Summary: 



In depth and mini reviews of movies with a sprinkling of nostalgia and film music musings.
Summary: 



Introduction: 




Introduction:
What’s with the name David and directors? You’ve got David Lynch who makes dark surreal films. You’ve got David Fincher who makes dark dramas. And then there’s David Cronenberg who makes dark surreal dramas. Ok, it’s a stretch, but work with me here.
Summary:
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) lives in a small town in Indiana with his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and two children. It’s a nice quiet life, and you know that since this is a Cronenberg film that can’t last. As Tom is closing down his diner for the evening, a couple thugs come in and try to hold the place up. As things escalate Tom is forced to act, and boy does he. He takes out both men using only a coffee pot and a dropped gun. Tom becomes a local hero, but word spreads to Philadelphia. When Fogarty (Ed Harris) arrives in town he confronts Tom, saying that he knows who he really is. Tom appears to have never seen Fogarty in his life, but Edie begins to wonder if the man she knows as her husband is everything he appears to be.
Good Points:
Bad Points:
Overall:
Cronenberg has crafted an excellent film here with a great cast and crew. The story is simple, but the ideas behind it are intriguing and it offers a lot of food for thought and multiple viewings. Worth checking out if you’re looking for a well-made drama, with a history of violence.
Scores (out of 5)
Visuals: 4
Sound: 4
Acting: 5
Script: 4
Music: 4
Direction: 5
Entertainment: 4
Total: 4

In Depth Review
Cronenberg is one of those directors I’ve heard a lot about but haven’t seen much of. I’ve seen his remake of “The Fly” but it’s been years. I’ve been interested in seeing “Videodrome” for years, but never got around to it. So when all the buzz about “A History of Violence” was going around, I decided to check it out. I really liked it. The story pulled me in and kept me guessing right up to where Tom leaves his home for Philadelphia. But at that point, Cronenberg’s shown his hand and you’re along for the ride.
This type of movie doesn’t work without strong acting and Viggo Mortensen really makes it work. He creates two separate characters and fuses them together into one man. Some of it is very subtle, but when the changes kick in you can see a huge difference between “Tom” and “Joey”. But on top of all that Viggo allows you to see that Tom and Joey are the same man, and it’s that extra layer that adds to the performance and makes the final scene of the film resonate.
Maria Bello also does a great job as a loving woman who is really tested. Is the man she knows as Tom really hiding a dark past? And if that’s the case, how can she reconcile this lie with their marriage. She’s attracted and repulsed by Tom, a scene executed with brutality on the staircase proves that. But her character goes a long way during the film and in many cases her reactions provide a greater impact on the viewer.
Cronenberg took the graphic novel and turned it into a solid drama. This movie isn’t attempting to capture the graphic novel feel; instead Cronenberg turned this into a type of Western. There are all kinds of angles, musical cues and story setups that are right out of a traditional Western. But these elements are all slightly warped by other elements more common to a thriller or taking visuals an extra step.
It takes skill to weave all these elements together and Cronenberg makes it look simple. His opening sequence, one long slow take following two men leaving a motel is just a simple example. It does so much, setting up these characters, creating tension, setting mood, and establishing the setting. When we get to see a little more in the next shot – it’s a shock. It’s skilled film making all the way around.

What I found a bit surprising is that my second viewing allowed me to appreciate the acting and direction even more. I thought the movie was solid when I first saw it a couple years ago, but the second viewing really opened my eyes. I also suggest you give the commentary track by Cronenberg a listen. He talks about all kinds of things from adapting the script all the way up to the reception the film got. It’s very interesting as he covers all elements of the production and talks about how they all work together to cement the story and the themes it contains.
“A History of Violence” is an easy recommendation for anyone looking for a dark drama (with some black humor thrown in for good measure). You really can’t go wrong with this movie.
Introduction:
Well how could I not check this one out. Not only does it have Pierce Brosnan and Ewan McGregor in it, but it’s about a writer. Throw in a few samples of the intriguing score by Alexandre Desplat and I was hooked.
Summary:
Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) is a former British Prime Minister in a bit of a bind. He’s currently being accused of war crimes. As the pressure around him heats up, a close friend and colleague is found drowned off the coast of New England. Turns out the drowned man was working on Lang’s memoirs, and the publisher involved is eager to get them completed. They hire a ghost writer (Ewan McGregor) to finish working on them. Unfortunately, the memoirs are a mess and Lang is less then helpful. As the writer begins to dig a bit deeper he becomes entangled in a mystery that includes Ruth Lang (Olivia Williams) and Amelia Bly (Kim Cattrall) – Adam’s assistant. What secret will the Ghost Writer discover and will it cost him his life.
Good Points:
Bad Points:
Overall:
Polanski crafts an entertaining thriller. He builds tension and gets performances from his cast that fit the story perfectly. I was especially impressed by Olivia Williams as Ruth. At times the plot stretches itself a bit much, but there is a sense of dark humor to the whole film that keeps it fun. Still Roman Polanski directed it and that’s going to turn away a lot of viewers. If you’re looking for a solid but slightly wordy thriller, check this one out.
Scores (out of 5)
Visuals: 4
Sound: 3
Acting: 4
Script: 4
Music: 3
Direction: 4
Entertainment: 3
Total: 4
Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Introduction:
Disney was really flailing around in the late 70’s and early 80’s, unsure of how to proceed with their film offerings. We got some really unique films from that era, and this is one of them. Yes folks, Disney’s first attempt at family horror. And no, that doesn’t include “High School Musical”.
Summary:
The Curtis family has just bought a creepy old house in the middle of the English countryside. Paul (David McCallum) wants some peace and quiet to work on his opera. His kids Jan (Lynn-Holly Johnson) and Ellie (Kyle Richards) take to the place quickly enough. But there is a mysterious force in the woods, something watching them and waiting. The caretaker of the home Mrs. Aylwood (Bette Davis) seems to know something about this. Is a ghost haunting the woods and is it the mysterious figure that Jan keeps seeing in mirrors? Soon omens start appearing all over and Ellie starts acting really strange. Can Jan figure out the mystery of “The Watcher in the Woods” before its too late?
Good Points:
Bad Points:
Overall:
At the heart of this story is a really creepy movie waiting to get out. But the acting and script just scuttle the whole thing. Bette Davis is the only one who keeps things grounded. In a way I can see what they were trying to do, but it just never comes together. Nostalgia may save this for some folks, but this is for Disney obsessed or the curious only. The alternate endings are a hoot.
Scores (out of 5)
Visuals: 3
Sound: 3
Acting: 2
Script: 3
Music: 3
Direction: 3
Entertainment: 3
Total: 2
Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.



Introduction:
You know there are a few movies with “Death” and “Kiss” in the title. This may be the first. But does that make this flick from the 100 Mystery Classics collection better than “Kiss of Death” or “A Kiss Before Dying”?
Summary:
On the set of a movie one of the actors is killed during a scene where he is gunned down. The police are called in and soon find out that no one liked the dead chump. Luckily writer Franklyn Drew (David Manners) is on hand to make sure that his gal Marcia (Adrienne Ames) doesn’t get accused of this murder most foul. Of course with Mr. Steiner (Bela Lugosi) standing around and glowering, it’s hard to suspect him. Things spiral out of control rather quickly and bodies start stacking up. Is there a clever murderer around, or does Marcia really have “The Death Kiss”?
Good Points:
Bad Points
Overall
Another 30’s crack at the humorous mystery and one that falls flat. The mystery is rather dull, and the humor is really dated. I found none of the characters are likable. In the end a few interesting moments dealing with the murders and some of the 30s styling kept this from being a complete waste of time. But there are better comedy mysteries to enjoy (“The Thin Man” for instance).
Scores (out of 5)
Visuals: 3
Sound: 2
Music: n/a
Acting: 2
Script: 2
Direction: 3
Entertainment: 2
Total: 2
In Depth
Once again we get a script that just doesn’t do too much to keep the viewers interest. The murder itself starts out interesting, with the set getting locked down almost immediately and yet none of the clues adding up. I liked how all the extras playing G-men had a caliber of weapon completely different from the bullet that was used on the victim. When Drew discovers the actual murder weapon it was pretty clever.
In fact a lot of the main elements of the murders were handled well. When you think about it, the killer was doing a great job deflecting suspicion on everyone else. But the identity of the killer is telegraphed especially when you start piecing together who had access to what parts of the studio.
They do go out of their way to make Bela look like the culprit, but it’s so obvious that you end up writing him off. Mostly he stands around and scowls and looks grim.
For me it was David Manners who really made this difficult to enjoy. He plays that type of hero who is smug and a know it all. He spends the entire movie mocking the detective assigned to the case. I think it’s supposed to be funny, but Manners really grated on me. I’ve seen this before, where most the cops are portrayed as muscle bound morons. In fact you see this in “The Thin Man”, but William Powell has a lot more charisma than Manners.
But a lot of it has to do with the bad comedy writing. There are attempts at witty one liners, and they mostly fail. Then there are the broad humorous moments, mostly revolving around the idiot security guard and the bad Jewish stereotypical studio boss. Wow, talk about uncomfortable. There really isn’t a laugh to be found here.
So what you get is a pretty weak effort with a few moments of interest. The movie is immersed in the 30’s so if you like the fashions and designs you’ll find some neat stuff (the studio bosses office is impressive). Otherwise, avoid it.
James Lileks had a lot to say about this one. Check out his review here.