors themselves as opposed to the roles they are screaming rather than speaking, the movie works. The story is a bit too constructed but it is an exciting concept that belongs to the best of the 1970s disaster flicks. Of course the only real problem here is Leslie Nielsen who appeared after this in so many spoofs (playing it straight as in his former serious roles) All his scenes are unintentionally hilarious. It only (probably) works if one never saw Nielsen in any of his spoofs.

The acting and dialog sound today as if they try to emulate a popular stage piece or TV sitcom. The disaster movies that immediately followed are very similar in tone with the exception of (if it can be considered belonging into this category)"Jaws" which has much, much better acting that didn't age one bit (Scheider, Dreyfuss and Shaw are perfect in this).

So this movie belongs to a string of big budget (mostly disaster-) flicks that played it heavy and more stage-like as opposed to naturalistic, low key or over-the-top but virtuoso (Hackman comes close but the script and direction definitely are in the way here). This is rather sad since this actually is a throwback to the 1930s. Naturalistic and realistic dialog goes way back to the 1940s. I remember Earthquake to be worse than this and The Towering Inferno to be just slightly better in the story/acting/dialog department. By now these movies play very heavy since we live in times where dialog - in real life and on screen - has a totally different feel to it.

The set pieces are very good for the time and even the model work during the early parts is more than acceptable. I can see that the parts playing on deck have been filmed on the Queen Mary at Long Beach, CA. Very nice seeing that the modelmakers and set pieces took great care to make the "Poseidon" matching the Queen Mary regarding look and feel. Only Jim cameron's Titanic had the budget and technology to take it further.

This still remains a cornerstone movie - as it set the tome for a string of disaster flicks (1970's Airport was only the forerunner, not the pioneer - this goes to "Poseidon") and it works when one is willing to see the actors for themselves. Otherwise: check how many terms in Roger Ebert's glossary (=cliches) can be found. I have the feeling a very large number is there....

I, Robot (2004)

great movie

[7/10 · 4 September 2004]

It's so easy to say: ha, the typical schlocky Hollywood output! It could have been an intellectually challenging movie, etc. etc.... Movies this big are made to make money - well that's how the studios see it and they have the money to finance them. When they are that good as I' Robot, it's because many of the people involved are not that greedy and don't "dumb down" things as much as they could, but they rather do the very best they can - plus walking the extra mile. My point is NOT: better a movie that is better than it could have been than no movie at all. My point is: please don't let your choice of movies be commanded solely by online critiques - most of which are definitely excellent but many times only analyze the content, not necessarily the overall impression.

Will Smith is becoming a first rate action star with the right mix of down-to-earthness, making fun of his vanity (These are vintage 2004 sneakers!), and just keeps the right balance while maintaining his own youthful style. More of Will Smith please.

The movie has great plot twists that are independently about the real identity of Spooner (Smith) and Sonny the Robot splendidly voiced by Alan Tudyk.

Yes there are still some problems with the lack of weight and heft in the CGI animated creatures and some action scenes (too) strongly resemble computer games, but I find it in this case all way above average and never disappointing.

Of course Sonny the robot steals the show. He is very well developed and makes perfect sense. Of course his character and the story could have been even more developed until the very limits of mind bending philosophy, but hey, this is an action movie - and an excellent one it is.

Powaqqatsi (1988)

better title: Not Baraka

[26 August 2004]

As mentioned earlier by others, this film is basically a weaker

version of Baraka (by Koyaanisqatsi cinematographer Ron Fricke),

a film very much like Powaqqatsi, focussing some more on the

religious rituals of southern hemisphere cultures.

Powaqqatsi definitely is a disappointment as a follow up of

Koyaanisqatsi. There is no consistence of any kind. Some scenes

are going on for way too long (the gold mine sequence in the Serra

Pelada, Brazil is nice but becomes tiresome already before the

main title). Other sequences are uneven and cluttered and we

don't know where we are. The movie is almost entirely overcranked (in slow motion), as

opposed to the perfect combination of time lapse (much of it with

motion blur to make it smoother plus smooth camera panning),

slow motion and the use of stock footage in Koyaanisqatsi which

had a wonderful atmosphere to it and works on many levels.

Powaqqatsi is supposed to make no statement about how things

should be - according to director Godfrey Reggio. Why then the

sequence editing US American tv commercials and military

images (is this evidence of how Reggio felt about Powaq. not

coming close to Koyaanis. in meaning)?

Powaq.'s photography is of great quality, yet many motifs are

simply not interesting enough to be on screen for that long. I have

the feeling that the team simply didn't come home with enough

interesting footage in the can and had to make something out of

what they had in the editing room. The few great shots which lets

us emerge in unfamiliar worlds don't make up for the higher

percentage of footage of no interest whatsoever.

Check Ron Fricke's "Baraka" to see what Powaqqatsi could have

been and should have been.

I also agree about some comments regarding Philip Glass' score.

It is sometimes is flat out corny and sounds very much like what

one might expect in a late 1980s "we are all one world" beer or

cookie commercial. Philip Glass is a great and original composer for symphonic

minimalism, but as a composer of world music he hasn't got the

vein. The Powaq. score is several notches below the magic of

what he did for Koyaanis. Again: Baraka has a better score as well.

Watch Powaqqatsi to ifill yourself in on the second installment of

the ..qatsi trilogy. It's not a bad film, but IMHO Godfrey Reggio was

unable to deliver the footage for this concept. Ron Fricke did it in

"Baraka".

Honkytonk Man (1982)

the story of many a musician

[22 July 2004]

...and for that matter any human being.

Clint Eastwood's little masterpiece is filled with insights of human

nature and our dreams and how futile but nonetheless honorable

they are in most cases.

Watch out for many keys to understand low(er) class white Americans

and how music is one of the very best ways to bring them together

with, or at least closer to, African Americans. Without gospel, blues

and jazz - three styles developed by black people in the US during

the early 20th century - there would (arguably) be no country music and of

course no pop music (as it is today).

I am a musician and this little masterpiece certainly means a lot to

me and my colleagues all over the world.

This movie definitely is a metaphor of life and Clint Eastwood uses his second passion after cinema, music, as the

base but it contains so much more deep philosophy and homage

that I do not hesitate calling it a small masterpiece.

IMHO Honkytonk Man is for Clint Eastwood what Little Man Tate

(1991) is for Jodie Foster - only better, much better. Just think

about the fact that Clint went back (explained in a monologue) for

his skinny girl. After all he did love her.

It takes cojones to make a movie like that. Great work Mr.

Eastwood.

Jaws (1975)

Robert Shaw did it

[11 July 2004]

Of course I agree that Jaws is one of the greatest movies ever made. I first saw it age 15 in a local cinema in my native Germany (dubbed of course but as is the standard in Germany - top quality)and I was blown away. I never saw anything with that natural acting approach and grandeur before that.

Now after way over a quarter of a century I have seen this movie again on DVD in its original English version and here is what I have to say>

This is one hell of a movie but not without some minor flaws.

I mean who am I to judge Steven Spielberg... This man has got the talent for grandeur but in order to achieve this he goes for overacting in all his movies. Just watch Laura Dern in Jurassic Park or even the great John Malkovitch in Empire of the Sun. The master director undoubtedly goes for, or allows for, overacting. I personally find it annoying and distracting from Spielberg's otherwise impeccable production values.

The same can already clearly be seen in Jaws. All actors are overacting. I mean all. Let's watch and judge this true classic from a 2004 point of view and we can clearly see it.

What saves the movie and makes it a classic is the casting. Some actors can overact and still be great or they simply never overact no matter what the director might scream into the megaphone.

Richard Dreyfuss is overacting but he is a brilliant actor so it doesn't hurt.

Lorraine Gary is way overacting bordering on cheesy but we can forgive her placing her in the big picture.

Roy Scheider definitely is the center point, our identification figure. Any movie with Roy Scheider in it can't go wrong. He is a wonderful actor and he just won't overact.

Robert Shaw IMHO simply IS the movie. His performance is way beyond brilliant. Spielberg's first choice for Quint's part was Lee Marvin, admittedly a great actor but most likely he would haveben a poor choice since he was and is too known from other movies before Jaws.

The fact that Shaw got the part IMveryHO was what turned the movie into a classic. His performance as a "working class hero" as the Richard Dreyfuss character puts it is simply outstanding. Shaw has no problem showing his thinning hair or taking out a false tooth. That makes Quint all the more frightening and believable. Shaw's over the top old salt with a British accent IS the movie.

The fact that Quint by coincidence was on the USS Indianapolis seems a bit contrived when the film is viewed today with knowledge of the real event on captain Mc Vay's ship, but Robert Shaw makes it seem convincing and even more - the trauma he suffered makes his character seem even more believable.

God bless robert Shaw. What a great actor and what a waste to see him being cast during the late 1970s in some really bad movies probably being the effect of the success of Jaws.

Bottom line> Spielberg has the sense and talent to create grandeur but he goes for overacting bordering on the cheesy in some roles even until today.

As soon as he has even just one top notch actor in the cast such as Shaw who can overact as much as one can imagine and still remains to good to be true(or Jeff Goldblum or Ben Kingsley or Morgan Freman who all seem to insist on the high art of slightly underacting or to put it better, a natural talent that overrides anything a director might say)Spielberg has a home run. This director has a wonderful talent for all the rest including lighting, editing, photography and of course choice of music in form of the great John Williams - maybe the best film composer alive today.

Jaws is a great movie (closing our eyes to the clumsy and definitely failed fake looking shark called Bruce) and I repeat that Robert Shaw's brilliant performance must take a great part of the credit. Period.

Fight Club (1999)

parallel universe, mild spoilers included

[1 July 2004]

Here I go again> I don't know if I am bringing up old or dead issues since I can not read all 1800 plus comments.

Anyway, I just love the way Norton and Pitt play against (or with) each other. Norton's character, although a mild mannered everyman in the start has a potential insanity waiting to come out. Pitt is playing his cool self and of course the twist in the end is meant to be much more complex than what's explained.

There are single frames of Pitt popping up early in the film which is a foreshadowing of him as a projectionist slicing a few frames of porn into family flicks and definitely a hint at that nothing here is what it seems. These single frames also clearly help establish that we are in a parallel universe (or a dream, or Norton-s mind....)

Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) plays like a modern English version of something right out of a 1970s Nouvelle Vague. Perfect.

In fact most of the acting is certainly inspired by 1970s European, namely French, movies. no-one really cares or wonders enough, no matter how extreme the situation they go through. on the other hand no-one goes for overly European/artsy, this is still all very American,just far away from Hollywood mainstream.

Most of the set pieces are amazing. We seem to recognize most of them from our nightmares and they will linger on in our minds long after viewing.

The laws of physics don't quite apply here and all dialog is surreal in a way. As James Berardinelli correctly points out there's a strong resemblance to "A Clockwork Orange", a movie which also seems to play in sort of a parallel universe. Both films deal with extreme violence and to a degree with sex.

I am unable to say to which degree the film's meaning and all other hidden meanings or in/jokes and homages to other movies (there certainly are)were all carefully planned beforehand. Some certainly appeared during the making of this film. I say that because the film's acting and dialog don't look "written" except of course for Tyler's provoking philosophical attacks on our society and smallmindedness, and Pitt delivers those in a way that they sound like coming natural, not preachy or "written". Brilliant.

At the very end we can see one of these porn frames sliced in - as if Tyler (Pitt) is in control of the whole movie we just saw. My first reading was, and remains, there are much more hidden meanings in this movie than can be extracted from one or two viewings and it works on many different levels. Just think about the soap made of human fat or the 1970sh look but 90s attitude of Tyer(Pitt). That cannot only be an exercise in style. Then the medical doctor who doesn't prescribe pills, he would be in trouble with the pharma industry in a real world -check this scene for Pitt appearing for the first time in one single frame if you happen to watch the movie on DVD. There's much more to it all.

If I have time I will go through the users comments (not all of course) and check for some stuff people discovered and spotted in this movie. Looks like there is tons.

The Errand Boy (1961)

Can be seen on two levels

[13 January 2004]

Well I didn't see the full version of this movie until a couple of years ago. I know it from a 1970s cut-down to 18 minutes Super 8mm film version I saw many times,long ago. Those were the days...

We need to work our way through a self-centered and self serving Jerry Lewis. As an earlier comment correctly stated, Jerry Lewis didn't manage to come up with the "not too bright underdog with a golden heart, trying to live the American dream, facing many obstacles but making it in the end" - story, even though this was clearly his idea of the storyline. You can call me names for my next statement: Sylvester Stallone did that thing much better (even though not through a comedy) in his first two "Rocky" movies.

Anyway, this still is a Jerry Lewis classic with many great scenes. Undoubtedly the best being him doing a perfectly-in-sync routine to "Blues in Hoss Flat", as usual impeccably performed by the great Count Basie big band.

Some other material such as the radio that won't stop playing even when smashed to bits has been done much better in 1940s Warner Brothers cartoon shorts.

The two scenes where Morty (Jerry Lewis) meets "living" puppets are rather painful and reminiscent of Charles Chaplin's later work (Limelight etc.) It's in the "crying Clown" tradition and rather out of place in this otherwise funny and inventive movie. The puppets, a little clown and in a later scene a talking female ostrich, magically coming to life (yet obviously performed by rather average puppeteers) in a comedy are the only beings who really understand our "hero"? I'm afraid this is very weak material.

Jerry Lewis also has his "serius" moment in movies like "Cinderfella", and they are totally out of place as well. But that is a classic: a comedian trying to show his (or her) serious side. I will be tolerant and understanding (=forgiving).

If you are a Jerry Lewis fan, "The Errand boy" is a must see in any case. Jerry lewis definitely was (and remains) a great inspiration to contemporary film comedians such as Steve Martin and Jim Carrey.