Reel Discoveries

[rposhard]

Hi, everyone! RPO here with Reel Discoveries. Every week, after my review is read on the air I will be posting it here so you can attack or defend the movie or just give me general feedback. I look forward to your comments!

I guess we'll start it off with this week's review:

SLIPSTREAM
==========

HERE I AM AGAIN, BACK FROM MY FORCED HIATUS, COURTESY OF THE GEEK SQUAD -- AND THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T FOND OF THIS SEGMENT SHOULD BE SENDING THEM THANK YOU NOTES AND FLOWERS, DON'T YOU THINK? THIS WEEK I PICK UP RIGHT WHERE I LEFT OFF -- OR ATTEMPT TO, ANYWAY -- WITH AN ANTHONY HOPKINS FILM THAT MIGHT WELL BE THE WORST FLOP IN THE HISTORY OF THE MOVIES. IT MADE A REMARKABLE $27,729 -- WORLDWIDE. IS THE MOVIE REALLY THAT BAD? IT DEPENDS ON YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

THE MOVIE IS CALLED "SLIPSTREAM", AND WAS WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY ANTHONY HOPKINS. IN IT, HOPKINS PLAYS FELIX BONHOEFFER, A MAN WHO IS WRITING A MOVIE. HOWEVER, THINGS BEGIN TO GET WONKY FAIRLY EARLY ON IN THE FILM. WHILE STUCK IN TRAFFIC, BONHOEFFER IS SHOT AT BY AN ANGRY MOTORIST WHO KEEPS SHOUTING "WE'VE LOST THE PLOT!" PEOPLE DRIFT IN AND OUT OF BONHOEFFER'S LIFE LIKE -- WELL, LIKE CHARACTERS IN A POORLY WRITTEN MOVIE. ONE OF THE ACTORS IN THE MOVIE BEING FILMED DIES OF HEAT STROKE WHILE SHOOTING A SCENE IN THE DESERT. KEVIN MCCARTHY, STAR OF THE ORIGINAL "INVASION OF THE BODY-SNATCHERS", KEEPS POPPING UP WITH ENIGMATIC ADVICE. AND THROUGH IT ALL, INEXPLICABLE LITTLE THINGS (LIKE A CAR THAT IS A DIFFERENT COLOR DEPENDING ON WHICH ANGLE WE SEE IT FROM) SLOWLY GET EXPLAINED (BONHOEFFER INADVERTANTLY KILLED THE MOVIE'S CONTINUITY DIRECTOR
WHILE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HIS SCREENPLAY).

BIZARRE? YES. DIFFICULT TO FOLLOW? YES. IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND? NOT QUITE. HOPKINS HAS CREATED ON FILM WHAT SEVERAL GREAT AUTHORS -- FAULKNER AND TRUMBO SPRING IMMEDIATELY TO MIND -- HAVE CREATED IN LITERATURE: A STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS STORY. THE PROBLEM, I THINK, IS THAT STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL IN FILM -- THE FILM VERSION OF TRUMBO'S BRILLIANT NOVEL "JOHNNY GOT HIS GUN" PROVED THAT YEARS AGO. I DON'T THINK HOPKINS WANTED TO
GIVE HIS AUDIENCES A PLOT ON A SILVER PLATTER -- HE WANTED THEM TO THINK. UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT HE GAVE US WAS A FILM THAT MAKES US THINK...AND THINK...AND
THINK...UNTIL ULTIMATELY WE FIND OURSELVES THINKING SO HARD ABOUT WHAT THE FILM IS TRYING TO SAY THAT WE FIND OURSELVES AS CONFUSED AS KEVIN MCCARTHY SEEMED TO BE -- HE SPENT ALL OF HIS SCENES LOOKING LIKE HE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS DOING IN THE FILM IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH LEFT ME WONDERING THE SAME
THING.

THERE ARE SEVERAL PERFORMANCES IN THIS FILM THAT STAND OUT FOR THEIR BRILLIANCE. HOPKINS, OF COURSE, COULD PROBABLY ENTHRALL AN AUDIENCE BY READING
THE PHONE BOOK. CHRISTIAN SLATER PLAYS RAY, A MAN WHO WOULD BE A TWO-BIT HOOD WERE IT NOT FOR HIS PSYCHOTIC TENDENCIES. UNFORTUNATELY, MR. SLATER HAS A BIT OF A MELT-DOWN DURING THE FILMING OF THE SCENE AND DIES OF A HEAT-STROKE BEFORE RAY'S SADISTIC TENDENCIES GET A CHANCE TO REALLY SHINE. JEFFREY TAMBOR GIVES PERHAPS THE MOST CHILLING PERFORMANCE OF HIS CAREER AS GEEK, RAY'S SIDEKICK, WHO IS NOT ALTOGETHER SANE HIMSELF. HE HAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF MELTDOWN AFTER SLATER DIES.

SO WHAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THIS FILM? SHOULD YOU WATCH IT OR NOT? IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN EVENING OF LIGHT ENTERTAINMENT THEN DEFINITELY NOT. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN ENIGMATIC FILM YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY THINK ABOUT -- AS WELL AS A FEW BRILLIANT PERFORMANCES -- THEN "SLIPSTREAM" JUST MIGHT BE
YOUR CUP OF TEA. THIS IS ANTHONY HOPKINS' EGO TRIP -- BUT AFTER SO MANY YEARS OF BRILLIANT PERFORMANCES I THINK WE CAN GRANT HIM ONE. AFTER ALL, LOOK HOW
MANY KEVIN COSTNER AND MEL GIBSON HAVE HAD.

NEXT WEEK ON REEL DISCOVERIES: WHAT DO JACKIE GLEASON, CAROL CHANNING, FRANKIE AVALON, MICKEY ROONEY, GEORGE RAFT, ARNOLD STANG, SLIM PICKENS, BURGESS MEREDITH, PETER LAWFORD, FRANK GORSHIN, AUSTIN PENDLETON, CESAR ROMERO, MICHAEL CONSTANTINE, HARRY NILSSON AND GROUCHO MARX ALL HAVE IN COMMON? NO, THEY WEREN'T ALL GUEST VILLAINS ON BATMAN. YOU'LL FIND OUT NEXT WEEK ON REEL DISCOVERIES. BUT FOR NOW, I'LL TURN THINGS BACK OVER TO TWO MEN WHO MAY NOT
HAVE STREAMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS -- BUT THEY COULD CERTAINLY PASS FOR BABBLING BROOKS -- KEN AND ROGER. GUYS?


Sorry for the all capitals, but that's how I write my reviews to make them easier to read when I'm on the air. (And if you've ever heard my segment on The Ken and Roger Show, then you already know it doesn't help me that much.)

Thanks for listening, and I'll see you all next week!

[kuroken]

Just a question, Richard -

Given that Hopkins has been in the biz a long time, done a lot of good acting in small parts and large, on stage and on screen....he has to know what's "good" and what's not.

So this is a vanity project, something he could make because...well, he's Anthony Hopkins! And admittedly I haven't seen this (though I find it intriguing). But my question is...

To do less than $30K worldwide is beyond dismal. Even if Anthony Hopkins couldn't bring in a bit more business than that, Christian Slater could (though fame seems to have slipped past him and his cameo in Star Trek 6 might suddenly seem resume-worthy).

So all I can think is that it is sooooooo awful that those few who'd seen it were stopping people on the street shouting "Beware!" or the studio killed it or something.

Any further details, or must I look this up myself - you've seen it - why, I ask, why only $30K?

[rposhard]

I must admit to a little hokery for effect on my part. The movie ran in limited release (6 theatres) for only one week. I don't think the studio was pleased with the effort (though I don't know that for sure) and gave a smattering of showings to keep him happy. In the long run, though, what with the costs of running a movie for weeks in a large number of theatres, the studio probably made a wise decision. I don't think the "public-at-large" would have given the film the following it needed.

The critics were as kind as possible. The New York Times wrote "As a director Mr. Hopkins, much like his character, comes across as a befuddled observer of his own film, whose style is a compendium of avant-garde techniques and narrative tricks wielded willy-nilly to suggest deeper meanings below a hyperkinetic surface. Among other surreal happenings, time moves backward and forward, objects change color, and Felix has near-death experiences that may or may not be real. The entire story could be interpreted as a dying screenwriter’s life flashing before his eyes." Metromix Chicago wrote "So “Slipstream” has its moments if you’re in the mood for vibrant photographic tricks (thanks to cinematographer Dante Spinotti) and wacky mind games. But don’t expect a payoff of the likes of “Memento.” This one’s strictly cinema for cinema’s sake, void of any satisfying resolution." (Please note that I only look at other reviews after I have written my own.)

So it is the ultimate "mixed-bag" movie. I will admit to giving up on this film halfway through the first time I watched it as being "unwatchable". A few weeks later I went back and watched it again from the beginning. Perhaps because I had a better idea of what to expect, I found I could glean some meaning from Hopkins' jumbled mass of visions. The end result was a suprisingly deep film -- not for everyone, and not one I would necessarily recommend -- but one that I found ultimately interesting.

[rposhard]

After missing last week (oops!) here is the new review:

SKIDOO
======

THERE ARE MOVIES THAT ARE HAILED AS INSTANT CLASSICS -- THEY MAKE A FORTUNE AT THE BOX OFFICE, ARE PRAISED BY CRITICS AND AUDIENCES ALIKE, AND ARE SHOWN AND RE-SHOWN ON TELEVISION ON AS MANY CHANNELS AS ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR THE HONOR OF PRESENTING THESE FILMS TO THEIR AUDIENCE. AND THEN THERE ARE THE FILMS THAT FAIL MISERABLY IN ALL RESPECTS, AND ARE LOCKED AWAY IN ARCHIVAL VAULTS ONLY TO BE PULLED OUT ON THOSE RARE OCCASIONS WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER OR SOME MOVIE HISTORICAL SOCIETY DECIDES TO TREAT THEIR PATRONS TO SOMETHING "REALLY BAD". OF COURSE, SUCH FILMS OF THAT QUESTIONABLE DISTINCTION ARE ALWAYS DIRECTED BY NOBODIES WHOSE CAREERS SINK INTO OBLIVION. OR ARE THEY? HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF OTTO PREMINGER? OF COURSE YOU HAVE. BUT THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD OF TODAY'S REEL DISCOVERY -- A LITTLE PIECE OF ART FROM 1968 THAT WAS UNIVERSALLY OVERLOOKED BY AUDIENCES AND CRITICS ALIKE -- A LITTLE CINEMATIC DISASTER CALLED "SKIDOO".

AS I MENTIONED IN LAST WEEK'S TEASER, "SKIDOO" BOASTS A PRODIGIOUS CAST. THE QUICK RUN-THRU AGAIN: JACKIE GLEASON, CAROL CHANNING, FRANKIE AVALON, MICKEY ROONEY, GEORGE RAFT, ARNOLD STANG, SLIM PICKENS, BURGESS MEREDITH, PETER LAWFORD, FRANK GORSHIN, AUSTIN PENDLETON, CESAR ROMERO, MICHAEL CONSTANTINE, HARRY NILSSON AND GROUCHO MARX. NILSSON, BY THE WAY, ALSO WROTE ALL OF THE SONGS AND INCIDENTAL MUSIC FOR THE PRODUCTION.

THE FILM GIVES YOU A LOT TO SWALLOW: JACKIE GLEASON AS RETIRED MOB HIT MAN TOUGH TONY BANKS, WHO WAS MERCILESS IN HIS PRIME; FRANKIE AVALON AS ANGIE, A SLIMEY MOB HENCHMAN WILLING TO MAKE LOVE TO ANY WOMAN OF ANY AGE; AND GROUCHO MARX AS GOD -- NO, NOT THAT GOD. MARX PLAYS THE HEAD OF A MOB SYNDICATE THAT EVERYONE CALLS GOD. THIS WAS GROUCHO'S LAST FILM APPEARANCE, AND ACCORDING TO HEARSAY PREMINGER BROWBEAT HIM INTO WEARING THE GREASPAINT MUSTACHE WHICH HE HAD REFUSED TO DON FOR NEARLY 20 YEARS.

THE PLOT IS EQUALLY RIDICULOUS: TONY IS ORDERED BY GOD TO INFILTRATE A PRISON AND MURDER GEORGE "BLUE CHIPS" PACKARD (PLAYED BY MICKEY ROONEY) BEFORE HE TURNS STATE'S EVIDENCE. WHILE IN PRISON, TONY ACCIDENTALLY INGESTS SOME LSD AND GOES ON A PSYCHEDELIC TRIP DURING WHICH HE REALIZES THAT HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER (WHO HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED WITH THE SQUEAKIEST-CLEAN HIPPIES IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA) ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN HIS LIFE, AND HE DECIDES NOT TO GO THROUGH WITH THE HIT. HE AND ANOTHER PRISONER USE THE LSD TO SEND THE ENTIRE PRISON ON A TRIP AND, IN THE ENSUING MADNESS, ESCAPE USING A JURY-RIGGED HOT AIR BALLOON. THEY LAND ON GOD'S YACHT FOR A FINAL SHOWDOWN.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS FILM IS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PREMINGER'S FINEST. IT IS A CONTRIVED, OVER-PRODUCED CINEMATIC BUST. AND YET, THERE IS SOMETHING ALMOST HYPNOTIC ABOUT THIS FILM'S BADNESS -- IT IS ACTUALLY PRETTY FUNNY. IT IS NOT FUNNY IN THE SENSE THAT PREMINGER INTENDED, BUT IN THE WAY HE TRIED TO PRESENT A REAL PSYCHEDLIC EXPERIENCE AND FAILED MISERABLY. THE CAST PULLS OFF SOME BOTH INTENTIONAL AND UNINTENTIONAL COMEDY WITH GREAT FINESSE. IN FACT, IT IS A TRIBUTE TO THE CAST THAT THEY TOOK AN ALMOST INCOMPREHENSIBLE SCRIPT AND MANAGED TO PULL SOMETHING UNIQUELY FUNNY OUT OF IT. IT MAKES THE FILM WORTH WATCHING.

ANOTHER REASON TO WATCH THIS FILM IS NILSSON'S SCORE. THERE ARE NO REALLY MEMORABLE SONGS IN IT, THOUGH I WAS PARTICULARLY AMUSED BY THE SONG USED FOR "THE GARBAGE CAN BALLET". (THIS IS A SCENE NEAR THE END OF THE FILM WHERE TWO STONED PRISON GUARDS PLAYED BY FRED CLARK AND NILSSON HIMSELF WATCH THE KITCHEN'S GARBAGE CANS DANCE ABOUT THE PRISON EXERCISE YARD.) THE SONG BRINGS NEW MEANING TO THE PHRASE "CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION", AND IS LOADED WITH "DOOBITY-DOO-WAHS" SIMILAR TO HIS SONG "CUDDLY TOY" WHICH WAS USED AS THE THEME SONG FOR THE TV SERIES "THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER". AND OF COURSE I WILL ALWAYS HAVE BURNED INTO MY MEMORY THE SULTRY VOICE OF CAROL CHANNING SINGING THE FILM'S TITLE SONG: "SKIDOO! SKIDDLE-LI-DOOBIE-DOO! / IT ISN'T WHAT YOU DO IT'S WHO YOU DO IT TO. / SKIDOO! YEAH! SKIDOO! / BETWEEN THE ONE AND THREE THERE IS A TWO."

MY FINAL RECOMMENDATION? AS I ALREADY POINTED OUT, THE MOVIE DOESN'T COME AROUND VERY OFTEN -- BUT IF IT DOES, BY ALL MEANS WATCH IT. IT IS A PIECE OF KITSCH ABOUT THE "FREE LOVE GENERATION" THAT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ITS SUBJECT MATTER VERY WELL, BUT IS ABSOLUTELY ON TARGET AS A SATIRE OF THE GENERATION GAP GONE HORRIBLY WRONG.

NEXT WEEK ON REEL DISCOVERIES: "TITANIC" IS THE NUMBER ONE DOMESTIC BOX OFFICE MONEY-MAKER OF ALL TIME, BUT WHICH MOVIE COMES IN SECOND? IT IS A MOVIE THAT MIGHT OWE SOME OF ITS SUCCESS TO THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING ONE OF ITS STARS, AND YOU'LL FIND OUT WHAT I MEAN NEXT WEEK. MEANWHILE, I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO A COUPLE OF SWINGERS WHO ONCE LOST THEMSELVES IN THE "FREE LOVE GENERATION" -- IN FACT, WE STILL HAVEN'T FOUND ONE OF THEM -- KEN AND ROGER. GUYS?


I look forward to your comments and feedback!

[Uber]

Is your throat sore after shouting all of that?

[rposhard]

gasp...wheeze....

No, as I pointed out in my first post -- but it does bear repeating as I am aware of the rudeness factor in my review posts -- I apologize for the all capitals. The reviews are transferred directly from my on-air scripts whish are done all in capitals to make them easier to read live. I realize in a forum that all caps equates to shouting, but what can I say -- I've never denied that I tend to be a bit on the lazy side. Look at how easy I make my Ultimate TMOer competitions -- for me, that is, not for the competitors....

[thebiz]

Those are some good reads RPO. I dont often catch your part of the show but it plays well written down and I always enjoy a well thought critique. However, the capitalization issue is a bit irritating.

There is a way to easily convert normal text to uppercase using html so you could write the review in normal capitalization, translate it to uppercase and have two versions of the text (one to read from and one to post here). PM me if your interested and I will explain.

[rposhard]

Here is this week's review -- in glorious REGULAR PRINT!!!!!

THE DARK KNIGHT
===============

So, last week I mentioned the number two all time domestic box office champ and many of you in the chat room correctly identified it as "The Dark Knight". At this writing, it trails "Titanic" by a mere $77.5 million. That may not sound very mere, but "Titanic" had a much longer run than "Knight" has so far. In fact, if you measure "Knight"'s current box office total to ":Titanic" at this same point in its run (71 days), you would find that "Knight" leads by a whopping margin of $111 million. Is this film truly such a great classic of cinema? Does it deserve the huge fan following it has received? Or has Hollywood hyped on the tragic death of co-star Heath Ledger to create additional box office boffo?

First, before anyone accuses me of debasing the most popular film of the summer, let me state up front that I did enjoy the film, flawed though I felt it was. It had good entertainment value and a good cast. I felt some of the action sequences left something to be desired, and the script had more holes in it than an aged swiss cheese. Christian Bale was affable and winning as Bruce Wayne, but growling and virtually unintelligible as Batman. Michael Caine's performance as Alfred was spot on the money, something we've learned to expect from him by now. Dennis Leary provided the most depth of character as we watched his fall from District Attorney Harvey Dent to the dementia of Two-Face. Maggie Gyllenhall as Rachel Dawes (Wayne's ex- and Dent's current fiancee) and Gary Oldman as James Gordon are essentially wasted in their parts. Perhaps the greatest waste of all was Morgan Freeman returning to his role of Lucius Fox, supplier of high-tech weapons to Batman. In the climactic "chase" scene, it was his job to stand in a room watching a wall of video monitors flashing light and shadow, until he points to one and in a grave dramatic voice intones, "There! I've found him!"

Found what? The deus ex machina of Bruce Wayne having created a system that taps into every cell phone in Gotham City and sends signals back to the control room so that Fox (who was, coincidentally, the only person who could interpret the signals) could tell him where the Joker was hiding was...was...beyond my capacity for words -- except to say that if I hadn't paid $10 for my ticket I would have walked out right there. Instead, I stayed in fervent hopes that the Joker would kill them all -- or at least the writers. (I was disappointed, by the way.) Let's face it kids, when it comes to suspension of disbelief I'm willing to play along -- you can't watch any superhero movie without doing that. But don't try to pass off a piece of ridiculous technology just because you've written yourself into a corner and want to end the film quickly so the audience can go to the bathroom.

Hey, fans of Batman are no doubt boiling tar and collecting feathers for me, but I have been a fan of the Bat for over 40 years and I'm telling you this ain't right. Batman was a self-made hero, it's no accident that he does this -- it has been ingrained into his soul since an early age. He is a vigilante, operating outside the law in order to preserve the law. I felt the first movie ("Batman Begins") made an honest attempt to show this, but the dichotomy that is Batman has never been successfully translated to film. I think the studio needs to go back to the comics and really look at them -- and since I'm saying that may I also suggest they look closely at the work Frank Miller has done with the Dark Knight legend? I sometimes feel he had the closest affinity for the character since Batman was created. My point is: Fewer Gadgets and More Character.

So now we come to Heath Ledger. Much has been said about his portrayal of the Joker, and anything I say here would just be quoting others. His performance stood out in this film, as he created a true sociopathic character. I would not say anything to detract from that performance. I just find it shameful that the publicity office latched on to Ledger's tragic death as a ploy to sell tickets. Prior to his death, the scuttlebut was that he was a strong contender to be nominated for a supporting actor Oscar. And after? Suddenly, the word was that he was a shoo-in to win the award. Now I can only speak for myself, but I usually like to know who all the candidates are before I cast my vote. This sudden upgrade to the caliber of his performance was -- and please bear in mind that I am only expressing my opinion here -- a blatant attempt to create new hype about this movie as a boost to ticket sales. Hey, it's not the first time the Hollywood Hype Machine has pulled a stunt like this.

Next week on Reel Discoveries, it's time for ghosts and demons, witches and ghouls, goblins and of course zombies. In fact, next week I'll have a couple of Zombie's for you -- but maybe not the kind you're thinking of. Why? Because "IT'S HALLOWEEN, IT'S HALLOWEEN / IT'S TIME FOR TRICKS, IT'S TIME FOR TREATS / IT'S HALLOWEEN, IT'S HALLOWEEN!" Yes, I'll be kicking off four weeks of ghoulish goodies for my Hollywood Halloween Spooktacular. That starts next week, but for now I'll turn things back over to TMOA's very own Dynamic Duo -- except these guys are both Jokers -- Ken and Roger. Guys?


Thanks to all who share their views with me - and thanks to thebiz for his help.

[EthanRunt]

Dennis Leary provided the most depth of character as we watched his fall from District Attorney Harvey Dent to the dementia of Two-Face.

It was Aaron Eckhart who played Harvey Dent, you might have seen him in Nurse Betty, Thank You For Smoking, No Reservations (Though I hope you didn't see him there) and Meet Bill ;)

[rposhard]

It was Aaron Eckhart who played Harvey Dent, you might have seen him in Nurse Betty, Thank You For Smoking, No Reservations (Though I hope you didn't see him there) and Meet Bill ;)

Well, I'll be hornswaggled! This makes the second time I've mixed him and Leary up. Time to get the eyes tested (or start reading the credits more carefully). This was one of those times I didn't double-check because even my wife (who is the queen of recognition) said it was Leary. She's usually the one who has to point out how wrong I am.

Thank goodness Batman is a DC character and not Marvel -- otherwise I'd have to send you a genuine no-prize and I'm fresh out of them.

[rposhard]

ROB ZOMBIE MOVIES

Heyyyyyy, boys and girls, who's your favorite clown? If you answered that last question "Bozo!" then you aren't paying attention to the category. If, however, you said "Hooray for Captain Spaulding!" then you are truly the kind of deviant who will enjoy the movies I have on tap today. I'm kicking off my Hollywood Halloween Spooktacular with a double feature of punk-rocker-turned-filmmaker of Rob Zombie's films, "The House of 1,000 Corpses" and "The Devil's Rejects".

"The House of 1,000 Corpses" was Zombie's first film, and I have to tell you it is by far one of the most demented films you will ever want to see. There are virtually no well-known actors in it apart from Rainn Wilson ("The Office"), Michael J. Pollard ("Bonnis and Clyde") and Karen Black (who is probably still best known for being chased around by a demented voodoo doll). It is graphically violent, acheiving an impressive and unprecedented 10 out of 10 on the Roger Yak Factor scale. This movie features graphic murders, skinning, evisceration -- this one has it all, baby. There's even a plot!

Well, okay, it isn't much more of a plot than "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", which this film pays homage to without the use of a single chainsaw. Rainn Wilson is the leader of a group of college students who are researching a book on oddball roadside attractions, basically an excuse for an extended double date. They end up at Captain Spaulding's Horror Museum, where they meet a deranged-looking clown who calls himself Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig, my favorite actor in this movie). He takes them on a dilapidated "historic" thrill ride where he tells them the story of Dr. Satan, an insane surgeon who attempted to make an army of supermen from the inmates at an insane asylum. Charged up with this story, the teens rush off to find a tree that Dr. Satan was allegedly hanged from. Instead, they end up in the clutches of the Firefly family, who are in turn led by drifter and serial killer Otis P. Driftwood. The teens are held captive, tortured, and eventually delivered to Dr. Satan who is still alive and still performing his grisly experiments.

This was as good of a horror movie as I have seen in a while. Writer/director Rob Zombie has taken the slasher genre and elevated it to the level of arthouse film. It is unrelenting in its gruesomeness, yet artistic in its vision. It is a film which will simultaneously leave you squirming in your seat and hypnotized by the parade of violence before you. I don't think Roger should even pick up the DVD case to read the liner notes, but if you can watch it I think you will get a great deal of enjoyment out of this ground-breaking film.

Not so the case with our second movie, "The Devil's Rejects". This film continues the story of Driftwood and the Firefly clan and was a major disappointment for me after the quality of the first film. The violence was of the storefront variety, with no real cleverness or imagination like the violence in the first film. Let's give it a disappointing Yak Factor of 6. Although this movie is arguably better written than the first, with a vastly superior plot, as a slasher film -- which was I was expecting and wanting to see -- it was a decided bust.

The movie picks up shortly after the first. The county sherriff -- whose cousin was killed while investigating the Fireflys in the first movie -- has ordered an all out attack on the Firefly homestead. Otis and Baby escape in the ensuing carnage and Mother Firefly (now played by Leslie Easterbrook, replacing Karen Black) is arrested. Baby calls Captain Spaulding to warn him that the jig is up and tells him to meet up with them and decide their next move. The movie now takes off on three tracks: Captain Spaulding's efforts to reach the two killers on the lam, the sherriff's ongoing attempts to track them all down, and Baby and Otis holed up in a motel room with four terrified travelers (a segment which, by my standards, went on far too long without an acceptable outcome). The killers aren't overly concerned with the pursuit -- they've dealt with police before. Too bad the cop chasing them is every bit as demented and psychotic as they are.

Don't get me wrong -- this is not a bad movie, it is simply a disappointing one. What this movie did have going for it was much more background about the demented serial-killing family of the Fireflys and Otis. It was this background material which saved this movie from being a complete bomb, in much the same way that the background material in "Saw IV" made it a much more enjoyable film for me than it was for most. So, if you're interested in learning more about this demented family of killers, by all means check out "The Devil's Rejects". If you are looking for the gore and craftsmanship that made "House" such a slasher-fan treat to watch, then "The Devil's Rejects" should be...well...rejected.

Next week on Reel Discoveries, the Spooktacular continues with another double-feature: my pick of the best Roger Corman adaptations of Edgar Allen Poe tales. One of them is a well-known classic, the other is a rarely-seen superior film. But for now, I'll turn it back over to TMOA's resident zombies -- they're always sucking their guests' brains dry -- Ken and Roger. Guys?

[thebiz]

Missed this when you posted it. Never would have figured you a slasher fan RPO (Saw 4 huh..haha). I thought House 1000 was more B-movie grindhouse wannabe than art house, most notably because of the terrible acting and the "I'm Extreme!!! Snap into a SlimJim!!!" cinematography.

Missed Devils Rejects but had the misfortune of seeing Rob's Halloween. Yikes...and yuck. I guess Im just not a Rob Zombie fan. The post did get me thinking of similar serial killer meets chainsaw massacre type flicks such as Henry:Portrait of a Serial Killer (wonder if Rob's Otis was inspired by this one), American Phsyco or High Tension. Looking forward to the rest of the Halloween series.

One last note..creepiest clown for me was Mark Holton (Teen Wolf's Chubbs or PeeWee's Francis) playing the part of John Wayne Gacy in "Gacy"...super creepy and more than a little bit wrong.

[rposhard]

Won't argue on that choice. I'm also partial to Tim Curry's clown in "It" -- even when he was acting nice there was something just "off" about him. Too bad the rest of the minseries sucked major donkey....uhhh...kongs.

[rposhard]

CORMAN & POE

When it comes to horror fiction, few names are more universally recognized than Edgar Allan Poe. When it comes to cheesy horror films, few names are more universally recognized than Roger Corman. It seems inevitable, then, that these two masters would collide to create some memorable -- and some decidedly unmemorable -- films. The Corman-Poe films were uneven in their quality and rarely followed the original plots of the stories, but there are two that are so outstanding in what they achieved as films that I feel they are worth an examination.

The first is considered by many to be a classic, some would even venture to say the best of the Corman-Poe films -- they're wrong, but we'll get to that later. The film is "The Pit and the Pendulum", and I certainly won't argue that it is one of the better Poe films. Vincent Price turns in a fine performance as a man who is slowly tipped over the brink of insanity. Although the film bears very little resemblance to the original story (there is a pit, and a pendulum -- and something about the Inquisition), it creates a mood that has rarely been equalled in Corman's other films.

Price plays Nicolas Medino, son of Inquisition torturer Sebastian Medino. As a child, Nic watched as Sebastian killed his wife and her lover. Now, Nic's own wife Elizabeth (Barbara Steele) has died mysteriously and her brother Francis (John Kerr) has shown up to ask questions. Nicolas fears his wife may have been buried prematurely, and they finally investigate her tomb only to find his fears are correct. It's all part of a diabolical plot to drive Nicolas insane -- his wife is alive and in love with the doctor who pronounced her "dead". The plot works too well, however -- Nicolas suddenly believes himself to be Sebastian and starts gleefully torturing everyone he can get his hands on.

It is understandable that the orginal Poe story was adapted in this way, since the story itself has little in the way of plot or action. The screenplay borrows ideas from other Poe stories freely to create something that retains the atmosphere of his stories. This film also contains the most striking images of any of Corman's Poe adaptations: The crazed eyes of Barbara Steele at the end of the film as she is inadvertantly left behind (locked up and gagged in an iron maiden) actually gave me nightmares as a child. Nic's descent into madness is played with an overzealous intensity that only Vincent Price could get away with -- and his striking blue eyes seem to sear into our brains at times. And, of course, there is the pendulum scene, with the giant axe swinging back and forth as it slowly descends on the helpless John Kerr -- it is without argument the most famous sequence of any of Corman's films.

The second film in today's double feature is the rarely seen Corman masterpiece -- and I am not using that word lightly here -- "The Masque of the Red Death". This is by far the greatest of all of Corman's Poe movies -- there were eight, by the way, and we'll be looking at the worst of them next week. This film has the strongest script (co-written by frequent "Twilight Zone" contributor Charles Beaumont), taking its narrative from two of Poe's works -- the original story of the same title and an obscure (unless you are familiar with all of Poe's works) little tale of horrific revenge entitled "Hop-Frog". Filmed in England, Corman was allowed to use the sets from the recently completed "Beckett", making this one of his most oppulent productions in terms of its visual aspect.

The story primarily concerns itself with the character of Prince Prospero (Vincent Price in one of his finest performances), a satanist who rules a mythic European country caught in the throes of a deadly plague called the Red Death. He invites a number of his closest disease-free friends and courtiers into his castle which he then seals off to lock out the plague, ordering his guards to kill anyone who approaches the castle gates. He and his friends party wildly, abusing the servants and entertainers (it is in this portioin that the subplot of "Hop-Frog" -- named Hop Toad in this version -- is played out). The debauchery reaches its wild crescendo at a masked ball, where a strange costumed man makes his appearance. Prospero unmasks the man to find himself staring into his own face covered in blood. It is the Red Death in human form, and all of the revelers are doomed.

It is difficult to describe in words the effect of this film. At five weeks, it constitutes one of Corman's longest and most elaborate shooting schedules -- and the extra care taken in shooting this film really shows. The performances are top-notch, the cinematography some of the best of any of his films, and the attention to detail almost painstaking. For those of you who know Corman only as an upscale Ed Wood, I point to this film (and "Pendulum") as shining eamples of just how good of a filmmaker Corman truly was. It's hard to find, but I do reccommend this film as being worth the effort. Though some of Corman's Poe films might have the author writhing in his grave, this is one that I think even Poe himself would have admired.

Next week on Reel Discoveries: We go from the sublime to the ridiculous. It's the lighter side of Vincent Price as we look at two of his comedies, including -- as I promised -- the worst of Corman's Poe adaptations. That's next week on Reel Discoveries, but for now I'll turn things over to a couple of gents who have never gone from the sublime to the ridiculous -- they don't even know what sublime means -- Ken and Roger. Guys?

[rposhard]

HORRIFFIC COMEDIES

Continuing in our Hollywood Halloween Spooktacular Double Feature Fright Fest, we come to a couple of films that might not be as horriffic as the earlier films in this series. These are films in which Vincent Price and a company of famous ghoulish stars got to show their lighter side. They are campy, they are silly, and -- depending on how you wish to look at them -- they are either quite funny or a waste of time.

First is a film I mentioned last week as my pick for the worst Roger Corman/Edgar Allan Poe film -- although after looking again at "Tomb of Ligeia" I will bow to Ken's outrage last week and rescind that opinion. The movie in questoin is called "The Raven", and part of my dislike for this film is that it is billed as "Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven". Check out the movie poster on Wikkipedia if you don't believe me -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Raven_poster.jpg -- in fact, Edgar Allan Poe is listed as a co-writer for the film! Astonishingly enough, with all of this use of Poe's name, the movie bears almost no resemblance to the original work (other than a raven, a woman named Lenore, and overuse of the word "Nevermore"). The only worse travesty of the use of Poe's name on a film was "The Haunted Palace" -- which was based on a story by H.P. Lovecraft! (In all fairness to Corman, I should point out it was the studio that insisted on putting an Edgar Allan Poe title on that film.)

Now I know what you're going to say -- didn't I say almost the exact same thing last week about "Pit and the Pendulum" and then go on to sing its praises? Fair enough, I'll cop to that -- because "Pit" was a great film. "The Raven" is not. Oh, it has its moments -- after all, it was an intentional comedy as opposed to some of the unintentional horror comedies of the Fifties. Unfortunately, many scenes in "The Raven" seem overlong and unamusing, and are basically carried by the actors doing extensive mugging of their roles.

Vincenet Price plays Dr. Erasmus Craven, a sorceror who has turned his back on the world after the death of his wife until one night when a talking raven flies into his study. It turns out the raven is actually another sorceror, Dr. Bedloe (played by Peter Lorre), who was enchanted by a third sorceror, the evil Dr. Scarabus (played by Boris Karloff). After undoing the spell and making Bedloe human again, Craven reluctantly joins him to return to Scarabus' castle after hearing that Craven's wife Lenore is alive and being held there. They are joined on this quest by Bedloe's son (Jack Nicholson -- yes, the Jack Nicholson) and Craven's daughter. Once there, they are all taken prisoner by Scarabus -- who eventually challenges Craven to an overly long and unclimactic sorceror's duel.

It seems odd to be using the term "overly long" in a discussion of this movie. [Corman completed the principal filming in under a week (and it shows), then used the extra time to shoot scenes with Nicholson and Karloff for what would eventually become what many consider to be one of Corman's best films, "The Terror".] The acting is some of the worst in any Poe film, and the plot becomes so convoluted that at times I found it difficult to follow. Top this off with the corniest of jokes:
Estelle Craven: What are you doing?
Rexford Bedlo: This ledge leads to your father's room.
Estelle Craven: But you might be killed!
Rexford Bedlo: I hope not!
and what you have is a film suitable for the kiddies, but lacking in much of interest to adults.
Not so, the second film in this double feature. The Triumvirate of Terror -- as Price, Lorre and Karloff were sometimes billed -- return, this fime joined by Basil Rathbone for a madcap romp of murder and mayhem in the name of business: the funeral business, that is. Directed by Jacques Tourneur and written by Richard Matheson (who co-wrote "The Raven" with Edgar Allan Poe), the film is called "The Comedy of Terrors".
And comedy it is. This script is so full of wit, charm and slapstick hilarity that it is difficult to believe it was written by the same man who wrote "The Raven" -- that darn Poe must have been holding him back. I mean, making Peter Lorre the romantic character? Genius, I say! There are a great many moments in this flm that parody traditional horror film cliches. One of the better examples of this occurs near the beginning of the movie, when a pair of grave robbers dig up a grave, open the coffin, dump the body back in the grave and steal the coffin. It turns out to be undertakers reclaiming their property -- after all, good coffins don't grow on trees!
The aforementioned undertakers are Waldo Trumball (Vincent Price) and his assistant Felix (Peter Lorre), a couple of bumblers who have mismanaged their business to the point that evil landlord John F. Black Esq. (Basil Rathbone) is threatening to foreclose on the mortgage. Waldo and Felix keep money coming in by re-using their one good coffin for every funeral and by killing various townfolk to improve business. Waldo would prefer to get the money by poisoning his father-in-law (and owner of the funeral parlor) Amos Hinchley (Boris Karloff, who at one point delivers the funniest eulogy ever written). Waldo's wife won't hear of it, though, and spends her time foiling Waldo's attempts while secretly succumbing to Felix's charms. Waldo then decides to improve his lot by murdering John F. Black Esq. -- only to discover that Black has the most annoyng habit of not staying dead!
This is a movie that I highly recommend. Both of today's movies are available on one DVD from the MGM Midnight Movies series. If you can find a copy, then you can compare them and see what you think. I know one certain radio host who is just waiting for me to get to today's punchline so he can go to town on me, so stay tuned.
Next week on Reel Discoveries -- My Hollywood Halloween Spooktacular comes to an end with a film that is one of my favorites year after year. No double feature next week -- this movie stands alone. What do you get when you combine a sex symbol, debonair ghouls, imbecilic heroes and an internationally renowned director? Possibly the funniest horror movie ever made, and you'll find out which one it is next week on Reel Discoveries. But for now, I'll turn things over to a couple of ghouls who could probably get you a good Price for a Lorre -- yes, you're right, we were really reaching for a punchiline this week -- Ken and Roger. Guys?

[rposhard]

THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS

This week, I wrap up my Hollywood Halloween Spooktacular with my personal all time favorite horror-comedy. Deep in the darkest heart of Transylvania, two valiant men arrive at a small inn. They are believers, and they are prepared to do battle for the future of all mankind against the evil festering at the nearby castle. No wolves, no hideous creatures, not even beautiful women in bathtubs are enough to stop THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS!

Released in Europe as "Dance of the Vampires", this horror-comedy was co-written and directed by Roman Polanski -- best known for such atmospheric dramas as "Repulsion", "Chinatown" and "The Pianist". At first it is difficult to imagine Polanski directing anything so slight as a tale of two bumbling scholars doing battle against a castle full of ghouls, yet this movie is so loaded with atmosphere and vibrant life that it is hard to imagine how perfectly awful it might have been without Polanski's deft touch. He and cinematographer Douglas Slocombe (who ran the cameras for the first Indiana Jones film) take the traditional horror setting and make it into an almost fairy tale setting. Add some strong performances and what you have is a true classic and the best of its genre.

Jack MacGowran plays Professor Abronsius, an aged man on a mission to find proof of vampires -- a mission which has earned him the nickname of "The Nut" amongst his peers. With the aid of his assistant and only disciple Alfred (played by Polanski himself), he arrives at an inn in Transylvania where things are not quite as they seem. The Jewish innkeeper Shagal (played by character actor great Alfie Bass) is leching after serving girl Magda (Fiona Lewis) and constantly scolding his daughter Sarah(Sharon Tate, who spends most of the movie in bathtubs). After Sarah is abducted by vampire Count von Krolock (Ferdy Mayne), the two intrepid heroes make their way to the count's castle to do battle with the horde of vampires staying there.

This film is full of marvellous invention, with comedy ranging from witty dialogue and sly satire to broad farce and out-and-out slapstick. Polanski puts on an impressive performance as the cowardly Alfred, MacGowran is fully believable as the slightly cuckoo Abronsius, and Tate is the best eye candy of any horror film I've seen. Add to this the originality of having Alfred square off with the Count's son Herbert (moviedom's first openly gay vampire) and a climactic ballroom scene that must be seen to be believed, and what you have is the funniest horror-comedy ever made.

Okay, I hear you nay-sayers out there saying "Hey! What about "Young Frankenstein", a movie so funny and wildly popular it's being turned into a Broadway musical?" It's debatable and doubtless up to individual taste, but I submit that "Killers" is the better film. My personal experience has been that people who think the Mel Brooks classic is the best have never seen Polanski's film. I turned a good friend of mine onto this film recently and he has changed his opinion. Can I change yours? Here is a link to the film -- Fearless Vampire Killers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7v6Dct6xu0&feature=PlayList&p=8C6C7E758B8DAC73&index=0&playnext=1) -- and see for yourself why this film is for me an annual Halloween event. Although the main notoriety of this film is that it introduced Polanski to Sharon Tate -- who became the love of his life and was later cruelly murdered by the Manson Family in what is one of the most famous home invasions in history -- "Fearless Vampire Killers" stands as an outstanding comedy despite the later tragedy.

I'm sure Ken is wondering why I have not mentioned the sub-title to this film. It is because Polanski hated it. In fact, he hated the title "The Fearless Vampire Killers" and when MGM changed the title from "Dance of the Vampires" to (here goes) "The Fearless Vampire Killers or: Pardon Me, But Your Teeth Are In My Neck" and edited 20 minutes out of the film, Polanski actually demanded (unsuccessfully) to have his name removed from the film in American release. The American release also included a silly three minute cartoon sequence before the opening credits, which is thankfully not included in the vesion I linked you to above. Cameo alert! Look for Ronald Lacey (the sinister torturing Major Toth in "Raiders of the Lost Ark") in a brief scene as the Village Idiot.

Next week on Reel Discoveries: The countdown to the release of the new Bond film "Quantum of Solace" is on, and I will do my own countdown of sorts as I rank all of the Bond films from worst to best. I'm sure some of my choices will lead to vigorous debate, as I maintain that not all Moore films were disastrous and not all Connery films were good. That controversy will air next week, here on Reel Discoveries. But for now, I'll turn things back over to TMOA's own vesion of vampires -- these two really suck (sorry -- couldn't resist the obvious cheap shot) -- Ken and Roger. Guys?

[rposhard]

BOND MOVIE COUNTDOWN (PART 1)

With the American release of the new Bond film "Quantum of Solace" only days away -- you lucky Brits got it for Halloween -- I thought it would be fun (if not somewhat controversial) to count down the list of previous Bond films from worst to best. Please understand that this is my list. Everyone likes different Bond movies for different things -- there is no right or wrong. I have a feeling, however, that a certain radio host will be taking me to task before I reach the halfway point. Due to the length of this review, I am splitting it into two parts, and will not reveal how the Top Ten are ranked until next week's show.

Coming in last place is by far the most universally reviled Bond film in history. It is so Gawd-awfully bad that I refuse to say it ranks 22nd on the list -- that might imply there is room for another one to be worse -- it is eternally doomed to be known only as "Last Place". Come on, you all know which movie I mean, say it with me: MOONRAKER. (Or as I like to call it: "The Adventures of Yeoman Bond".) I have often discussed the pros and cons of Bond films with my friends and colleagues, and in the almost 30 years since this film was released not once has anyone I've met said, "Oh! I kind of liked that one." I won't even go into the inanities of its plot, if you've never seen it then trust me you don't want to know. I will however give an example of how ludicrous this film was in case any of you out there missed it. At the climax of this film, Bond super-henchman Jaws (played by Richard Kiel) falls off of a space station. You heard me -- a space station. No spacesuit, no oxygen. He falls to Earth (without burning up as he re-enters the atmosphere) and lands on the side of a mountain where he meets (oh! did I mention he survives all that? he must have landed on his metal teeth) a female goat-herder with braces on her teeth and falls in love at first sight. I really have only one word for this movie: "YAAAAAGGGGGHHHHHHH!"

In 21st place, we have a movie that is almost as bad as "Moonraker" -- but for an entirely different reason. I am referring to the last of the Roger Moore outings, A VIEW TO A KILL. This movie is nothing more than a cheap and tired retread of "Goldfinger", only instead of gold the Bond baddie in this film wants to destroy Silicon Valley in an earthquake, thus increasing the value of his computer microchips. Bottom line: Christopher Walken is no Gert Frobe, Gracie Slick is no Honore Blackman, and (since Gracie also served as henchman on this film) she isn't even a Harold Sakata. "A View to a Kill" was a complete waste of my time, my money, and my intelligence.

Speaking of wastes of money, I have only fallen asleep in a movie theatre three times in my life. Once was when my grandson dragged me to see "Thomas and the Magic Railroad". Once was when my wife dragged me to see "Living Out Loud". Once was when I went to see the film that ranks 20th on this list, OCTOPUSSY. A few of my friends told me it was really good, so I watched it again on TV a couple of years later -- only to discover that I had enjoyed the movie better when I was asleep. This mishmash of Faberge Eggs and bad guys being good guys being bad guys being good guys....Sorry, I don't want to scream. I try to save all of my screaming for "Moonraker" -- but this movie made no sense. Add to that the fact that Roger Moore was 58 years old and simply incapable of doing any of the stunts. I walked away from this film sadly mourning the fact that the Bond Franchise was finally dead -- whereupon they promptly tried to prove me wrong by releasing "A View to a Kill".

Coming in at number 19 on my list is a veritable circus freak sideshow of a movie -- THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. See the very limber contortionist assassin girls! See Herve Villechaize without a plane to watch for! See Christopher Lee as the amazing three-nippled Scaramanga! See the funhouse of death! See the unwelcome return of Sheriff J.W. Pepper! Better yet, don't. In spite of Christopher Lee's performance as the best villain in the Roger Moore years, this movie fails miserably to be worth the time or the effort to watch. My my my! The four worst movies all starred Roger Moore! Is anybody detecting a pattern yet?

Well, patterns were never my style. We come to number 18 on the list and move on to a different Bond -- Timothy Dalton in his second film as the gentleman agent, LICENCE TO KILL. While this is not necessarily a bad movie, it is a fairly pointless one in which Bond resigns from MI6 to pursue members of a drug cartel who very nearly killed CIA agent Felix Leiter (Bond's friend going back to the beginning of the series). The film is mediocre at best, perhaps because of the mediocrity of Dalton's performance as Bond. The producers of the series said they wanted to go "realistic" in this one -- apparently, by realistic they meant "boring".

Of course, no true Bond fan would apply the word boring to a Sean Connery Bond film. But at 17th place, can we say "lackluster" instead? In 1983, Connery reluctantly took up the mantle once again in a "Thunderball" remake called NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN. This was not an official Bond film, but an attempt to undermine the series by proving once and for all that Connery was the only true Bond. The movie did not win over the box office, even though the official Bond film it competed with was (snore) "Octopussy". Perhaps Connery should have always said never again.

This brings us to the first Pierce Brosnan film on the countdown: coming in at number 16, it's TOMORROW NEVER DIES. Much as I dearly enjoy Jonathan Pryce's acting like a meglomaniac, this film never really took off for me. Perhaps it was because the movie lacked the action and twists of Brosnan's first outing as Bond. Perhaps it was because I just couldn't buy Terri Hatcher as a Bond girl. Perhaps it was because I couldn't get into the storyline because...well, frankly, perhaps it was because I just didn't care about the head of a cable news service trying to start World War III just so he could garner ratings. I mean, come on -- that's a Roger Moore plot if ever I saw one.

And speaking of Roger Moore, he's back on the list at number 15 with LIVE AND LET DIE. Not his best Bond film, this first outing put Bond back in Jamaica, this time without Quarrel at his side (Quarrel was in the novel, which was written before Dr. No -- in the movie he gets Quarrel Jr.) and it is certainly far from Moore's worst. In fact, it actually comes off as more of a blaxploitation film than anything else, only with a white guy playing Dolemite. (For those of you out there for whom the '70s are either ancient history or an unremembered blur, blaxploitation was an actual genre at the time. It featured black actors in movies that usually involved drug trafficking of some sort. For action, I recommend any of the Dolemite films. For comedy, you can't do much better than the hard to find but worth the effort "Cotton Comes to Harlem".) OK , enough film history, back to Bond.

Coming in at number 14 is DIE ANOTHER DAY, Pierce Brosnan's last outing as Bond. Despite having some very impressive action scenes and an even more impressive Bond girl (Halle Berry), this movie still misses the mark by once again over-complicating its plot and relying on gadgets and special effects instead of story. While still enjoyabe on a purely entertainment level, it lacks the sophistication and attention to plot of most of the films that made my Top Ten.

There does seem to be a certain pattern of badness to any actor's last outing as Bond. Take my pick for 13th place, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Though it turned out not to be Connery's last outing as Bond, it was meant to be his last and the film-makers seemed to feel it was necessary to camp the movie up -- perhaps in preparation for the Roger Moore years. Still, as bad last outings go this one was still pretty good in that it offered a great deal for us to enjoy: the end of the Blofeld storyline (and the third actor to play him -- Charles Gray), Jill St. John as a Bond girl worth drooling over, and two gay assassins who help to give the movie's campiness a little bit of style.

[rposhard]

--CONT'D. --



At number 12 is Timothy Dalton's first outing as Bond, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Perhaps I have a tendency to rank this movie a little higher than it deserves, but after 12 years of Roger Moore tomfoolery this movie seemed like a breath of fresh air. In addition, the story seemed to have a little more human interest than most as Bond stops himself from invoking his license to kill and spares the life of an apparent sniper who turns out to be a female cellist who has no idea that she's in the middle of a Bond film. Though the movie bogs down into a drug and weapons smuggling story, the climactic fight scene on a net load of cargo trailing out the back of a plane makes up for it nicely. Trivia note: This was the last Bond film to use an Ian Fleming title until "Casino Royale" two years ago.

Coming in at number 11 is a movie that only recently got bumped from the Top Ten, and it's a choice that I am probably not going to hear the end of in terms of peole complaining that I must be insane: DR. NO. This very first Bond film is considered by many to be an icon, but if you really look at it you begin to see some of its weaknesses. For one thing, the plot moves very slowly. It's a good plot, and I am certainly not going to complain about the lack of gadgets since I have often maintained that the biggest mistake the franchise ever made was substituting gadgets for plot. That said, they took about a half hour too long to tell the story. Jack Lord is wasted, basically given nothing to do as Felix Leiter. And though the first time Connery utters the words "Bond. James Bond." still sends a shiver down my spine, it's still not quite enough. Nevertheless, I'll always tune in to see original Bond girl Ursula Andress in that amazing bikini. That alone shaped my boyhood fantasies for years to come.

My God -- I've reached the Top Ten and I still haven't mentioned George Lazenby. You'll find out just how high up the scale I've ranked his solo effort next week on Reel Discoveries when I present Part 2 of this countdown -- The James Bond Top Ten. But for now I'll send you back to the only TMOA program that also comes in two parts: Roger talking, and everything else. It is, of course, The Ken and Roger Show. Guys?

[EthanRunt]

Wow, I am saddened to see Tomorrow Never Dies so low, especially in comparison to the ridiculous Die Another Day.

Still, will be interesting to see where Goldfinger gets :p

[thebiz]

Rating Bond is like rating comedy, subjective and difficult. The cardinal sin of a Bond Movie imo is boredom and you are dead on about License to Kill which was a snoozefest (but so was Diamonds are Forever). However, I liked the camp of Roger Moore much more than the Brosnan/Dalton flicks. I always thought The Man with the Golden Gun was silly and fun and I loved "Live and Let Die" (Looks like its gunna be a BEEutiful day..hehe). Hey, I also enjoyed the creepy romance between a strangely sexy Gracie and a always strange Walken in View to a Kill (plus a pretty solid theme song and that blimp scene on the Golden Gate Bridge is a keeper).

Eh, so it goes. Bring on the top 10.

[Norrie]

As I said in the chat last night: go read the books.

I liked License to kill.

Interesting side note: it was originally called License revoked, but test audiences proved that no one knew what revoked meant. *sigh*

[thebiz]

As I said in the chat last night: go read the books.


As a youngin I enjoyed many a sleepover at friends houses where the parents would satiate us every other weekend with 3 or 4 vhs copies of Bond movies in a single sitting. No doubt the Flemming stories are great but for me Bond is a character created for 12 year old boys to watch on television while snickering about the scantilly clad gals with funny names and wishing we had cool gadgets.

The new guy is quite studly though and I hear more akin to the tone of the original stories.

[Norrie]

Fleming was fun for a different age.
For instance: he maintained homosexuals could not whistle!

I don't know if that was a personal experience, but you have to laugh.

[rposhard]

As I said in the chat last night: go read the books.

I liked License to kill.

Interesting side note: it was originally called License revoked, but test audiences proved that no one knew what revoked meant. *sigh*

I couldn't agree with you more on the subject of the books. I will address that a bit more in the top ten but I have read all of the novels and most of the short stories and with one or two notable exceptions they were all better than the films because they didn't have gadgets. Bond was created as a character who gets by with his wits more than his weapons. After the first 3 or 4 the filmmakers completely lost sight of the character.

[rposhard]

BOND MOVIE COUNTDOWN -- THE TOP 10

Last week I incurred the wrath of Ken when I placed "Dr. No" at number 11, implying that there were (gasp!) better Bond films than St. Sean's premier effort. The simple fact is this: there are. Bond's very first outing was marred by the fact that the filmmakers weren't sure about where to go with the character. It took a few movies for the franchise to hit its stride and take off blindly in the wrong direction. I think Ken's main problem is that there are still some Roger Moore films left on the list.

Take, for example, the movie in 10th place -- FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. After the disaster that was "Moonraker" it seems like cooler heads prevailed and we were treated to a very tight little well-made film. Admittedly, the opening sequence was just awful, with Blofeld (who we all saw die at Bond's hands in "Diamonds Are Forever") menacing Bond in a remote-controlled helicopter and eventually being dropped down an industrial smokestack. Pure silliness. Fortunately, the movie improved drastically from that point into a labyrinthine tale of smuggling and missing top secret machinery which was a joy to watch. And the movie had Topol! Who doesn't like Topol?

Pierce Brosnan got to 9th place with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Though not the best of his films, I liked this one because it finally gets M (played by Dame Judi Dench) out from behind a desk and into the field -- where she shows she still has what it takes to get the job done. Those scenes near the end are some of the best fun I've had watching a Bond flick, and I commend the filmmakers for finally giving the head of MI6 a chance to shine.

Now for another Connery film that -- while still fairly good -- ran on for just a bit too long. Coming in at number 8 is THUNDERBALL. This is the movie where they started to write in scenes just to show off gadgets and technology. Yes, the jet pack is very cool, but served no purpose in the movie except to show it off. (Hmmm -- there's a jet pack in my new movie -- maybe I should lay off a little bit.) Granted the last hour of the movie was pretty good and featured some excellent underwater battles and an exciting out of control boat climax. But let's be honest here -- the first hour of this film drags on so interminably that I walked out of it feeling like I had watched a three hour movie. It is interesting to note that the original novel of Thunderball was based on a failed James Bond screenplay that was co-written by Fleming, Jack Whittington and Kevin McClory (who went on to produce "Never Say Never Again"). So it should come as no wonder that neither of the movies based on it were entirely brilliant.

At this point, Roger Moore reaches his highest ranking at number 7 with what is considered by many to be the best of his Bond films, THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. It's Bond meets detente as he joins forces with a beautiful Russian spy (played by the always luscious Barbara Bach -- 'nuff said) to stop a meglomaniac from taking over the world. This film features the first apperarance of Richard Kiel as Jaws -- not the buffoon he played in "Moonraker" but as a truly vicious cold-hearted killer whom Bond finds almost impossible to defeat. The metamorphosis his character undergoes in the two films is as tragic as Dr. Smith on the TV series "Lost in Space". (Watch the first six episodes of the first season and you will see a truly evil conniving bastard who will stop at nothing, including attempted murder, to get what he wants -- not the clown he became in later seasons.) This film also features what is arguably the best song ever written for a Bond film, "Nobody Does It Better" performed by legend Carly Simon. The move itself is an almost non-stop roller coaster ride of thrills, chases and fights. Okay, the whole Atlantis rising out of the ocean thing is pretty hokey, but given the quality of the rest of the film it's a forgivable hokeyness. Incidentally, this is the first Bond film to bear absolutely no resemblance to the book upon which it is based. This was deliberate, as Fleming only gave them permission to use the title and specified that they not use any of his plot elements. (For those of you who have never read the book, it is primarily a love story told from the woman's point of view.)

Speaking of love stories, number 6 brings us the only time Bond really fell in love and maried (the wedding in "You Only Live Twice" was a fake) -- ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE starring the one-shot Bond (or the gay Bond as some of my friends insist on calling him) George Lazenby. This movie is actually one of the better Bond films in terms of following the events in the book fairly closely, but is usually disregarded by fans who feel that Lazenby was a failure as Bond. Also, those who waited for it to show on network TV got a cut up re-edited vesion that was next to impossible to follow. This is actually one of the best Bond films in terms of its story, and trust me Lazenby was perfectly acceptable as Bond. For me, the film casting breaks down with the casting of Telly Savalas as Blofeld. It's like the casting people said "Pleasance doesn't want to play the part again! Quick! Who's another bald actor?" While I respect Savalas as an actor, he was utterly wrong for the role and the film suffers enormously because of it.

The film that preceded Lazenby's solo outing was the first of Connery's "last" Bond films (he decided not to return to the role until the producers threw a shitpot full of money at him after the lukewarm reception of "Secret Service") -- in 5th place is YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, or Bond goes Japanese. The film features the rather unlikely scenario of manned spacecraft disappearing in orbit -- but it also introduced to American audiences the concept of the ninja. I can remember my brother deciding to become a ninja and going to karate classes after seeing this movie. This film also revealed the face of Bond's most famous and deadliest enemy, the mysterious Number One of SPECTRE -- Ernst Stavros Blofeld. The man Bond would spend the next two movies tracking down, the man who murders Bond's wife, this appearance of Blofeld (as played by Donald Pleasance) was the one that inspired the character of Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies -- right down to the nehru suit. That bit of 60s kitsch aside, this film was the one that probably helped the franchise survive the 70s -- we all hoped and prayed the filmmakers would get back to the basics and stop making it up as they went along.

Pierce Brosnan's first outing makes number 4 on my list: GOLDENEYE. After seeing this film, I heaved a sigh of relief and proclaimed "Bond is back!" I was wrong, but that's beside the point. The point is this was the best of Brosnan's films and the best Bond film period since the 60s -- or it was until very recently. One of the elements that added a lot to this film was Sean Bean as Agent 006, Bond's partner who was killed years before in a botched assignment that left Bond feeling responsible for his friend's death. As it turned out, the assignment was deliberately botched by 006 so he could defect, his fake death insuring that MI6 would not go nosing about looking for him. Years later, Bond finds himself a relic of a cold war that no longer exists. After the theft of a Russian satellite that turns out to be the controller of a Cold War superweapon, Bond finds himself facing his old enemies again -- as well as his old best friend. "Goldeneye" had that added layer of Bond facing someone who can predict his every move -- almost -- and it is that layer that catapults this othewise average outing near the top of the list.

Third place brings us the newest Bond, Daniel Craig in CASINO ROYALE. This was the story that introduced Bond to the world, and this is the movie that re-invents Bond for the new millennium. This film is not a continuation of the 40 year series, but rather a reboot of the Bond mythos. Gone is the emphasis on gadgets. Back is the emphasis on skill and wit to survive any situation thrown at him. What we have here is a return to the character of Bond, and I for one could not be more pleased. I know a great many people are disappointed by this turn of events, but if you have read the Bond books as I have then you have to realize that this is a turn in the right direction. This is an edgier Bond, one who is human, one who does not believe he always has the right answer to a situation but plows on anyway because -- well, because it's his job, damnit. This is a Bond who makes mistakes and -- unlike earlier Bonds -- must then learn to live with the consequences of those mistakes; and is that, dear friends and listeners, that will result in Craig becoming the greatest Bond ever -- unless the filmmakers chicken out and revert to churning out the same old crap.

[rposhard]

CONT'D.

Two spots left, two movies. Coming in second place: FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. Before all the gadgets, before all the massive sets, before Bond became something of a superhero -- came this comparatively modest story about an attempt to assassinate Bond, and the Russian cryptologist who is the bait in the trap only to fall in love with the man she is setting up to kill. In terms of the complexity of its plot, this is undoubtably the best-written Bond film, following the book almost to the letter. This is Bond the way Fleming created him, and I tip my hat to the filmmakers for getting it right for once. The cast is outstanding, with Robert Shaw as assassin Red Grant and the amazing Lotte Lenya as plot mastermind Rosa Klebb. But it is Connery's performance as Bond that makes this movie one of the great classic spy films of all time (it was Connery's favorite outing as Bond). Current series co-producer Michael G. Wilson was once quoted as saying, "We always start out trying to make another 'From Russia With Love' and end up with another 'Thunderball'." Before I get bombarded with with complaints -- yes, the attache case was a "gadget" of sorts. (I remember my best friend getting one for Christmas that year and thinking it was tres cool.) That notwithstanding, my point is if you read any of the original Bond books by Ian Fleming (and you should -- they are all extremely well-written), this is the Bond you are going to find: cool, suave, able to think on his feet and somewhat ruthless when it comes to disposing of his enemies. This is classic Bond as Fleming would want him to be remembered for all time.

So why isn't it number one? In a nutshell: the best Bond villain, the best Bond henchman, the best Bond girl, the best Bond -- how could I rank GOLDFINGER anywhere but first place? Auric Goldfinger forever epitomized the Bond villain in the famous laser scene.

GOLDFINGER: Choose your next witticism carefully, Mr. Bond, it may be your last.
BOND: Do you expect me to talk?
GOLDFINGER: No, Mr. Bond! I expect you to die!

Who can forget the climactic fight between Bond and Oddjob? Trapped with an atomic bomb about to blow, and all Oddjob cares about is whupping Bond's butt one last time. As Bond pauses to catch his breath, Oddjob smiles and waits before giving him a "come hither" gesture. And, of course, this movie has the greatest Bond one-liner of all time:

BOND: Who are you?
PUSSY: I'm Pussy Galore.
BOND: I must be dreaming.

So there you have it -- my rankings for the greatest and longest-lasting movie series of all time. Next week on Reel Discoveries: The Christmas movie blockbuster season has begun and -- appropriately enough -- the first big release is the newest entry into the Bond franchise. (You all probably knew I was leading up to this.) Advance hype called ir the best Bond yet, but critics have been less than kind since its release. You'll find out my opinion of it -- and where it lands on my list (HINT: it's better than "Moonraker") -- next week on Reel Discoveries. But for now, I'll turn things back over to two distinguished gentleman agents who would like nothing better than to work for the real MI6 -- if only they could count that high -- Ken and Roger. Guys?

[Mustachio26]

Couldn't agree with your list more, especially the top 3. I was wholeheartedly impressed with Casino Royale and am hoping for the same with Quantum of Solace. Can't wait to see what you thought of it.

[kuroken]

Yeah, as I said on the air, can't really complain - would have put Dr. No a couple of clicks higher, but clearly they were still searching for their footing with the Bond character.

And though From Russia With Love has always been my fave Bond, with just the right balance of suave and ruthless, I do admit that Goldfinger had better villains - or if not better, certainly more flamboyant.

Of course, it did not have Lotte Lenya with a poisoned needle in her shoe, which in the book, actually connected.....

[Howitzer]

Bond has never appealed to me, but given your reviews I may make an exception or two and give a chance to your top couple of flicks there :P

[BiggsTrek]

For me, 'From Russia With Love' is the best of the Bond films. But the new 'Casino Royale' was just a long, drawn out card game... *yawn*.

[rposhard]

QUANTUM OF SOLACE

When last we met in mid-November, I had counted down the Bond films from worst to best and promised you a review of the new Bond film Quantum Of Solace the following week. As most of you are aware, my life took an extreme left turn the following week when my wife had some rather sudden open heart surgery. However, here I am once again ready to pick up where I left off with my look at the very latest Bond flick to cross our paths.

Quantum Of Solace impressed me primarily with its direct story-telling. No subterfuge or side plots to distract Bond from one thing -- tracking down a syndicate known only as "Quantum" and punishing those responsible for the death of Vesper Lynd at the end of Casino Royale. There is an efficiency of plot here that -- among other things -- makes this film the shortest Bond film in the history of the franchise. (The previous record-holder was Goldfinger, which was four minutes longer -- but also didn't have that insufferably long credit crawl at the end.) The result? I know of people who complained that this film was difficult to follow. Difficult? Sorry about that -- I guess those damn filmmakers were actually expecting you to pay attention while you watched their film. For those of you who didn't:

The film picks up shortly after the end of Casino Royale -- Bond has put the mysterious Mr. White into the trunk of his car and is being pursued by agents of Quantum. After the obligatory stunt-driving scenes, Bond successfully eludes his pursuers and delivers White to an MI6 post in Italy. During questioning, M's personal bodyguard is revealed to be an agent of Quantum. Bond saves M and pursues the bodyguard and kills him. White escapes in the ensuing tumult. Investigation leads Bond to Haiti where he tracks down and kills another Quantum agent and becomes involved with Camille Montes, an ex-South American spy. She in turn leads him to Dominic Greene, head of an international eco-corporation who is helping a Bolivian general named Medrano to stage a coup and take over Bolivia's government in exchange for a seemingly worthless tract of desert land. Greene is working with the good graces of the CIA, though Bond's friend Felix Leiter is less than thrilled. After a shoot-out at an Austrian restaurant in which the British prime minister's bodyguard is accidentally killed, Bond is tagged as a rogue agent. M is ordered by the government to bring him in and have him incarcerated. Bond refuses to stop, however, and when his passports and charge cards are all canceled by MI6 he calls on his old friend Rene Mathis. Together, they return to Bolivia to try to find out what Greene is really up to and stop him once and for all.

This film is Daniel Craig's second outing as Bond, and his perfromance is masterful. I just can't express my joy at having an actor who visualizes Bond as a three-dimensional character and is willing to show us his weaknesses as well as his strengths. Judi Dench returns as M, and it was a real pleasure to once again see her as more than a figurehead. She tries to be Bond's conscience, censuring him for his mistakes while at the same time trying to understand what drives her top agent. The chemistry between the two of them is nothing short of magic, and creates a simultaneous bond and tension as M finds herself increasingly at a loss to defend Bond's actions. Jeffrey Wright was not given enough to do as Felix Leiter -- my understanding is that his part started out considerably larger and kept getting sliced away -- and Giancarlo Giannini is wasted (literally, at one point in the film) as Rene Mathis, the character he played with such charm and class in Casino Royale.

The most important aspect of this film -- to my mind, at least -- is that the film-makers are once again holding true to the original vision of Bond as created by Ian Fleming. There is no devilishly charming playboy agent here, seducing ladies at the drop of a hat. This Bond is real, he is gritty, he is focused and determined and he is very very dangerous. True, he seduces Embassy agent Strawberry Fields (why must they have these ridiculous names?), but it is only to get what he wants. And in the end, it is his wits and his strength and his gun that save him -- not some trumped-up sci-fi device from Q branch. This is a Bond who fights his own battles.

And what battles they are. From the "flying" fight sequence in the first 10 minutes to the explosive final confrontation with Dominic Greene, the action scenes in this film are some of the best I have ever seen in the history of the series. There is a realism to them, with just that slight edge of cinema fantastique that keep us coming to the box office for our favorite spy again and again. The one exception is the shootout in the Austrian restaurant, which is counter-pointed with a performance of "Tosca" at the opera house next door. That was one scene that absolutely did not work for me.

So where does it land on my list of Bond films? A very impressive second-place, primarily because the villain in this film is just not that...well...villainous. While Goldfinger remains at number one, the others all drop a notch -- except, of course, for Moonraker, which cannot conceivably sink any lower. But though Connery still resides in the top slot, he'd better be looking over his shoulder. There's a new Bond in town, and he's gunning for first place.

Next week on Reel Discoveries: It's Christmas at TMOA, and I will be here to discuss my favorite classic Christmas film -- why it's my favorite, and why it isn't It's a Wonderful Life. That's next time on Reel Discoveries. But for now I'll turn things over to TMOA's own Double-0 agents -- they're licensed to kill conversations, and they have the red disconnect buttons to prove it -- Ken and Roger. Guys?

[kuroken]

From Russia With Love! FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE!

I was willing to give it up for Goldfinger....I will not see the best Bond film drop to third place.

I PROTEST!

[rposhard]

"CLASSIC" CHRISTMAS MOVIES

Let's face it, we all have our favorite old chestnut that we like to pull out every year and roast on our Christmas fire, one of those classic old (gasp! dare I say it?) black and white movies without which our personal holiday season is simply not complete. My fourteen year old grandson will be the first to tell you that no movie made in black and white can possibly contain any entertainment value whatsoever -- heck, so will my 30 year old son-in-law for that matter -- but those of us who live for the movies know that nothing could be further from the truth and --in fact -- some of the best and truly inspiring Christmas movies are the ones made in the 30s, 40s and 50s.

Probably the best-known and best-loved Christmas classic ever made was Frank Capra's It's A Wonderful Life. Jimmy Stewart's performance as George Bailey -- the 40's ideal of the perennially good Everyman -- ranks high on many Christmas lists, including my own. The movie suffered somewhat to over-exposure in the late 20th century, sometimes being shown simultaneously on 5 different channels. I think NBC did a lot to bring back the special quality of the movie when they purchased the rights so it would only be shown once a year. I know others disagree with me on that one, but so it goes. Though it ranks high on my list, however, it does not rise to the level of Number One as it is -- perhaps -- just a trifle too gooey in its sentimentality. Still, it is impossible to dislike it completely: after all, how can you hate the fim that gave Sesame Street Bert and Ernie?

Many lovers of classics will pick A Christmas Carol as their favorite. There are actually two classic film versions of this story -- the 1938 version starring Reginald Owen and the 1951 version starring Alistair Sim (although a certain crotchedy old radio host will argue that Mr. Magoo was the only real Scrooge). Alas, the Reginald Owen version is severely lacking as it is more like a Readers' Digest Condensed Book telling of the story: Scrooge's hatred of his nephew is never explained (Scrooge's beloved sister died in childbirth), and Scrooge is already transformed before the third ghost even makes its appearance. The Alistair Sim version is by far the superior one. Sim's performance as Scrooge is compelling to watch, and his change to the "nice" Scrooge at the end is one that never ceases to delight me year after year. It is not my Number One film, however, because there is only one movie that for me truly embodies the spirit of Christmas.

It is -- if you haven't already figured it out by now -- 1947's Miracle on 34th Street. This charming little tale of the man who appears seemingly from nowhere to become the Macy's Santa Claus has kept me a true believer for a good many years. Edmund Gwenn, as Kris Kringle, the man who claims to be the one and only true Santa Claus, turns in such an amazing performance that you want to shake the other characters and say "What's the matter with you? Can't you see he's telling the truth?" Maureen O'Hara also shines as the woman who refuses to believe the evidence of her own eyes, and little Natalie Wood turns in one of her finest performances as the little girl who wants to believe -- but only if Santa can pull off the Christmas miracle of a lifetime.

The movie also harks somewhat on the crass commercialism of Christmas as well. Young Susan tells a neighbor "Mommy always gets me what I want for Christmas -- I just look through the Macy's catalogue." An unscrupulous floor manager tells Kris to steer undecided children toward certain toys that aren't selling well. And Kris himself creates a furor when he advises one mother "You won't find what your child wants at Macy's -- but I've seen it over at Gimbel's." All of this is secondary, however. The real heart in this film lies in the proof of the magic of Christmas through one man who believes in himself, and the gradual belief of others in him -- most notably Susan and her mother. The somewhat saccharine "happy ending" tacked on is no more that a "what if?" device that -- while ultimately unnecessary to the story of the film -- provides that little exclamation mark that delights the younger viewers of the film. Make no doubt about it, kids -- Santa Claus is about as real as you can get, and through our belief in him miracles can happen every day.

Next week on Reel Discoveries -- it's the New Year's eve show, and what better way to ring out the old year than to look ahead to the theatrical movies I'm looking forward to in 2009. From teen wizards to retired superheroes, from romance to horror, I'll talk about the movies I can't wait to see -- and a couple I'm planning to miss. That's next week on Reel Discoveries. But for now, I'll turn things over to two fellows who both believe that they are the one true Santa -- and staunchly refuse to believe in each other -- Ken and Roger. Guys?