Rude Rabbit

007 Gets “Emotional” And “Groundbreaking”

As a lifelong James Bond fan, I have never felt so ambivalent about the imminent release of a new Bond film.  I’m torn.  Part of me is happy and part of me is almost dreading it.

Normally I would be so excited I would be eating/drinking/sleeping Bond in anticipation.  But this time is different.  Of course I want the film to be good and to be a hit – the latter of which is pretty much a fait accompli – but at the same time, everything I have seen about Skyfall seems to feed my worst fears.

I’ll explain.

I’m what might be called an “old-school” fan.  I like my James Bond sophisticated, stylish, clever, witty, suave and a smooth operator with women.  That’s why as a kid I chose him over Clint Eastwood’s The Man With No Name, or Charles Bronson, or any other typically miserable and monosyllabic American action hero.  I didn’t want to grow up to be the scowling loner guy roaming from town to town getting into fights.  I wanted to be that smooth motherfucker in the tuxedo who has all the women and seems to be enjoying all the finest things in life.  The guy who has a slight grin playing on his lips at all times because he is just that cool – knows whatever musclebound thug he’s up against, he’s going to turn the odds around and beat him.  That, in my mind, was true confidence and true masculinity.  The other guys may act “tougher”, but Bond was the one who would always come out on top.  Then  he would brush off his tux, order another vodka martini and kiss the sexy Ukrainian girl…who was also sent to kill him, but is now hopelessly in his thrall.

That’s Bond to me.  That’s what makes the character so special.

There have been a load of pretenders and parodies, but no one has ever beaten that Bondian recipe – a very particular mix of action and comedy, sex and violence, glamor and gadgets.

Brosnan was perfectly suited to the role and did a great job, but was unlucky enough to have gotten the role, not under Cubby Broccoli’s reign, but that of his children, Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, filmmakers only by nepotism.  They seemed more interested in picking up their huge producer fees and slowly but surely selling Bond on the cheap – making each film less and less ambitious, less cutting edge, less grand in scale.  And like all bosses who have no idea what they are doing, they ended up blaming the resulting failure on their employee (Brosnan) and unceremoniously dumping him.  Thereby getting rid of the one thing RIGHT about the films and robbing him of the great Bond film he deserved.

When Daniel Craig won the role, I couldn’t believe my eyes.  I won’t belabor the point because it’s become such a stale topic of contention, but in no way did he resemble the five Bonds who came before him…that is just a fact.  Listen, I’m told by his defenders that women go crazy over him.  Whether this is because he’s playing James Bond and isn’t their plumber, I guess we’ll never know.  But my problem is not with his blonde hair (in the new film he practically has a shaved head), nor his short stature – it’s the craggy face of stone and his monotone acting.  He would be a perfect character actor for playing flawed and stoic blue-collar heroes, diamonds in the rough, or even villains, but his looks and whole manner directly subvert the role of 007.

He has stripped Bond of the cool ease that made him special and turned him into just another thug who has to prove to us with every frame of film how tough – and tormented – he really is. 

That’s just my opinion.

I have nothing against him as a person, I just think he is bizarrely overrated as an actor.  He seems utterly expressionless and drains every line of dialogue of any color or life.  He has failed to make good on his supposed “star power” in non-Bond films with flop after flop after flop and still his defenders talk about him like he’s the greatest actor to ever walk the earth.  It’s surreal.

Anyway, when he got the role in Casino Royale, I was nervous but ready to give him a chance.  When I read the leaked script for CR, my hopes doubled.  Here was a smart script that turned the Bond formula temporarily upside-down and played brilliantly against expectations.  I thought it was brave and exciting.  It still felt like Bond to me on the page.  But when I saw the finished product and Craig’s dour take on the character, I just couldn’t go with it.  Martin Campbell, also strangely overrated in my view, had turned that smart script into a lumbering, stilted film.  And just not that exciting.  It felt like a Bond film for people who don’t like Bond films.  Which, I guess, some people would say was the whole point.

Maybe because I now had such low expectations, I enjoyed Quantum Of Solace more.  It’s a terribly edited film, mind you, but the pacing and tone feels much more like Bond to me.  It’s an ACTION FILM.  It moves!  And Craig allowed for some nuance, a few moments of actual humor.  Was he becoming Bond?  Was he getting the idea there should be an ease not angst to the world famous British spy?

So I hoped again. 

Especially when Craig spoke of making the next movie a “Bond, with a capital B”.

 
Then, as more and more details leaked about Skyfall…including some storyboards, call sheets and pages from the script…everything I saw seemed to contradict what Craig had said.  This would be Part III in the ‘gritty, realistic’ – but mostly melodramatic – reboot of the series.  It has that same goal of demythologizing the great James Bond.  He “dies”, he hides out for a while in Istanbul, he mopes, he grows a beard that makes him even fuglier, etc, etc.  He’s really a tortured soul underneath it all.  Could it be he even has some unresolved issues about Mommy and Daddy who died when he was very young?

Oh, steel yourself – because that’s where we’re going..

But first, after following a villain to Shanghai (not really, Craig never set foot in China – just the Second Unit people…another cop-out by the Broccolis), he returns to London – where the bulk of the rest of the film takes place.  That’s right, a Bond film that takes place largely in London.  It’s like a Star Trek film that takes place in the Enterprise’s docking station in San Francisco.  He returns to find the MI6 offices have been attacked and moved underground, just to make things even more dreary and “down-to-earth”.  He doesn’t return right to duty though.  Oh no.  He fails his shooting test and has to take a psych exam where he is given a word-association quiz.  Raise your hand if you ever thought you’d see this in a fucking Bond movie. 

The last word meant to provoke a reaction is “Skyfall” – the name of his family’s ancestral home in Scotland.  It’s no coincidence this is the title of the film and the location of the ‘climactic battle’, or that Judi Dench is there for that battle, along with a mysterious elderly man played by the great Albert Finney who is described as an “important figure from Bond’s past”.  Rumor has it that this is Dench’s last film and that she may meet her ultimate fate in Bond’s arms.  Meanwhile, Javiar Bardem’s villain Silva seems to hold a very personal grudge against M and his identity is being protected as the film’s biggest secret.

Are you putting all this together?

The director Sam Mendes, known for drama not action, says it will be “groundbreaking”, and Craig promises it will be “emotional” and “moving”.

I don’t know how much Bond’s parents figure into the story or whether Silva is literally related to M or Bond – hopefully it’s only a thematic parallel, not a clumsy Darth Vader-like twist – but there is no doubt that the producers are going somewhere Freudian where no Bond film has gone before.

And I hate it. 

It smacks of heavy-handed soap opera and the antithesis of a light popcorn adventure.

If I’m even half right, I think a good portion of the audience will be tired of this “personal” take on Bond.  Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol was much more Bondian than Bond these days and it was a huge hit.  People want to be awed and exhilarated like they were when Cruise scaled that skyscraper.  I don’t think they go to a Bond movie to be moved or cry, I really don’t.

And the old rustic Skyfall lodge, in the middle of nowhere, strikes me as a boring location for a big finish.  In fact, all the action in the film looks/feels retro to the point of deja vu.  The big opening sequence caps off with yet another old-fashioned fight atop a train.  After that, it seems to be only conventional shoot-outs and a foot chase through a London underground station.  There doesn’t seem to be any innovative or spectacular action in the entire film.  Another element of the Bond formula to get stripped away.

And yet the film is 2 hours and 25 minutes long – a long sit.

I’m extrapolating here, of course, I haven’t seen the film yet.  Maybe I will end up absolutely loving it.  That’s my struggle – despite my gut instinct, I’m trying to keep an open mind and go on the journey.

It doesn’t help that the PR campaign for Skyfall has been one of the worst in the history of the franchise.

We’re a month off from the premiere and this is their idea of a final one-sheet:

In any case, it will be a big hit.  All Bond films are and I’m grateful for that.  I’m just very curious what the critical reaction and general consensus will be.  Am I completely alone in wanting Bond to return to being an aspirational hero, a wonderful excuse for escapism – the ubercool superspy who lives the high life and takes on dangerous glamorous missions that are, you know, unrelated to his personal life??

Oh well.  There’s always the next one…

For now, though, I have never had such mixed feelings about the return of Bond.

–RR

Or How A Goofy Show Kinda’ Saved My Life

I think I can finally make an embarrassing confession…

Last year, after going through a particularly rough period that nearly sapped my will to live, I stumbled onto something on YouTube and became completely obsessed with just about the last thing in the world I ever thought I would watch, let alone become a huge fan of – a British talent show for teenage girls.

For a straight middle-aged American man, it was a little weird.

But what can I say?  It did what good entertainment should do.  It made me forget my problems.  It gave me an escape into a glossy world where cute talented girls sang and danced…and, hey, there are worse things than that.  I found myself watching the YouTube clips over and over, to the point of crazy repetition.  Think chimpanzee, a red button and crack cocaine.  Like that.  I would collapse into bed every night, tired from work, and play them on my iPad until I couldn’t keep my eyes open any longer.  And I would sort of passingly think to myself, “Wow, this is weird”.  But something in the show was a direct hit on the pleasure center in my brain.

It wasn’t just crass lechery, and it wasn’t really ironic either, it was sincere enjoyment of the best platform of young talent I had ever seen in a competition.  And great fun.

The show in question was Over The Rainbow, a 2010 BBC series to discover an unknown girl to play the role of Dorothy in a new Andrew Lloyd-Webber stage version of “The Wizard Of Oz”.  Over 9,000 girls from all over the UK auditioned.  They were culled down to 50, then 20, and then 11 finalists who got the chance to perform in a weekly live show where the British public voted them off one by one.  The last girl standing would win the lead in her very first West End production and work with Lord Webber himself.

Being a regular watcher of BBC America, I had seen earlier Webber casting shows where they searched for a “Nancy” for Oliver or a “Maria” for The Sound Of Music, and found them fitfully entertaining, but just as often cringe-worthy.  A few actress-singers stood out (who have subsequently become very successful), but it felt pretty clunky.  Over The Rainbow really raised the standard of talent and with a much slicker production overall.

(They also did two seasons casting “Joseph” in Joseph And The Technicolor Dreamcoat and “Jesus” in Jesus Christ Superstar – but seriously…who wants to watch a bunch of dudes in a talent show?)

Strangely though, OTR has never been shown on BBC America.  My guess is Webber wanted to sell a US version of the show if OZ ended up transferring to Broadway and did not want to “dilute the brand” by broadcasting the original in the States.  Broadway doesn’t look to be happening, but this column was prompted by the news that a Canadian version of OTR is starting up in September, in just a couple weeks.

But really, who needs TV networks anymore?

Arguably, OTR is as alive two years after it ended BECAUSE it exists in near entirety on YouTube and new people all over the world stumble onto it every day, just like I did.

This was the clip that first hooked me, my gateway drug into the rest of the series.  One beautiful redheaded Welsh girl and a very simple song:

See what I mean?

Her name is Sophie Evans and I admit it, I fell a little in love with her.  Who wouldn’t?

I should mention here that I have never watched American Idol or any of it’s many imitators.  I hate the type of singing that gets celebrated on those shows.  That sort of hysterical Mariah Carey riffing up and down the musical scale makes me want to shoot myself in the head.

So, I followed Sophie to this clip where she and her initial audition group perform two songs on the first live show, one pop, one musical-theatre:

Not bad, right?  These girls, amateurs up till this moment, are performing in front of millions of people here for the first time and being judged by a panel.  Three of them advanced into the final 11.

How about this group?

Two of those girls advanced.
But you see the level of the talent.  This is their first show!  On national TV!

Not only did they then have to perform solo every week, they also had to do big group numbers:

And what they called a “mash-up” number like this – with an old and modern song combined:

Have I got you hooked yet?

I’m a sucker for synchronized girls.  I could watch this stuff all day long.

Coming from a background in theatre, I think I’m predisposed to liking actual song-and-dance numbers like these, not people just trying to be an “idol”.  Give me the uncool theatre kids any day of the week.

Yes, it’s gloriously cheesy, but another factor of why it works so well for me I think is it’s very British flavor, its quaintness and goodhearted innocence.  To a girl, these contestants handle this brutal baptism-by-fire with unbelievable grace and class and never seem to have any bad feelings about what happens.  If it was American, I’m afraid the girls would be a little too graspingly ambitious to truly enjoy the experience and be grateful for getting as far as they do.  And while it’s all wonderfully shot and edited, professional in every way, it never gets Vegas-ized and bombastic, as our shows often can.

Here’s what I mean by brutal.  At the end of every Results Show, after the UK voted for their favorites, this is what they had to endure:

The big blonde girl who stands out like a sore thumb here is the first one to go home.  The short biracial girl proves herself to be a dynamo week after week and makes it quite far.

And yes, that’s Graham Norton, the irreverent talk show host, doing Master Of Ceremony duties.  Besides the forever-wincing Lord Webber, the panel of judges included ex-child singing star, Charlotte Church (below, left) and two people you and I have never heard of but who are evidently West End theatre stars.  These folks were very tough on the girls, did not spare them any criticism.

After they get down to the two girls with the lowest votes, they pour salt in the wound by pointing out which of them is officially the “least popular” with the public.  Nice, right?  And then they have to perform a sing-off, after which Webber chooses the girl he will save, eliminating the other one.

Check out this example from the second week:

What I found incredible was that the girls performed expertly in every single sing-off.  Despite the pressure they were under and despite what must have been a crushing sense of dread.

Well, at least the torture is over, right?

Nope.  Not yet.  She has to sing AGAIN.

These shows are famous for their ritualistic goodbyes and OTR is no different.  Each dump-ee is forced to sing “Over The Rainbow” while riding a glittery cardboard moon over the stage.  And yes, by all scientific measurements, this is THE gayest part of the show.  Which is saying something because it’s a show about finding a DOROTHY.  But as corny as it is, somehow it works.  And as you can see here, at least in the first few eliminations, the girls are genuinely gutted at seeing their friends get kicked off.

Okay, I think I lost a couple of you with that clip.  The cynical people.  The ones who can’t handle emotion – or a flying moon with a subway hand-strap.

But you felt a little something there, right?  Come on.  It got to you a teeny bit, admit it.  Honestly, though, what really amazed me was how, after being put through the ringer every week (“You ditched her so completely”, really??)  these girls always managed to be so poised and gracious about it.  American girls, I think, would just be pissed-off and bitter.

Anyway, that’s the structure – simple and effective.

So, other than the aforementioned and absolutely sumptuous SOPHIE – an undeniable star who surprisingly has a pretty bad time of it with the judges – who are the “best” girls?  Well, there’s…

STEPHANIE, an extroverted brassy Liverpudlian with a voice described as “melting chocolate”:

LAUREN, who is, without a doubt, the single purely most talented girl in the competition.  Unfortunately, she gets labeled “arrogant” early in the proceedings and since evidently that’s just about the worst thing you can call someone in the UK…she was a little abused by the voters.

She never gave a bad performance, so it’s hard to pick just one…but this is my favorite:

STEPH, an all-around pro, comes storming back after the first week’s sing-off with this baby:

And JENNY, an incredibly sweet Scottish girl, consistently outperforms the judge’s expectations and always prompts a smile:

Appropriately enough, JESSICA, who has a very strong Liza Minnelli vibe, does her best when singing “Cabaret”:

Two others, DANI and DANIELLE – the youngest and front-runner respectively – have an intense sing-off that is one of the highlights of the series:

All together, they’re amazing:

And I saved the best for last:

Of course, the show wasn’t perfect…

– There are technical glitches you can always expect with a live show.

–  I could have done without the search for a dog to play Toto.

– One girl, EMILIE, through no fault of her own, was in way over her head, and it became painful watching both her performances and the judges eviscerate her every week.  She should have been eliminated at the start, and instead, BRONTE, the one on the moon in the above clips, should have stayed in her place.

– Some of the song choices made by the producers were baffling at best and outright sabotage at worst. One poor girl is forced to sing “Mr. Bojangles” (!?).  She is promptly kicked off the following night.

– The very end of the show is strangely anti-climactic.  They make the last two girls re-sing songs they sang before to diminishing returns.  And, in my opinion, the wrong girl wins.

– Ironically, all the big-name guest stars brought on to show how professionals do it suffered in comparison with the so-called “amateur” performances.  Including judge Charlotte Church, who ends up getting blown off the stage by the novices when she performs (inexplicably) the old Barbra Streisand disco song “Enough Is Enough” with them.  They do wonders with the nothing song, while she just looks nervous and more than a little rusty.

Obviously, millions of people know how the series ended and all you have to do to find out who won is go to the Wikipedia page or Google “BBC Over The Rainbow winner”.  But if you want the full experience, I’d suggest watching the YouTube clips in chronological order – as much as possible anyway – as there’s a lot of pleasure to be had in letting the competition unfold clip by clip.

Or, best of all, find someone online who sells the complete series (I recommend ioffer.com), so you can watch it properly on a big-screen television.  It’s well worth the price.

So, finally, the $64,000 question (in pounds?) – why DID I become so obsessed with this series?

Well, the easy answer is: The girls, the girls, the girls.

You could search far and wide – in ANY country – and not find a group of young women this talented and strong enough, to compete in such a rigorous weekly challenge.  They were a special group.  As far-fetched as it sounds, I’m surprised the BBC didn’t hire all the Dorothys for a regular series…an old-fashioned variety show or something like it.  I think it would have been a huge hit.

And it was just a blast.  Great eye and ear candy, completely addictive, and with tremendous heart.  What more could you ask for?

I’d call it a guilty pleasure…but despite my joking, I don’t really feel that guilty.

Now the Canadians are about to broadcast their own, no doubt cheaper blander version.  I’ll write a column once I’ve seen it, but I’m skeptical…

I doubt the girls will be nearly as synchronized.

Or as wildly, wickedly talented.

–RR

Wow.  It has been a long time since I wrote anything on here…

After deleting several of my old columns, the only one I kept up is an extremely outdated 2007 piece on what movies are MIA on DVD.  Actually, since 5 of the 10 movies are STILL not available on DVD, I guess it’s not completely useless.  But it is outdated in the sense that nobody really gives a shit about DVD anymore. Blu-ray has taken over – among movie geeks, and increasingly now, the ‘civilian’ population.

So I kept the column mostly because I’m here to continue an updated version of the same rant…

Which will make me sound like a Grumpy Old Man before my time.

Which is fitting because it turns out I can’t get the Widescreen presentation of Grumpy Old Men without buying a BD player.  Or the theatrical version of Betty Blue.  Or the new commentary on Taxi Driver.  Or…well, you get the idea.

And, of course, this is only the beginning.

I would not be surprised if most of those still-MIA titles don’t skip DVD altogether and just premiere on BD.  What’s the problem with that you say?  Nothing really.  At least the BD format allows for the playing of all my old discs – I’m not sure it would have taken off as a format otherwise – and indeed, ‘upconverts’ them to even better quality.  I have no doubt I will eventually succumb to the inevitable, especially since BD players are getting ridiculously cheap now.   But as Hank Hill might say, I’ll tell you what…I’m just sick and tired of buying new copies of films I already own.  Hear me: I won’t be robbed blind!  Again!

That’s why I’m only going to be buying rarities/special cases like the ones above and a very short list of “visual feasts” that benefit from the ‘Look And Sound Of Perfect’ – movies like Terrence Malick’s Days Of Heaven and The Sound Of Music, true objects of art and obsession.

Okay…  Maybe the James Bond Series when it’s released in complete form.  And The House Of Flying Daggers would be very cool.

And then, yeah, sure, I’ll have to get all the Pixar classics.

And I need to get a few of my most loved Westerns to see what BD does to the gorgeous vistas of Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid, The Cowboys, and Little Big Man.  Or, for that matter, No Country For Old Men and Paris, Texas.  Then maybe just a few of the most gloriously visceral popcorn movies ever made, like Jaws, The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom and The Bourne Supremacy.  Spielberg’s underrated masterpiece A.I. has to be in there…with E.T., naturally.  Then all the DePalma classics – Carrie, Scarface, The Untouchables, Mission Impossible.  The David Fincher movies because they are incredibly visual.  Oh, and wouldn’t it be cool to see All That Jazz and Hair in true 1080p?  And Barton Fink.  And American Graffiti.  And Dirty Harry.  And —

Goddamnit!!

Here we go again…

This ain’t my first rodeo.  I’m old enough to have gone through quite a few platform upgrades, forgive me if the deja vu has me a little queasy this time.  I find myself nitpicking this new “perfect” format.  No matter what everyone says…is this level of resolution always a good thing?  In some cases, it exposes too much film grain for my taste, too many flaws in special effects, actors’ make-up or just their faces.  Do I really want to count the pores and moles on Redford’s face?  Or in some examples I’ve seen, it just gives a film a sterile look that robs it of all the warmth I remember.  Much as Jazz may fare better on old-fashioned vinyl than on the crystal clarity of CD’s, I think the same is true of some old movies.  Especially from the 1970s, my favorite era, where the naturalistic cinematography benefits from some softening.

I know…  This is probably just technical ignorance on my part.  Nostalgia.  Stubbornness.

I guess what bothers me even more than the studios selling me the same product over and over again, is the fact that all this oohing and ahhing over BD seems to be emblematic of something larger, a trend towards caring more about the flashy gift wrapping of a film than the actual content.  Movies today are all style and no substance.  With CGI, we can do anything our imagination can think up, and we’re a little drunk with that power, and either as a direct result or just incidentally, we have lost quality storytelling.

When I was a kid, we watched movies in terrible pan-and-scan chopped-up ABC Movies Of The Week, scratched prints on late night horror programs, on tiny Black & White TVs with vertical hold issues, at Drive-In theatres with crappy speakers, on videotapes with all the resolution of a mudbath…you name it, we suffered it.  Why?  Because it was about THE MOVIE.  Not the format, THE MOVIE.

Even the fact all Blu-rays have the exact same blue plastic case bothers me.  When I look over at my two thousand DVD’s, I see a multicolored diverse cacophony of spines, each one reflecting that particular title and movie experience.  I pride myself on the wonderful eclectic variety of genres in my collection.  I don’t want to look over and see a uniform line of tiny blue spines devoid of any individuality!  I know it’s a trivial point, but it’s an apt metaphor I think for the way movies are turning into assembly-line product.

Sigh.

But yeah…I can see where this is going, and I know I ultimately will not be able to resist the urge to buy and see my favorite films in spectacular crispness on a huge flat-screen television.

I’ll give in, I’ll eat my words I’m sure – but for now, I just needed to rant…

Now you kids get off my lawn!

RR

Hello Geeks…

While the studios seem intent on double and triple-dipping the same DVD titles over and over again and giving them lame-ass nicknames like the “Oh Yeah, That’s It, Now You’ve Really Ripped Me Off Edition”, so many great films are still languishing unreleased in their vaults.

It’s enough to drive you crazy.

I know the argument the suits always give in response: they’re in business first and foremost, this is not some public service they’re performing. I understand. But isn’t their business also giving the customer what they want? Isn’t there a certain responsibility to transfer their full catalogue of films, bring them into the digital age for posterity’s sake, and not just re-release the same five titles to see if they can squeeze every cent from obsessive fanboys?

Evidently not.

“Greed is good,” says Gordon Gekko in the new improved ultimate collector’s anniversary super-duper edition of “Wall Street”, available in stores now.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m weak. I too want the best possible versions of my favorite films, with the best audio and video, multiple commentaries and loads of special features. I’m as susceptible as anyone and I have the pitiful bank account to prove it. It’s just that the whole thing is starting to feel so brazenly manipulative and almost cannibalistic – especially when, as I say, they have a treasure trove of films that people are clamoring for and have yet to even see the light of day.

If you want to be amazed by how many excellent films are Missing In Action, haven’t made it to DVD even ten years on, this is the best list I’ve found online: http://dvdjournal.com/extra/mia.html

(DVDjournal is now defunct, unfortunately, which is a loss because they were focused on FILM, not on the HD/Blu-Ray war, etc.)

Below is my own personal Wish List…

A plea to the suits.

These are ten films I miss the most. The majority are from the 70’s, and of course, I realize that’s my own personal bias and childhood talking, but it did also happen to be a particularly rich time for movies.

—————–

1. LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR (1977)

I have to start with the most egregious omission of them all.  How is this possible?

This dark drama about the sexual mores of the 70’s starring Diane Keaton is a must-see and a must-own. Keaton may have won the same year for the lighthearted “Annie Hall”, but this was the film that the Academy had in the back of their minds when they voted. The contrast between the two movies could not be a more impressive showcase of her talent. A provocative film at the time, it hasn’t lost any of its bite thirty years later. The film leads its promiscuous heroine through a minefield of unstable and aggressive men (played by William Atherton, Richard Gere, Tom Berenger), and since it’s based on a famous murder we know one of them is going to kill her in the end. The unnerving tension and great mystery is WHO. The point is really that it could be any of them and never has a film put in such visceral terms the danger women live with on a daily basis just being the “weaker” sex.  Some people still think, mistakenly, that this is some kind of anti-women’s lib movie, a morality tale about a “slut”; when in reality it’s just the opposite, forcing every man watching it to face up to how scary male sexual aggression can be.  And it all leads to probably one of the most stunning, gruesome, disturbing endings in all film history.

This is a seminal film from that gritty era.  There’s no excuse for it to be unavailable.

 

2. SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION (1971)

A vastly underrated film.

Paul Newman directed this adaptation of the Ken Kesey novel about a family of lumberjacks who refuse to go along with a union strike and pay a high price for their obstinance. The family motto is “Never Give An Inch” – hence the title about it sometimes being a great notion. Besides Newman in the lead role, it also stars Henry Fonda, Lee Remick, Michael Sarrazin, and Richard Jaeckel, who was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. Talk to anyone who knows and loves this film and the first thing that will come up will be the scene where Jaeckel finds himself pinned by a fallen tree in rising water. The next will be how Fonda’s arm is utilized at the end of the film. Both classic moments you have to see for yourself. This is just solid filmmaking all around that deserves to finally be recognized and exposed to a wider audience.

It would make a nice retirement present for Mr. Newman, don’t you think?

 

3. LUCKY LADY (1975)

This movie wasn’t just underrated, it was a notorious box-office bomb when it was released in ’75. Why? Beats the hell out of me. A fluffy 1920’s “Sting”-like romp about a love triangle of rum runners on the open seas played by Burt Reynolds, Liza Minnelli and Gene Hackman, I guess there were production troubles and a changed ending and the press pretty much decided it was a debacle before it even opened. The only problem is…it’s a really fun piece of popcorn entertainment. The stars are charismatic, the feel-good factor high, and the Saturday matinee climax kind of exhilarating.  Stanley Donen should be ashamed of “Blame It On Rio”, but not of this one.  It would be so nice to have a commentary track from him before it’s too late, and/or one with the actors. Once again, DVD could really vindicate its unfair reputation. Widescreen, guys, or don’t do it at all.

(TRIVIA: Spielberg was set to direct this one until he switched over to another ocean-based little film you may have heard of called “Jaws”)

 

 

4. THE MAN WHO LOVED CAT DANCING (1973)

Call it a Watergate Western. In the style of the times, this is a downbeat and somber gun opera about a train robber haunted by a guilty conscience over the death of one woman – his Indian wife, Cat Dancing – and forced to protect another, a female hostage, from his outlaw partners. Of course, a romance develops.  It’s Burt Reynolds again, not long after “Deliverance” and in one of his last straight-faced performances. He acts with world-weary restraint here and shows what his career might have been if he had actually stayed an actor instead of just being a mustache. British actress Sarah Miles plays the love interest.  The movie eventually succumbs to an unlikely happy ending, but that’s only a small drawback and easy to forgive.

This was on a list of films Warner Bros put up for an online vote a couple years ago and it follows that we would have seen it by now. But once again quality seems to be a minor consideration.

Listen, if they can release all those awful Hal Needham films Burt Reynolds pissed his career away on, then I think they can release this baby.

 

 

5. CANNERY ROW (1982)

This is a blatantly sentimental choice on my part. Be warned: David S. Ward’s film adaptation of John Steinbeck starring Nick Nolte and Debra Winger is not for the cynical. It’s an unabashedly nostalgic and sweet period piece, and by today’s standards, some people might even call it saccharine. Still, it’s sloppy charms get to me every time. It’s a celebration of life’s losers, shiftless bums, and hookers with a heart of gold and people escaping their past, and there’s an emotional sucker punch in the third act that deepens it to another level – if it doesn’t choke you up just a little, well, you’re a better man than me, Gunga Din. Winger is at the absolute peak of her beauty and spunky appeal and Nolte is nicely just north of leading man.

It’s narrated in the distinctive gravel tones of the late great John Huston and shot on an obviously artificial backlot (sort of “One From The Heart” with actual heart). The old studio feel is consistent with a story that’s not trying for reality, but charm.

 

6. MEN DON’T LEAVE (1990)

Is it a coincidence that a lot of the still missing films might be lazily labeled as Chick Flicks? Stories with strong female leads? Hmmm.  I’m sure it’s a total fluke…

But, at the risk of losing my dude cred, good movies are good movies. Period.

Here Jessica Lange plays a new widow struggling through her grief and a paralyzing nervous breakdown while trying to support her two boys. Oh yeah, and it’s funny. Lange does a great job of finding that delicate balance, and believe it or not, so does a young Chris O’Donnell in his first and best performance. Charlie Korsmo is pure gold as the klepto little brother, and Joan Cusack her usual hysterical self as O’Donnell’s very plain but sweet seductress. The smart screenplay by director Paul Brickman and Barbara Benedek has all the ungainly black humor of real life. It never falls into the trap of becoming maudlin, but honestly earns the powerful catharsis it builds to at the end.

Brickman fought badly with Lange and studio execs and had enough grief of his own to disappear from the business after this film, and it’s a loss, because he shows such tremendous growth from his more superficial hit, “Risky Business”. Even the title is a thing of beauty – ironic, hopeful, cruel. Coupled with that enigmatic poster image of a small boy (ostensibly Charlie Korsmo) running away from us at full clip down a cold snowy street, it actually forces you to think. What is the filmmaker trying to say? You would never see that now: a thematic poster as opposed to a literal one. Even our posters have been dumbed down these days.

I’m not alone on this one, guys…

Ask around. This movie is loved.

 

 

7. LITTLE DARLINGS (1980)

Just a little teen comedy about losing your virginity – so what’s the big deal?

Well, evidently it scares Paramount enough not to release it on DVD.  Why?  To be fair, there have been music rights issues with the VHS version, so maybe that’s the reason.  But you have to wonder about two other possibilities – that a story about two GIRLS (not randy teen boys, which is a whole genre of its own) in a contest to see who loses their cherry first is even more of a hot potato subject 30 years later, AND/OR the movie’s PG rating poses a problem for release on home video.  If young teen or tween girls rented this film, would their parents freak out?  Probably.  Even though there is no graphic sex at all or even much raunchy language, the subject matter is just not politically correct.  As a society, America has become strangely more  prudish and moralistic regarding teenage sex since the late 70’s/early 80’s, and you simply would never get away with making this film today.  Here’s one film that is safe from a crappy remake.

So…instead of dealing with any such awkwardness, the studio has just ignored it.  And it’s too bad because it’s actually a good film.  Not a classic, but a solid little comedy that gives an honest female point-of-view of what, like I say, has been covered from the male side a million times.

It also has two very appealing lead actresses in Tatum O’Neal (effectively the last good movie she ever did) and Kristy McNichol (also soon to be MIA).   McNichol, particularly, is fantastic here: tough, funny and truly moving in her final scenes – it makes you wish she had continued acting.

It’s a shame this one languishes for such a silly reason.

 

 

8.  MAN ON A SWING (1976)

This flawed little thriller is all about atmosphere.  Atmosphere is what we had before special effects came along. There are some wonderfully eerie moments in this film that give you goosebumps without any help from gotcha shocks.  Instead, it comes from the juxtaposition of the pedestrian almost documentary-like filmmaking and a wonderfully unhinged performance by Joel Grey.

When a girl is found dead in a VW bug in the middle of a shopping center parking lot in broad daylight, the police have absolutely no leads.  Cliff Robertson is in charge of the investigation and Joel Grey is a strange little man who claims to be psychic and wants to help them find the killer. OR…since he knows all the details, maybe he’s the killer himself.  That question is what makes this film so fascinating and Grey does an amazing job of keeping us unsure, swinging between impish warmth and skin-crawling menace without ever losing his believability.  It becomes more of a story about him driving Robertson insane than about the murder.  And there is no definitive resolution to either question, which no doubt would have modern audiences asking for their money back – but it’s the ambiguous ending that ultimately makes it stay with you.

Completely forgotten now and by no means a perfect film, it’s less-is-more approach to a murder mystery is still more authentic and genuinely unsettling than 99% of today’s thrillers.

 

 

9. THE BRINK’S JOB (1978)

William Friedkin directed this quirky little caper film that’s not quite a comedy and not quite a drama, but something in the middle. If you can wrap your mind around that – many critics couldn’t – you’ll enjoy yourself. A great cast of character actors led by Peter Falk at his wiliest makes it a pleasure to watch. It’s a sly lark, but it doesn’t stay a lark. Here also, the melancholy third act may be a tad anti-climactic, but it has the advantage of being true to the events it’s based on. Again, all attributes of that loose 70’s style. I just don’t think anyone was expecting Friedkin to direct a movie like this and it was much too easy to write if off as a mismatch of director and material; but he gets the period feel just right, as well as the desperation of lowlifes trying to make a big score and change their fortunes. Warren Oates, Peter Boyle, Paul Sorvino and Allen Garfield fill out the gang – need I say more?

Released on DVD in France only. With intrusive subtitles.

 

 

10. ONE ON ONE (1977)

Lastly, a true guilty pleasure… After “Rocky” came a swarm of athletic underdogs in all imaginable sports, but this college basketball story stands out as a keeper.  Reason number one is a young and beautiful Annette O’Toole.  She’s so good that when she falls in love with Robby Benson, we actually believe it. Yes, Benson was to go on to one annoying film performance after another, leaving only movie wreckage in his path, but here he is natural and likable in a part he and his father wrote for him. He’s a freshman player who gets into a contest of wills with a controlling coach and it’s a predictable thrill when he manages to prove the coach wrong.  GD Spradlin is the coach, and just as in “North Dallas Forty”, plays the perfect Southern fried bible-thumping egomaniac. There is a fantastic soundtrack of original songs by Seals & Crofts.   And…did I mention Annette O’Toole? I did? You sure? Okay.

A modest Cinderella story, but a crowd pleaser.

——————–

So there you go, guys. What are you waiting for?

Oh… And while I’m at it, I’d also like to suggest a few B-movies close to my heart: like the original rat story, “Willard”, the circus serial killer film called “Berserk”, and the Robert Mitchum priest-with-a-machine-gun action film, “The Wrath Of God”.

Yeah, and I’d like new WIDESCREEN VERSIONS of “Sounder”, “The Great Waldo Pepper”, “Charley Varrick”, “Shamus”, and “Popi”.

And put back that classic “F”-bomb joke you censored (butchered) out of the George Segal-Barbra Streisand comedy, “The Owl And The Pussycat”!

Hey, a geek can dream, can’t he?

Your turn. Give me YOUR wish list…

–RR

UPDATE: As of March 2009, most of these titles are still unavailable on DVD other than as bootleg copies, but a couple have made the transition. “Cannery Row” is out at last and both “One On One” and “The Man Who Loved Cat Dancing” are available as custom-made DVDs (but studio-made in the original aspect ratio) on the Warner Brothers website. This is a promising new way of releasing titles that will definitely bring more obscure catalogue films to fans and will hopefully catch on, with other companies following WB’s lead. The rest are still MIA, but “Sounder” is finally out in widescreen. Unfortunately, of course, Paul Newman died in ’08, and still no sign of “Sometimes A Great Notion”. One of these days…

SECOND UPDATE: April 2009 – “Sometimes A Great Notion” (Widescreen) is now available from Amazon UK as a Region 2 disc, so if you have an all-region player, go for it. If not, it’s a pretty good bet that there will be an American release in the not too distant future. I hope to update again (and again) as this list whittles down…

THIRD UPDATE: November 2009 – I’m happy to say another MIA has bitten the dust. “Men Don’t Leave” is now available from the WB Archives page. No extras of course, but the print looks good and it makes all the difference to see it in it’s original theatrical aspect ratio after all these years. Five of the films are still missing (half the list), but hopefully, it’s a matter of time.

FOURTH UPDATE: January 2011 – And the beat goes on… Tick off another two films rescued from obscurity. “Lucky Lady” finally comes out on DVD at the beginning of February, in Widescreen thankfully. Also “The Great Waldo Pepper” is finally out in Widescreen. One music cue at the beginning had to be changed because of a rights issue, but otherwise, it’s all intact and looks great. If you want “Charley Varrick” in Widescreen, order the British disc. What is truly amazing is that “Looking For Mr. Goodbar” is STILL not out. It too has music rights issues, but it’s just crazy that such a quality and well-remembered film is still languishing on the studio shelf.

FIFTH UPDATE: August 2012 – Well, this may be my last update on this subject.  I can report that “Man On A Swing” is being released on both DVD and Blu-ray next month, presumably in it’s original aspect ratio.  And “The Brinks Job” has evidently been available on the Universal Vault DVD-R series (also Widescreen) for a while now without me knowing it.  That leaves just two lonely and stubborn hold-outs: “Little Darlings” and “Looking For Mr. Goodbar”, or the Girls Just Wanna’ Get Laid Double Feature.  My guess is they will end up being released as part of an archive DVD-R collection for Paramount – or, even more likely, just skip straight to BD.  Either option is fine with me, as long as they get released.  Let’s hope they get those music rights resolved on Goodbar at last.