Saturday8pm Reviews

Koch Brothers Exposed (2012)

Less a Documentary Than Character Assassination

[5/10 · 17 February 2013]

I'm familiar with Greenwald's work and this is the second "documentary" of his I've seen. While it's been some time since I viewed, "Wal-Mart, The High Cost of Low Prices", this investigation of the elusive Koch brothers has little balance in presentation. Regardless of whatever the Kochs are accused of, there is no side of their argument presented whatsoever. Barring this, there is little historical evidence to base the Koch's alleged political motivations. What is presented, and clearly there's evidence there, is done so snarky that it is embarrassing. Hiring a voice actor to portray a Koch gives the film its sole comedic moment, but this hardly serves us and puts pressure on Scott Walker, not the Kochs. All we have to go on is the motivations of father Fred Koch, who in turn informs the brothers' industrial / political adventures, and even this evidence has an air of hearsay. Little is said of and by lesser-known and assumed estranged brother William, who could have shed much more light on his brothers' activities. Despite the obvious rift between the brothers as documented in the film, this Koch brother seems to have aspirations not far removed from his more noteworthy siblings. Attempts to get the Kochs themselves to defend themselves before the camera comes off as a dumb stunt relegated to the end credits.

Therefore, if you prefer one-sided character assassinations, go for this one. Me, I prefer a balanced approach that rewards the viewer with a richer understanding of whatever the subject is and how it seems to influence our lives. With much of the content existing in "... Exposed" intact and more of the Koch's side of the equation delved into we'd get a far more satisfying, true documentary. This video screams "shockumentary" that poisons the art and form of documentary filmmaking.

Pros: Short'n'Sweet; preaches to the choir, if you like this sort of thing; an investigation into the Kochs is warranted, but;

Cons: this ain't it. One-sided echo chamber it accuses the Koch machine of; asks us to follow the money - examples? Not enough historical reference or insiders to give us a fuller understanding of Koch motivations; too short and far incomplete

Net: Unconvincing argument to accuse the Kochs of being active democratic subversives

Disclaimer: Not a Koch follower or supporter, I simply wished to know about these guys, wanted a documentary and got a butter sandwich instead. There's plenty of Koch-type characters to go around today, who are they, what makes them tick?

Space: 1999 (1975–1977)

"Space: 1999" a Good Sci-Fi Thriller Series

[7/10 · 16 January 2007]

This was a good show in between the "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" years that was supposed to be a reboot for the successful English "UFO" series of The Late '60s / Early '70s. The States got it in syndication about a year post-production and was heavily marketed initially for the 1975-76 season.

The show got a lot of stick for its questionable science and uneven writing, but it was a nice break from other action shows masquerading as sci-fi. Remember, it is science FICTION. Unresolved endings and dark story lines were the trademark of the first season while the second series succumbed to safer familiar territory. One can point to the unexplained changes in Season Two as show killers, but I think people who latched on to this simply wanted another "Star Trek" and were disappointed.

I wasn't disappointed ... I found the stories fresh, realistic, and full of literary references that fleshed out the scripts rather than purloined as borrowed lines uttered by the actors.

The main idea built around the premise of the moon forcibly ejected from the earth's orbit was a risky move, and I suppose many viewers thought this too ridiculous, therefore I wonder if an episode, a continuation of the pilot episode, that picks up the events befalling earth below simultaneously was in order. Perhaps that idea was kicked around but rejected because of similarities to Irwin Allen's disaster flicks of the time, budget constraints, the lack of a script, or the fact that the series was about space, not earth. Whatever, I think that would've been the link that might have clinched this series for a longer run.

Some of my favorites include "Dragon's Domain", "Force of Life", "Black Sun", "Earthbound", and "Death's Other Dominion". Good drama, good fun.

Cheers: Groundbreaking effects, fine acting, some good scripts, serious drama though fun. Stories are thoughtful.

Caveats: Year Two. Haven't we seen this sort of thing before? "Science" Fiction. Scripts at times uneven and lacked conclusions.

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992)

Good, But Takes Too Long to Get to the Point

[6/10 · 7 January 2007]

Having seen Chomsky in other documentaries stoked my desire to pick this one up. Unfortunately, it focuses a bit too much on the cult of personality rather than quickly summing up who this guy is and what he's about. I got trigger-finger after the first 20 minutes of this, but I was glad I didn't surf through the scenes, as I was paid off when it cites the examples the DVD card promised.

Of particular import are the scenes where Chomsky's views are challenged by heads of state and news commentators and clearly shows us why we haven't heard or seen more from this controversial man.

Eventually the viewer gets the full range of Chomsky's purpose, and for that I am glad, I feel the richer for it, I will continue to seek films that he's part of, but I hope those filmmakers, such as those responsible for "The Corporation", will spare me the longwindedness of this film and get to the meat in due time.

Cheers: Questions the integrity of state and corporate sponsored news; we discover how he gets his news.

Caveats: Longwinded ... needs to be edited down by some 20 minutes; bounces around a lot.

The Great Toy Robbery (1963)

Santa at High Noon!

[9/10 · 5 January 2007]

My family discovered this nugget ten years ago at our local library of all places, and we've played it every year since.

Short and sweet, "The Great Toy Robbery" has all the charms of a great cartoon: it's funny, well-written, well-animated, and just looks plain ridiculous – and that's what works! The animation flows smoothly across the screen, almost mechanically, and adds that extra element of humor in execution alone. The lines are spare, to the point, and the voice actors sound as if they're having a ball.

Now that I've found this film's listing here, I was a little surprised it dates as far back as '63 ... WHERE HAS IT BEEN ALL MY LIFE?

Cheers: Everything.

Caveats: Can't be found anywhere, except me local library!

Casino Royale (2006)

"Casino Royale" Deals a Straight Flush

[9/10 · 5 January 2007]

My wife and I just returned from seeing "Casino Royale", and I give this film my wholehearted approval.

For the EON franchise, it's back to basics, the gadgets are no more sophisticated than cell phones and laptops, which just goes to show how much gadgetry has permeated every facet of our society, and instead the story is front and center, as it should be. To be short, this film is right in line with Fleming's cold war spy story "From Russia with Love", and that's a great thing, because many of us are tired of formulaic plots with action supplacing story. The twists and turns consistently support the story rather than reaching implausible dead ends that leave the viewer thinking, "What was that?" Not everything is neatly tied at the end, but one realizes that the outcome will be moot.

There are surprises, and one of the surprises is not that Craig fits the shoes of his character, but the fact that a character is developing here. Not since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" have we seen Bond more vulnerable or accessible. This Bond is human, and while Craig's emotional display mirrors that of Timothy Dalton's performances, Craig's range goes farther. This is exactly what this series has needed for decades, and for once we're not getting a comic book hero with lots of popcorn-spilling chase scenes that pad the running time.

Dame Judi Dench gets some of the best lines, and my only regret is she'll get too old for the part for many more movies. She is a wonderful counterpart to Craig and occupies Bernard Lee's desk proudly.

One wonders, though, if this good combination will last. Obviously, this is the last Fleming novel to be filmed reasonably faithfully, and stories will be left to copycats, so those writers will have large shoes to fill indeed. I hope that no one is considering remaking any of the Connery era films to bring continuity to a nearly 50 year-old series. That would be a most grievous mistake.

"Casino Royale" is a most welcome return to form.

Cheers: Nice update, story, serious tone, realistic, sparer production, suspense, strategy, character studies with wider emotional range, appropriate violence, soundtrack, sensible plot twists, well-placed jokes, casting, direction, set design, film locations.

Caveats: Craig physically villainous, missing familiar series' elements, the last Fleming novel to be filmed.

Bad Ronald (1974 TV Movie)

The Duke of Misplaced Groceries

[6/10 · 23 November 2004]

Synopsis: An older boy accidentally commits a very serious crime; his mother protects him in a secret room to avoid the police.

This taut little thriller is remembered well. I caught it in a "4:30 Movie" rerun almost 30 years ago, and it would make a great late night fright flick.

The acting is fine, the setting suggests the events can happen anywhere in happy unassuming suburbia. More than subtle hints of "The Picture of Dorian Gray". The sticking point is another party buys the house not realizing the boy is still living in the attic ... soon, food starts to disappear from the kitchen ...

The Believability Gap: WOULDN'T THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FIND THE SECRET ROOM?!? C'mon!!! Well, I suppose we've all had home inspections that bad. Still, today's forensics would close the case in no time, and probably with 1974 technology.

Not great, but very creepy and effective. See it.

Cheers: Creepy, claustrophobic, paranoid, a slide into mental illness.

Caveats: Low Budget, depressing even for a horror flick.

The Grateful Dead (1977)

I'm No Fan ...

[8/10 · 22 November 2004]

... and I LOVE this movie! Now expanded on DVD, this movie is even better, and I consider it among the very best in rock'n'roll films. Why? First, the performances are good and capture The Dead at one of it's many creative peaks. But the real show is the audience, those lovable Deadheads who party as if it's their last night on earth. The movie shows the whole scene, warts and all, from tech support to the band backstage.

Now, I don't get into that scene, never did. We can have a good time without trendy chemical amusement aid. But it was a part of the peak years of stadium tours of the 1970s. The music was the catalyst and the fan support unwavering. That was the strength and weakness of the rock'n'roll scene of that time, which, while not void of trouble, certainly led to the tragedies of the late '70s that changed seating arrangements at large venues. Frankly, I have stopped going to large concerts where the cattle mentality is capable of violence. In contrast, I found my sole Grateful Dead show to be among the most peaceable shows I've ever attended, a testament to the music-loving crowd that has faithfully followed the band for generations.

That love of music comes through loud and clear on "The Grateful Dead Movie". Some of the fierce loyalties make for superior humor and the sole connection for many of the attendees at these shows.

At times there are sad undertones: some fans are getting their acts together and just spending some quality time with friends while others seem completely lost to the scene. For some show goers, drugs were the catalyst. But that's the way it was back then; and perhaps always will be. Some people are drawn into whatever their hearts desire and choose to make that obsession their lives, which is fine when that endeavor is a creation of their own, when it's not, that's a real loss. A groupie for life is not the life worth living, folks. Still, the love is mutual: the film clearly shows the love the band has for it's listeners. At one point, a shirtless fan is escorted onstage and presents drummer Bill Kreutzmann with a custom "California Dead" license plate. The two shake hands, and the plate is proudly displayed on the bass drum.

The first disc is the original movie with the usual DVD options. I chose to have subtitles activated to enjoy the lyrics as I watched the film. There are also several audio options for the listener to enjoy, which will really impress the true fans. The second disc features eleven songs left on the cutting floor the first time around and for me, it was overkill, truly for the fan. Still, I listened to two of them. Several documentaries round out the package, and I found them all truly fascinating, particularly the "Making of the Animation" sequence. The Photo Gallery was for the discriminating fan, I found endless shots of production papers overkill, though some of Garcia's notes fascinating. Which leads me to the only downer of the package: the documentaries don't interview the entire band. It's great to see Donna Jean again reminiscing with buddy Bill Kreutzmann, and Bob Weir's spacey recollections have a melancholic tone, but where's the rest? Phil Lesh has GREAT insight of the band and life philosophies in general, and he's missed. So is Mickey Hart. But the real cavity is Garcia's absence.

His recollections would have truly been the ace in the hole, particularly since "The Grateful Dead Movie" was his baby. The interviewees do the best they can to speak Garcia's piece but it's no substitute. Further, I'm sure if not for his death this project would have been hastened, as unrest hit The Grateful Dead camp upon Garcia's premature parting.

Part rock show, part documentary, 100% fun, "The Grateful Dead" movie will satisfy lifelong fans and surely convert new ones, as this is as close to the real thing as one can get, since the real thing is now a part of history. One thing is for sure, if you're not a fan, you may find yourself at least liking it by the end of the film.

After all, if you weren't interested, you wouldn't have picked it up, would you?

Cheers: The definitive time capsule of The Grateful Dead in it's prime; fantastic animated opener; great song selection; photo gallery has great shots of the band in the early days; great natural spontaneity; good flow from band to fan and back; records the dynamics of a rock show; good for any rock'n'roll listener, fan or not; multiple audio choices; very humorous; witty; engaging; lovingly produced; superb DVD interactivity.

Caveats: May be overindulgent for some; bass is muddy on some songs; some fans will disturb viewers; drug use aplenty; not all of the band is interviewed; photo gallery indulgent in places; NOT FOR KIDS!!! Let it roll!!!

The Polar Express (2004)

One More Time, with Feeling

[5/10 · 22 November 2004]

Having seen "The Polar Express" with my family this past weekend, I was left with several impressions. First, the negative: CGi works well on backgrounds, much less so on human beings; some characters were monstrous; The North Pole cityscape looked more like Poland during the war than "Christmastown"; the sound was too loud; the movie would have benefited greatly without the new characters and a shorter running time; some voice talents were totally miscast; the mood of the film is too bleak for young children. On the positive: there's some memorable songs; fantastic use of color; a faithfulness to the illustrations of the Chris Van Allsburg book ( which is the main reason the producers chose to render the entire film in CGi ); breathtaking nature scenes; a real kinetic energy; most of the children seemed to love it – which is the point, really – after all, it IS a movie designed for children.

Consider the source material: I find the book rather bleak in itself.

For me, it's one of Allsburg's lesser writes, though it's not void of charm. It should be for older children who are on the cusp of that basic level of maturity that questions the less logical aspects of life. That age group surely has graduated from pictures books. Or is it more a book for the precocious six year old who's unfortunately been informed by another less impressionable child that Santa Claus isn't real? Which is it? I'll guess the latter is probably the closest to the author's target. If true, the likely truth is that those children are in the minority, and the book's main fault is that it attracts an audience too wide than it's intended audience.

Which is why the movie also is awkward in its approach to Christmas. Children see the Rankin/Bass productions on TV, then see "The Polar Express" and begin to think, "Gee, is The North Pole REALLY like that?" This modern depiction of The North Pole is a quantum leap from those old TV shows. I suppose that all these disparate depictions of The North Pole only fuel children's suspicions. Children thrive on familiarity, and The North Pole has been depicted, up to this point, thousands of ways. It's no wonder they start to question everything! The CGi people come off weird, unnatural and sometimes downright frightening. Remember that movie "Westworld"? You've got it! I think the better idea would have been placing live actors in the backgrounds, as in "Mary Poppins". The charm factor would have been ratcheted way up. Why wasn't this done? Supposedly the director didn't want to bother with child actors. Huh?!? How can one get that childhood feeling while being surrounded mostly by adults during the production? "One more time, with feeling." As for the volume, all movies are too loud today. But the sudden noises and decibel level are totally inappropriate for this film. If I were a kid and saw this movie, I'd be treated to nightmares at bedtime.

What did my six year old think? She loved it! Mostly she loved the train scenes where the movie show the workings of the train and the amazing speeds of which it's capable. Which is the weakness of my review – most kids loved this movie. But some younger children were scared by it. What – Christmas scary? Leave that to "A Christmas Carol", which is NOT for young kids! WHY toddlers were brought in to see this at our viewing is indicative of the lack of natural feeling people seem to exhibit nowadays. Have we really gotten so desensitized that ideas and common sense have to be bludgeoned into our minds? So, proceed with caution.

Cheers: Beautiful backgrounds; breathtaking nature scenes; some good songs; a movie that really moves; fascinating animation; faithful to the book; teaches that faith is important in life; a crowd-pleaser.

Caveats: Scary characters; too loud; bleak; awkward; animated dead people; too long; way too intense for impressionable five year-olds.

Match, cut.

The Creeping Terror (1964 TV Movie)

B-Movies Killed the Drive-In Star ...

[5/10 · 4 October 2004]

... with films such as THIS turkey. I don't care if you've seen every bad movie made, this has to be the most incompetent attempt at cinema ever committed. Forget those "Worst Movies" lists that choose "Horror of Party Beach" as the bottom of the pork rind barrel, "The Creeping Terror" CLEARLY is the worst movie ever made. There were two crimes committed: the making of the film and the way it was financed ( see blurb in the trivia section ).

Despite the MST3K version, which makes the film viewable, ALMOST, one can count the errors. First, if this film seems as if it was filmed as a silent then dubbed in post-production, you're right. ( Again, see the trivia section. ) Second, the camera exposure seems to be set the same indoors, outdoors, and in-studio. We are treated to such composition as meaningless sky shots, out of focus closeups, and other various non-composed framework. Editing was possibly accomplished using an egg beater; this could explain the camera's attention-deficit action during the sock-hop sequence. Anyway, the goofs are too numerous to list.

I suppose that Nelson [ the person(s) responsible for this mess ] had "The Blob" in mind as a blueprint for his film, but credit for the creatures' design goes to a self-referencing John Lackey. When a name provides justice ...

* SPOILERS * Is this possible?!?

Probably the best lines in the MST3K version are "I'll speed this along and just jump in" as the "monster" devours its umpteenth victim; "I can't believe I'm still hungry!" it says; "Are you OK back there?" as the Creeping Carpet stumbles through the woods; "Eight miles to Lover's Lane?!?"; "Finally, someone comes along who has rhythm!" as the "monster" struggles to reach the sock-hop; "This is why the British Invasion was easy" in comment to the "music" at the hop; and "He died with his bowling shoes on ..." as the drunk is devoured. Probably the only mistake the MST3K crew commits is the fifties references. The film actually came out in '64. No big crime there.

It was films as this that killed the Drive-In. But thanks to Chiller Theatre and MST3K, we got hammered by it thrice. Should we be thankful?

Cheers: It's thoroughly ridiculous.

Caveats: It's thoroughly ridiculous.

Split Rating:

UnMST3K'd – One Star; Two if you have beer and/or controlled substances.

MST3K'd – Ten Stars!!! One of the best parodies they ever did! Even better with above in hand.

Song of the South (1946)

You Cast Your Own Stone ...

[8/10 · 26 December 2003]

I saw it in its re-release in the early '70s and I literally just got finished watching it again now with my 6 year old. It's a fun film, and really got me in a good mood, the same way "Mary Poppins" did oh, about 8 hours ago!

I've read Disney had little to do with the actual production of it but he was well aware of the Uncle Remus stories. Obviously, if the man thought poorly of the protagonists in this film, he wouldn't have bothered to make this film at all.

I'm not blind, but I choose to look past the racial elements ( such as the tar baby scene ) NOT to give Disney or the production team the benefit of the doubt but to give the film a chance to tell the story: and it's just a simple collection of fables told in an entertaining fashion. "You can't run away from trouble, 'cuz there's no place that far" is an example of the philosophy that is directed towards children, not cynical adults.

Cheers: One of Disney's best.

Caveats: WARNING: Overtly racist. Very dated.

The Homecoming: A Christmas Story (1971 TV Movie)

A Wonderful Christmas Family Film

[9/10 · 25 December 2002]

I saw this as a kid and still feel I need to see it every Christmas. I group it with "A Christmas Carol", "The Grinch", "A Charlie Brown Christmas" and "It's A Wonderful Life" as Christmas movie essentials.

The acting is superbly done by seasoned pros and brilliant newcomers who give added depth to a well crafted script that tells the true story of a depression-era poor Baptist rural Virginia family awaiting its father to return home Christmas Eve. The story is simple and the movie never strays from its central theme, adding plenty of character developing touches that most folks can relate to. The Waltons are a real Baptist family dealing with the issues of the day, such as the economic meltdown of the '30s and bootlegging, and the timeless problems of family harmony, love, adolescence, pride, privacy, values, vocation choice and parental expectation.

The beautiful mountain scenery adds to the Christmas spirit that contrasts with the meager living the townspeople endure year after year. The Christmas tree, sleigh ride and church scenes are all treated with the respect that this humble family deserves and should warm even the coldest heart without getting overly sentimental. Plenty of Bible references to remind the viewer what Christmas is all about.

Cheers: Fine acting all around. Realistic portrayals. Wonderful scenery. A Currier and Ives looks without the empty sentimentality. Less Santa and more Jesus.

Caveats: May bore very young children.

My Rating: 9 out of 10 Stars!

Threads (1984 TV Movie)

The Most Terrifying Movie Ever Filmed

[9/10 · 1 October 2002]

As the world slides into war, "Threads" follows the lives of a handful of inhabitants of Sheffield, England to document their growing horror as each "thread" of society breaks down.

This is the most thoroughly researched film on the subject of thermonuclear war that joins this family of movies such as "The Day After", "On the Beach", and "Panic in the Year Zero". The producers base "Threads" on scientific data and give us the most authentic depiction yet of a hypothetical World War III while sparing us many of the obvious gory horrors that punctuate actual footage of the Hiroshima bombing aftermath we are shown in school. As we follow the damned survivors traverse the stepping stone islands of greenery amidst the vast charred remains of poisoned earth, we see the progression of an endless, scrambling death march in which all attempts at life are in vain. They are truly alone, without support, in a world literally blasted back to The Dark Ages.

This movie still provokes wild nightmares. It should be made compulsory viewing for anyone who believes a war as this is survivable. The events over this summer between India and Pakistan frighteningly demonstrate there are whole populations still ignorant on the probable effects of our arsenals.

Cheers: The story is spared in favor of facts. The story is the facts. The acting is superb and the script nearly flawless. "Threads" makes its statement without being unnecessarily gory; the producers know the viewer has enough brains to guess the horrific details.

Caveats: Dated, though we don't need just one country today to start trouble. Personally, it is not bleak enough. The throngs of people who survive "The Day After" is ludicrous: the producers of that film printed a disclaimer of sorts indicating the screenplay benefits by keeping people alive rather than killing them off, therefore giving that movie a Disney ending. I feel even less of the population would survive "Threads". Finally, some of the special effects are cheesy, but this is an minor gripe.

( Perspective: If one 25 megaton H-bomb was dropped on my tiny state of Connecticut, a full fifth of it would be instantly incinerated, never mind the fallout. There are tens of thousands of these bombs throughout the world today, and many pounds of plutonium of which cannot be accounted. Now just about any fool can get his hands on bomb components if The Price Is Right. )

Rating: Nine Stars.

More (1969)

"When the Music's Over, Turn Off the Set, Turn Off the Set"

[2/10 · 1 October 2002]

Great music, but ain't these people PATHETIC?!? A true period piece of The Trippy Sixties, and it left me depressed. The director paints the wrong side of the jetset life and it stings as a hornets nest. If the culture of the time led people to do these things, it appears to me that it was all a journey of no discovery, only despair. I tried, really tried, to like this film, but these people aren't anywhere on my page. Yes, it would be nice to see the world, go away for awhile, but I always plan to come BACK. Drugs aren't the cause of these characters' downfalls, it's their lousy attitudes – these guys passionately drink their cup of poison. They cheapen their lives, and in the end, cheapen the journey that is life. Has romance ever been so dark?

Cheers: Interesting scenery. Wonderful soundtrack by Pink Floyd.

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. Depressing. Thoroughly unlikable characters; they aren't flower children.

Only for the curious, since most packages swoon The Pink Floyd connection. ( Rare Floyd tracks many will have never heard before, as FM ain't what it was. )

Rating: Two Stars.

The Sound of Music (1965)

The Most Beautiful Movie Ever Made

[10/10 · 1 October 2002]

This is the first movie I ever saw in the theatre, the year was 1967.

Upon reviewing it the first time it was shown on TV, I have to say this is a movie that must be viewed on the big screen, for TV greatly diminishes the effect.

I remember it from a child's point of view, but this is largely a film about children for children by the child-at-heart. The plot is religious, the songs uplifting to heaven, the scenery heaven on earth. Robert Wise, the screenwriters, Rogers and Hammerstein, all the performers – all geniuses.

Then – political reality. The pristine Salzburg is besieged by the most compelling evil humanity has ever spawned.

The obvious critiques of "The Sound of Music" are its unwavering sentiment, and many viewers are repelled by its depiction of wealth, happiness and saccharin love. Any hardened adult should recall the basic message of this movie: You Find the Beauty in Life and Yourself and Those Around You.

Cheers: It's a Musical. Some of the greatest songs ever committed to the stage. Wonderful ensemble cast. Exquisitely set and filmed. The best family movie ever made. The finest movie ever filmed.

Caveats: Long. Religious. Sentimental, to the point of repulsion in a few of us ( not me ).

Rating: A Solid, Well Deserved Ten Stars.

Head (1968)

A Psychedelic Documentary

[8/10 · 29 September 2002]

"I am ... proud of 'Head'," Mike Nesmith has said. He should be, because this film, which either has been derided by many of us or studied and scrutinized by film professors, works on many levels.

Yes, it's unconventional. To many, frustrating. It's almost as if the producers hand you the film and tempt: "You figure it out."

You probably already know that The Monkees TV show was a runaway marketing success that depended upon business acumen and no small serving of public deception. TV shows are about selling soap and toothpaste first, than to entertain. That The Monkees broke out of the box for a short time to make "Head" is a testament to the group's popularity and importance in pop culture, despite where your head's at. Get one thing straight: "Head" is not The Monkees TV show.

So what we have here is a "psychedelic documentary" about Western pop culture from a source that has authority on the subject. "Head" is a movie that could only come from those "inside the box". By 1968, The Monkees' cast and crew were seasoned and weary professionals who had seen their share of promise and disappointment. The movie was a deliberate attempt at market repositioning. So, it did three things: Make a film the way The Monkees envisioned. Most importantly, reinvent the group to one not subservient to it's old bosses - and yas, hipper than before. Make a film that exposed American attitudes of information dissemination.

"Head", therefore, really is about media manipulation and its net result: deception. The mass media is supposed to inform, educate us on the happenings in the world at large, and ultimately asks us to form opinions of these events that can shape thought into positive action. Thus we assume the information we absorb to be complete and unbiased - otherwise, how can one establish a valued conclusion on any one idea presented by a book, newspaper or TV show? In one of the street interviews in "Head", a guy admits, "I haven't looked at a newspaper or TV in years." Is he lesser or better the man? Even the drug parallels are a soft veiling of "Things are not as they seem." Remember the old joke, "Everything you know is wrong"? The screenplay starts with The Monkees' public admission of it's own "manufactured image" and runs with the football - literally. Is the football scene in the movie a visual manifestation of the whole idea behind "Head"? Is the film a stream-of-consciousness exercise? Is the film the culmination of pot smoking marathons? There are too many coincidences that occur in the film that suggest otherwise. My guess is that "Head" is the culmination of motivations somewhere between intended and unintended.

Largely, the insiders responsible for "Head" seem to enjoy themselves in the revelries that take place in the film, but there is anger - anger at the chaos that characterized the late '60s and anger at the way the media, television especially, had changed culture in negative ways. Drugs and violence were strong negative forces in the late '60s and still are, but the producers of "Head" want you to know that poor "information" is a far greater danger.

Wars have been attributed to hoaxes and lies. What perfect way to spread disinformation than through TV? Repeatedly, the mysterious black box is seen as an obstacle to The Monkees and seemingly, all of us as well. In one scene, Peter is sullenly sitting in a saloon holding a melting ice cream cone, and is asked by a fellow Monkey, "What's wrong?" "I bought this ice cream cone and I don't want it." The movie suggests that the first purpose of the media is NOT to inform, but to sell en mass blindly. "Head" goes further: put any idea into someone's head, and merrily goes he.

The filmmakers know this, and the danger is real. "Head" is either a movie that creates itself "as we go along", or is a deliberate statement. Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe it is just "Pot meets advertising", as critics scathed in 1968. The jokes are on The Monkees and us. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Cheers: A true guilty pleasure. Very funny. Intelligent. Will please the fans. Find the substance, it's there. Unabashedly weird. Bizarre collection of characters. Good tunage. Length is appropriate. Lots of great one liners, including my all time prophetic favorite: "The tragedy of your times, my young friends, is that you may get exactly what you want."

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. No plot. No linear delivery of any thought in particular. At least twenty-five stories that interweave in stop-and- go fashion. So, may easily frustrate. May seem pretentious to some. People who can't stand The Monkees need not watch, though that in itself is no reason to avoid it. The psychedelic special effects may kill your ailing picture tube or your acid burnt- out eyeballs.

Match, cut.

Session 9 (2001)

Disturbing and Unlikeable

[6/10 · 27 September 2002]

I understand that Brad came from Madison, CT, not too far east of where I sit now ... a very promising filmmaker. A viewer may make comparisons of "Session 9" to "The Blair Witch Project" as the delivery of events is similar, and similar to that film, the characters are genuinely unlikable. Rule #1 in film-making is that if bad tidings occur to key players, the producers must make us care for them. The most sympathetic person is Gordon, who is not in control from the outset ... but we discover the reason for his unsettled state of mind - kinda.

Cheers: Expect good acting, a camera nose pointed straight ahead and tons of atmosphere. The fact that my wife had to stop watching it 'cuz it was too scary proves the point.

Caveats: Expect a film of turns not well explained, frustrating characterizations, and an improbable premise: How can the crew possibly finish the asbestos removal of a cavernous facility of that size in only one week? No one in their right mind should have hired that crew - totally unbelievable. But that's not the point of the film: They're there and now they gotta finish the job or lose that holy bonus. Reminds me of every contractor I've dealt with who tried to pull the wool.

Saturday8pm

The City of the Dead (1960)

A WNEW Channel 5 Creature Features Classic!

[9/10 · 27 September 2002]

The plot is simple: Cute young coed studying witchcraft decides to act on good advice and goes straight to The Source as she gathers research for her term paper. But, is there another reason why she's sent to the tiny town of Whitewood, Massachussetts?

To begin, this is the first film from the director responsible for the original "The Night Stalker", so the well-written script is in good hands. This is one of the most entertaining and frightening movies about witchcraft I've seen, and I've seen quite a few. While it does have its campy side to it, "City of the Dead" stays on the road ( the wrong one, as you'll find ) and the tension builds to a memorable conclusion.

While many will find it predictable as most horror films go, it takes the same surprising left turn as does "Psycho", released around the same time. It's also a Black and White goody long known for its rounds on the Saturday night TV horror fests in The '60s and '70s, hence my handle ( screen name ) here on The IMDb.

((( Personal Viewing Experience: If you're from the greater NYC area, you'll remember "Creature Features" on WNEW Channel 5. This is how we got to see this film as "Horror Hotel". First, Glenn Strange's posteurized face melting back and forth from positive to negative – then the feature film! Good grief, the nightmares! Better, the first time we saw this, the babysitter decided not to show up, so we were home alone watching it! D'oh! )))

That was then, this is now. I recently got ahold of a new DVD edition of "City of the Dead" aka "Horror Hotel", and it looks fabulous! For a film that's been dogged by fifth-generation dupes for years, when it can be found at all, this is a great restoration, plus it features interviews with the director and surviving stars! What great fun.

"Horror Hotel" has GREAT atmosphere. I don't think there's one scene where the sun is shining. Whitewood is the epitome of creepy with its old dilapidated buildings, choking fog, a handful of very suspicious townspeople with drawn faces, and a graveyard of condemned witches on the town green! The Raven's Inn is what you may find today as a bed and breakfast in Old Salem, complete with period fireplaces and shadows!

Cheers: Wonderful atmosphere. Great lighting. Proves that for some films, Black and White is best. Interesting jazzy soundtrack. Instances of silence that allow for room noises such as clocks, footsteps and crackling fires. The "Salem" you always thought of: dark, distant, isolated, paranoid, foggy, and foreboding. Performances drip with evil. Great cast. Not the usual drive-in cheapie ... it's worth it.

Caveats: Predictable. Dated. Black and White. ( Look, color has its place. Not here. ) Gore fest freaks will be sadly disappointed. May move too slow for some.

In short, the next time you drive up to Massachusetts, watch for a sign that reads "Whitewood". Don't stop, keep driving. Don't watch this movie alone.

The Screaming Skull (1958)

"Chiller Theatre" Sludge ... and That's GREAT!!!

[5/10 · 27 September 2002]

Synopsis: All's well when The Whitlocks return home from their honeymoon, until all signs point to the presence of another – Whitlock's dead first wife! Is Mickey playing dumb, or does he know something that Eric Whitlock doesn't?

OK, for all you guys who saw this in NYC on WPiX's "Chiller Theatre" in The '60s and '70s, this is for you. I loved it and was scared by it as a kid, laughed at it as an adult. Oh yes, those nasty little robots from MST3K made it viewable all over again! That said ...

... all the prints I've seen are poor, and the lighting is consistently overexposed in many scenes ... must've been filmed on someone's wedding budget ... for three guests. Still, it should be restored.

Nobody wanted to act in this turkey, so the director played the retard Mickey the Gardener. He's the one who looks like "Clapton!"

Cheers: Has atmosphere. Good ghosts. Great for kids, older kids won't scare at all. Roll the Credits! That's David Crosby's father Floyd doing camera chores!

Caveats: Stiff, slow and predictable ending.

Split Rating:

Adult Rating: 2 Stars

Kid Rating: 7 Stars

"Mystery Science Theatre 3000" Rating: Ten Stars!!! One of their best; some great lines.