Movies I finally got Around to Watching

The idea of this movie intrigued me from the time it was first released. The blending of classic film noir conventions and modern Sci-Fi with (then) state of the art special effects. I just recently streamed it online, but I must admit it didn't really commit the time and attention it deserved. I got distracted about halfway through it and didn't re-focus until toward the end. I really need to watch it again when I can devote my attention to it fully.

Having admitting that, I must say that Ridley Scott did a fantastic job of creating the dystopian landscape of Los Angeles in the future year of 2019. It reminded me of Fritz Lang's Metropolis. He blended the slick, technologically advanced and the dirty and decaying aspects of the city very well. Some of the designs reminded me of the interior design of the spaceship he created for his first big movie, Alien. The flying cars were pretty cool, as were the impossibly tall buildings.

The movie works on several levels. It is basically an action picture, but as I mentioned it employees a lot of film noir conventions as well as Sci Fi themes that include religion, nature, morals, and humanity. Rutger Hauer gives one of his best performances as Roy Batty,
the main antagonist of the film.

I would recommend this movie. It was very interesting and entertaining when I was committed to watching it. I will resolve to watch it again myself when I can give it the attention it deserves. I am sure I will like it even better the second time.

Richard Pryor was on a roll in the mid-70s. After struggling in the 60s with a stand up routine modeled after Bill Cosby, he had developed his own style inspired by events and people he knew growing up in Peoria, IL and featuring the raw street language he was exposed to. This successful act was followed by a string of successful comedy albums. It was only natural the next step would be a string of comedy movies.

'Blue Collar' was released in 1978, after 'Which Way is Up?' and 'Greased Lightning'. On the surface, it appeared to be just another Pryor comedy. I thought I would probably watch it sometime, but it was not a priority to me.

Then I began reading this was an overlooked and underrated movie. That prompted me to investigate it a little. I discovered it really wasn't a comedy at all, but a drama that was written and directed by Paul Schrader. He was famous at that time as a screenwriter, having written 'Taxi Driver' a couple of years prior to this. I also discovered the 2 co-stars were Harvey Keitel and Yaphet Kotto, 2 very good actors. I decided it was time for me to check this out for myself.

The movie is about 3 working class guys on the assembly line of an automobile factory. The movie does have some initial light-hearted momemts, but developes into a drama that addresses much deeper issues. The guys are struggling to pay their bills and support their families while getting no help from the plant management or their union represenatives. They decide to pull off a heist from the union headquarters. Instead of money, they discover evidence of corruption that places them and their families in danger. The movie poses some moral questions and lets the viewer think and decide for themselves. I was suprised by Pryor's evolution from the witty, wise-cracking character from the beginning of the movie, to the stronger, deeper, and more complex character facing some hard decisions. This is a pretty good movie and one of Pryor's best dramatic performances.

Being a fan of film noir, and old crime movies in general, I wanted to see this movie. I had heard it being hailed as a classic in the genre and the inspiration for Tarantino's 'Reservoir Dogs'. After discovering the 3 main crooks were played by Neville Brand, Jack Elam, and Lee Van Cleef, I knew I had to see it.

It is the story of a man who has orchestrated the perfect crime. What he hadn't counted on was the man he had framed to take blame, coming back to exact his revenge.

This is a very hard-boiled crime story with enough twists and turns to keep it interesting. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I know film noir is a relative term, and means different things to different people, but it didn't strike me as a true noir. I thought it was more of a hard-boiled crime drama, but it does have some of what I consider 'noir-ish' elements.

I had high hopes for this movie. It should have been a sure fire hit. The premise could have been taken straight from the classic Warner Brothers films of the 30s and 40s. The 2 leads are brothers, one a tough cop, the other an ambitious priest. Instead of Cagney and Bogart, they are played by 2 of my favorite contemporary actors, Robert Duvall and Robert DeNiro.

It starts off with an older Duvall visiting his brother in a remote desert parish after many years apart. The story is then told in flashback to the post-war 40s when they were both younger. It starts off with a murder mystery that promises to be good, but nothing ever comes of it. There are lots of implied connections, corruptions, and just plain wrongdoing, but none of it ever comes to the forefront. There is little action, which is okay if the story is interesting and the dialog is good. That is not the case here. The brothers are obviously close, but always seem to sit in awkward silence when they are together. It also seems to want to draw a comparison between Duvall, the cop who once was the bag man for the local crime boss and Priest DeNiro's ignoring some of the same crime boss' rough edges in order to accept donations of money, land, and the building of a school for the archdiocese. It promises to expose the hypocrisies of each brother, but falls short there, too. `

It comes out that the murdered girl knew the crime boss and all his associates. She was having sex with them all and, through association, knew the Priest as well. It is never made clear if the priest had sex with her. He implies that he didn't, but just knowing her would be enough to ruin his standing in the church and his hopes of being made a Bishop. A tragedy sets Duvall off in relentless pursuit of publicly exposing the crime boss's connection to the murdered girl, even though he knows he didn't do it, and it would bring his brother's aquaintence with the girl out publicly as well.

None of this is played out on the screen, instead we cut back to the opening segment with the older brothers' reunion at the desert parish. We are left to assume Duvall's actions got DeNiro condemned to the remote site. It also appears DeNiro is at peace with himself and his humble life, which he reveals is near its end. It also is obvious that he holds no grudge and forgives his brother completely.

I guess the movie is not that bad. I was disappointed because I was expecting so much more. I wasn't prepared for this subtle, low key drama. I might enjoy it more if I watch it again sometime with a more open mind, but I still say it is not one of the best roles for either of these stars.

I remember when this movie debuted. It garnered a lot of critical acclaim, as well as about nine Academy Award nominations. All I remember is wondering about the unusual title. I was not curious enough to go see it, however.

Years later, I read that it was about the old dance marathons they used to have back in the 1930's. I recently found a site online where I could stream it for free and decided to check it out and see for myself what all the fuss was about.

As I had heard, this is the story of 4 couples who enter a dance marathon with the hope of winning $1500, a princely sum in the midst of Hoover's 1930s depression. The movie takes you through the entire process of applying, qualifying, and going through the whole grueling experience. The desperate contestants are herded like cattle through this run-down old ocean front ballroom near Los Angeles. These are people who are desperate, one young man and his pregnent wife, a friendly sailor about 30 years older than the others, and a cynical young woman who appears to be fed up with everything giving it just one more chance to pay off.

The marathon is run by a sleazy, manipulitive con man, who exploits the contestants for the entertainment of the paying spectators. He thinks of the contest as his "show".

I found the movie slow and plodding. The camera never left the ballroom. The audience becomes trapped in the marathon just as much as the contestants. Sydney Pollack was a talented director, and I was thinking maybe that was what he was going for: to make the audience feel the long, slow, never-ending marathon as much as the dancers. As the hours go on, the dancers get eliminated with no concern for their health or well-being. The staff of doctors and nurses in their white uniforms are there mostly for the "show" and do little more than dispense aspirin. We slowly come to realize there are no winners except those running the contest. It is like Las Vegas: you can't beat the house. The real drama comes at the suprise twist ending. I won't give it away and spoil it for anyone who plans to watch it for the first time.

It was one of those movies you don't think much of when you first see it, but find youself thinking about different aspects of it later and realizing it must have effected you in some way. Some would say it is a downer of a movie and very depressing. I thought it was a pretty good depiction of how desperate people became during the great depression. Some contestants stayed in the contest just because they were fed and had a place to sleep during their short, regulated rest periods. I am not a big Jane Fonda fan, but she gives a solid dramatic performance as the tough cynical malcontent. This was surprising because at the time this movie was made, she was known for comedy and light romantic parts like 'Cat Ballou', 'Barefoot in the Park', and 'Barbarella'. Red Buttons gives his usual fine support as the old sailor. Michael Sarrazin plays Fonda's dance partner and really doesn't do much. I don't think he had any personality, and just did what Fonda told him to do. It wasn't made clear why he entered the contest at all, other than because Fonda needed a partner and the MC told him to. This movie is not for everyone. If you like action, this is not your type of film, but for a great performance from Gig Young as the MC and a glimpse of a desperate bygone era, you might want to check it out.

I am a longtime Michael Caine fan. I consider him one of those 'reliable' actors you can always count on for a good performance. Even if the movie is not that great, Caine will bring something interesting to his part. I also admire his work ethic. Even at his age, it is not unusual to see him in 2 or more movies per year.

This little independent flim came with no promotion and left quietly with little fanfare in 1990. I wanted to see it not only because it starred Caine, but it appeared to be a quirky little gem that was missed by the mainstream.

When I finally saw it, I discovered it was a comedy-thriller with a sort of a Hitchcockian tone. Caine was superb, as usual, as a middle-aged executive with a mortgage and a nagging wife. When he is passed over for a promotion that everyone assumed he would get, it starts a chain of events that leads the mild-mannered ad exec to meticuously plot out revenge against all those who have made his life miserable.

I won't ruin it by giving away anymore details, but I will say it was a very enjoyable movie with Michael Caine giving a great performance that deserved more notice than it got.

After enjoying A Shock to the System, I wanted to watch another Michael Caine movie, but I have seen almost all of his work. I came across this one from the mid-60s, that I hadn't seen. I had heard it was a heist caper in the Topkapi, or To Catch a Thief mode, so I decided to watch it.

The film has Caine as a high class cat burglar (now that's a term I hadn't heard used since the 60's) who has planned an elaborate plot to steal a priceless artifact from the wealthiest man in the world. He plans to incorporate the help of the unwitting Shirley Maclaine and exploit her resemblance to the billionaire's decessed wife to keep the billionaire occupied while Caine pulls off the heist.

We watch as the plan is pulled off perfectly with Caine in complete control at all times and Maclaine silently following instructions and never realizing what she had done even after Caine has paid her off and given her a passport and a plane ticket to Hong Kong.

At this point we go back to the sleazy club where Maclaine was working when Caine first approached her. We now realize the heist had only occurred in Caine's mind. We now get to see the actual plan and find that Caine is not the smooth criminal he imangines himself to be and Maclaine is not the silent and obedient student. In the actual caper it seems that everything that can go wrong, does go wrong.

Although this was not on my "to see" list, I found it quite enjoyable and amusing. I will not give away the twist at the end an spoil it for those that haven't seen it.

As a lifetime Western fan, I have seen all of the classics, from Stagecoach and Red River to The Wild Bunch and Tombstone. It seems a little suprizing that I had not seen this all star Western epic directed by 3 legendary Western directors (Jonh Ford, Henry Hathaway, and George Marshall).

I had seen about 20 minutes of the opening segment with Jimmy Stewart as a mountain man and Karl Malden as the head of an Eastern family headed West, but I had not seen the rest of the picture. I am not sure why I had never watched it, especially being such a fan of Westerns, so I resolved to sit down and give it a look.

The movie is an attempt to provide an episodic retelling of the progress of westward migration and developement of America. it consists of 5 segments:
The Rivers, The Plains, The Outlaws, The Civil War, and The Railroad.

The story follows the Prescott family from New York state through 4 generations that move ever westward. As I mentioned, it is an all star movie with familiar western actors popping up all the time. Sometimes, with no real contribution to the story. Like during the Civil War segment they have John Wayne as General Sherman and a miscast Harry Morgan as General Ulysses S. Grant having a conversation. The whole scene amounts to a walk-on cameo that does nothing to advance the story, and is totally irrelevent, except that it was a way to work 2 more stars into the credits.

Probably the most entertaining segments are the last 2, The Railroad and The Outlaws. They feature a Buffalo stampede started by hostile Indians, and a shootout with outlaws trying to rob a runaway train. There are some great action sequences and stunt work on the train shootout.

I found Jimmy Stewart very good, as usual, as the mountian man with some very tall tales for the young children of the Prescott family and Karl Malden trying to top his stories until he was chastised by his wife. If you look close, you will see some western actors in small, uncrediterd roles, like Lee Van Cleef, Harry Dean Stanton, Andy Devine, Walter Brennan, and Jay C. Flippen.

I would say, overall the movie is pretty good. The only fault I can find with it is that it tries to do to much. It takes on a lot more than it can handle. It tries to cram 50 years of Westward expassion and development into a two and a half hour movie.

This is a movie that I had forgotten about. It was out when I was a kid and it was considered a controversial film. Most critics liked it and gave the then-unknown actor Peter Boyle a lot of praise in this breakout role.


When I watched it, I was suprised to learn this was Susan Sarandon's debut in a movie. She is featured as the teenage daughter of a rich couple from the upper East side of New York.

This movie concerns the new counter-culture and its perceived threats to the ultra-conservative old guard. In this respect, the movie appears quite dated. It also has original songs that were obviously meant to sound hip and outrageous at the same time. This introduction really dragged the movie down for me and almost had me bailing before the story even started. I am glad I hung in there, though.

The teenage daughter is sharing an apartment with her neglectful, drug-dealing boyfriend. The girl overdoses and is sent to the hospital while the boyfriend is out making a big score. The father comes to the apartment to collect his daughter's clothes. While he is there, the boyfriend returns with his big bag of drugs. An argument ensuses, and the outraged man slams the young man's head into the wall repeatedly until he realizes he has accidentally killed the boy. Panicked and confused, the man grabs the bag of drugs and runs out the door.

At this point I should mention that Peter Boyle's performance is the best thing about this film, and up to this point, he has not appeared. We first see him sitting at a bar loudly complaining to the whole place about all these young hippies taking over everything. The father comes into the same bar to get a drink to try and calm his nerves. He sits at the bar next to the loud drunk. When the drunk says, 'I would like to kill one of 'em, I would just love to kill one!', The Man absent-mindedly says, 'I just did'.

Joe, the drunk not only believes the man, he admires him and wishes he had done it. The man realizes that he had just made a public confession and quickly explains he was just joking. Joe accepted it was just a joke and offered to buy the man a drink for fooling him, but the man quickly left the bar.

When the news of the murder comes out in the papers the next morning, Joe reads it and realized the man he met had actually done it. He remembered the man's name,
looked it up, and called him at work. He let the man know he knew his secret, but will not tell or try to blackmail him, he just wants to be friends with him.

As we see more of Joe's life, we begin to understand he is a ticking time bomb that could explode at any time. Just beneath the surface, he has a violent streak. He seems to keep it in check most of the time, but you never know.

The 2 men meet socially. first at the local bowling alley with Joe's blue-collar buddies. The rich man then takes Joe to some of the high-scale bars his work associates frequent and have fun passing Joe off as a new Executive coming into the business. Joe and his wife have the couple over to their place for an awkward dinner, where he takes him to his basement and shows off his gun collection.

The girl escapes from the hospital and comes home to overhear her father and mother talking about the murder. She confronts her father for killing the boy she loved and then runs away.

When Joe finds out about the daughter running away, he insists that he and the father go find her. They go to the Hippie establishments down in the village to see if they can get any information on her whereabouts.

A group of Hippies start teasing the 2 old farts about smoking grass. The father says,' No thanks, I have plenty' referring to the bag of drugs he took from the boyfriend and still had in the trunk of his car. When the Hippies discover these old guys are holding, they invite them to a party in a nearby apartment.

I don't want to give the rest of the movie away, but it comes to a climatic ending after the party. Most of you probably have a good idea of what this is leading up to, anyway.

After the slow beginning, I really enjoyed this movie, especially when Joe is there dominating the scene. Boyle gives a creepy, menacing performance as a character that is both comical and dangerous at the same time. He is Archie Bunker taken to the darkest extreme.


Boyle didn't like the fact that people were applauding the violence in this picture, and never took another violent role after this one. As a result, he turned down Popeye Doyle, the character that won Gene Hackman an Oscar.

There was a rumor in the 80s that Boyle would appear in a sequel that deals with an older Joe with children that have grown older and more liberal. The movie never materialized, however.

This little independent film was Kris Kristofferson's first movie. At the time, Kris was primarily known for his music. He had written several hit songs for other artists and recorded a couple of albums under his own name. 'Lovin' Her Was Easier..' and 'The Pilgram' are two of his songs used in the film score.


Kristofferson plays the title character, Cisco Pike, a formerly successful recording artist fallen on hard times. He has been recently been busted for dealing drugs. Cisco promises his girlfriend that he has quit dealing and will concentrate on getting his music career back on track. This is complicated when the weird cop that busted Cisco shows up with 100 kilos of prime grade marijuana. He tries to pressure Cisco into selling it for him over the weekend and paying him 10,000 dollars on Monday morning. He says Cisco can keep anything he makes over that amount and keep any grass he may have left. Cisco reluctantly agrees only after the cop promises to fix it so that Cisco will get off easy when he goes to court on the dealing charge.

Kristofferson puts in a solid, understated performance as Cisco. Some would argue that is because he is just playing a variation of himself. Karen Black appears as Cisco's girlfriend. Gene Hackman gives a very interesting performance as the strange, quirky cop. Harry Dean Stanton plays Cisco's old buddy and former bandmate.

Other familiar faces that show up in bit parts are:
Roscoe Lee Browne as a music store owner.
Antonio Fargas does his patented street pimp routine.
Howard Hesseman is featured as a recording engineer.
Real-life musician Doug Sahm & band appear as successful recording artists. Some of Doug's music is used in the film score.


This movie is from the early 70's and its view of the drug-dealing lifestyle and the inside view of the music industry may appear quaint, but the story is still relavent to today's audiences.