V for Vendetta (2005)

“V for Vendetta” is more than just a masked terrorist running amuck in a futuristic Britain; it is more than just the quick wits of an anti-hero challenging the government; and it is far more than just the follow-up film from the Wachowski brothers. This is a philosophical cinematic entry disguised as a blockbuster. While most will argue that it is a poor excuse for the graphic novel (and slightly I agree) because it doesn’t follow the story frame by frame, the themes are still pulled through. Looking back into the graphic novel, the changes made from page to screen were dramatic, yet bold. The “happy” ending in the film gives way to the more dismal, slightly uplifting ending in the graphic novel. The main difference between the two is the lack of grittiness, one could call it realism, found within the story and missing in the film. “V for Vendetta” the film is beautiful, watched in full HD, the sound, visuals, and colors are exactly the opposite from the graphic novel, and while comparing the two is not the extent of this review, it is an element that needs to be considered. Alan Moore took his name off this film, reading the graphic novel will explain why.

With that said, what worked and was miscalculated in the film? To begin, the Wachowskis coupled with the direction of director James McTeigue captured the visual of “V” perfectly. The mask was chilling, and the darkened question of his origins remained open-ended. Their depiction of this masked vigilante was brilliant. The way the shadows fell, the camera angles on his face instilled both fear and excitement for this character. “V”, with this film, became iconic. Alas, the visual alone couldn’t counter what preceded “V”. The use of Hugo Weaving’s voice was, like Natalie Portman’s accent, weak. “V” was a bold character, but when he spoke, he seemed weaker and in less control. Weaving’s voice-work didn’t capture the intensity that surrounds this character – and then there was Portman. While she brought some innocence to the character of Eve (a name symbolic as well as poignant), the fading British accent continued the idea that she was merely Natalie Portman playing a character, not just Eve incarnate. Stephen Rae was superb in his role, as always, as the tamed cop hunting for a belief he struggles with, and John Hurt was completely over the top, applauding his role as evil as outstanding. These secondary characters, proving their might stronger than the primary ones, added much needed relief to this film, but it didn’t make it perfect.

“V for Vendetta” is a great film to sit down and enjoy two hours of crisp visuals, amazing music (look for a beautiful cover by “Cat Power”), and intense ideals. It is a thinking film. It camouflages itself as a big-budget action/adventure film, but all the while it is asking to you see the modern news and question our governments. It will keep your mind occupied for hours. McTeigue did a great job of bringing modern relevance (still tragic today) into this film to create a timeless sensation, but it still doesn’t counter the disappointing acting. As mentioned before, what makes “V for Vendetta” the graphic novel work is our characters, and as they lacked in the film – it moved it in a different direction. Without the graphic novel, this film still works as entertainment, and slight thought – but it isn’t a complete masterpiece. I enjoyed this film when it was first released on the big screen, but watching it today – the small nuances with the characters just don’t hold up well over time. Its message is in tact, but lacks the body.

Found in my "Videohound 2008" book, this film is getting a pink mark. I wanted to love it, but after re-reading the graphic novel, it just missed too many crucial elements. Also, I should mention, that I watched this film on bluray. Alas, I will not watch it again, but would perhaps consider suggesting it to friends. Maybe....

Vacancy (2007)

“Vacancy” is not your average thriller/slasher film. To the untrained eye, it provides nearly an hour and a half of Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale just trying to stay alive in a sleaze-bag motel while being constantly harassed by the unknown locals. The film seems to follow a structure, it seems to be predictable, but then – it transforms into something diabolically more. “Vacancy” is one of those undercut films that blends the power of a modern Hitchcock with just the right twists to keep new audiences on the edge of their seat. “Vacancy”, upon watching it a second time, is more than just slash and grab; it is a cineophile dream come true.

In the modern world of “Saw”, “Hostel” and nearly anything Eli Roth places his name upon, it would be easy to see how this film would be overlooked. It doesn’t have a monster, people are not dripping blood in every scene, and (the biggie) there is no major twist at the end. Director Nimrod Antal’s sophomore outing is more about the style, the cinematography, and the characters than just your a-typical release of this genre. We are privy to see our characters prior to these horrific incidents, to understand why they are pushed, and despite their ability to just run away from each other, they stay – giving us a great hour and a half. To begin, the opening credits set the tone. Not since “Panic Room” was I stricken by the originality of these credits, and how they propelled me into a immediate state of nervousness. After this, we are welcomed into a car, a already tense filled car that keeps us on the edge of our seats even further. Perhaps Luke and Kate will provide a moment of ease in this ride, but no – quite a different approach than we have seen prior from these two actors – they are in their own zone, and Antal controls it. He makes us believe. He scares us, while never taking us out of that moment of disbelief. This could happen. Antal knows that, Luke and Kate give us realism, and we are set for a wild ride.

The plot was strong – the acting kept up with the chilling score and Frank Whaley proves that skinny nerds can be frightening. Whaley commands the time he has on screen, giving us small nuances of this character that others may have forgotten. Known mainly for lower-budget roles, “Vacancy” demonstrates what happens when small actors get good parts (with great directors.). Finally, one cannot discuss “Vacancy” without drooling over the cinematography. Briefly mentioned above, Antal has paid homage to Hitchcock in a grandiose way by giving us these early shots of our characters not in the foreground, but symbolically traveling along the open highway. For the first hour, prior to the desperate need to escape, there were filmed moments that just stood out – i.e. the car ride, the discovery of the tapes, the walk to the motel, and even near the end – with the shot of Kate looking through the cracks resonated early Hitch. This is what small attention to detail can do for your film.

“Vacancy” is worth a second viewing, and even a third – it impresses me that I like Luke and Kate in their roles, and Whaley hits his mark directly. Antal’s choice of music, cinematography, and leads prove his ability behind the camera, giving us a new twist to a genre that at times feels dated and recycled. I would recommend this film for a good fright – don’t believe it is just another product of the Hollywood machine – it stands tall and proud.

Found in my "Videohound 2009" book - this slice of cinematic pie will surprisingly get a green mark with blue stars. I will watch this again - I will suggest it to friends - and please, don't bang at night on my front door.

Va Savoir (2001)

One could consider this film like a cinematic whole-wheat pancake. Your film comes topped with butter, syrup, and all the fruits you can think of (the characters of the film). When it is presented originally Va Savoir looks tantalizingly delicious, but after ten minutes of eating you realize that you finished and still hungry. You realize that this mound of goodness was nothing more than fluffy cooked dough that will ultimately make you fat, lazy, and sleepy. While it may give you a high at first, the darkness of the inevitable "sugar-low" is fast approaching and causing you to grab your stomach in disgust. Also, it was a flop. Perhaps that was a bit overboard, but I really wanted to explain this film in a way that was a bit more entertaining than the film itself. To put it bluntly, this film was like watching the grass grow in your back yard in anticipation of having to mow it again. It was slow, not very colorful, and a pain to sit through. When it finally gets too long, it hurts too much to do it again, but you know it must be done. That feeling is exactly how I felt about the film "Va Savoir".

This is a devoutly character based film. To make a deeply rooted character based film to work, you must first have exciting characters that you know your audience is going to want to follow. Sadly, this was not the case in this film. From the opening scene (where the subtitles were not working on my DVD) all the way till the final moments of the film, we have to follow four of the dullest characters in cinematic history. Cammille is our pilot, following an emotion and feeling that is never quite developed in the story and therefore never quite developed in her. Her mannerisms and reactions to situations made me feel as if she was a bit on the loony side. Perhaps it was the way that Jeanne Balibar chose to play her, but there was nothing making me believe that Cammille was a very strong character. Her actions throughout the film prove that much, but what are her motives and reasonings? That is never explained or developed, yet there was three hours to do it. Strange. This goes the same for Sonia, who I also never really fully grasped onto. She seemed to be in love, but at the same time enjoying moments with Arthur. Her need to rearrange made me think that her and Cammille had similar personalities (loony), which is what made them become friends near the end. Yet, again, it was never explained. We, the audience, were forced to follow a lot of assumptions in this film, and whenever we felt that we fully understood and connected with a character, Rivette would pull us further away. It was as if he never really wanted us to fully understand them, but still accept them. That didn't brood well with me.

Couple this with random intermissions of the play that these performers are putting on for the Parisians only helps to confuse the audience. I couldn't tell if Cammille was actually acting in the play or just walking through the lines. Half the time it looked as if it bothered her to be there. There was no emotion or excitement when she was on stage prompting me to question whether she was this "infamous" actress that they claimed her to be. I have seen several foreign films in my lifetime, but this one takes the cake as possibly the longest passenger car to Dullsville. I had trouble understanding the play that was happening throughout the film, thus causing me to care less about the characters. The final thirty minutes of this movie are actually fun. The scenes where Pierre and Ugo decide to duel are hysterical. I actually watched this scene over again because I enjoyed it so much. The connections made at the end tied the film up nicely, but still left too many questions unanswered.

Overall, I was lost in this film. If you ever pick up this film and you see a blonde-hair, blue-eyes 26-year old wandering through the scenes, it is I just trying to understand this film. I can't figure it out, I can understand most Lynch, Gilliam, and others of the "jigsaw puzzle" genre, but this was just beyond my control. The characters seemed drab and never fully comfortable in their roles, and those that were jumped between emotions like playing leapfrog in kindergarten. The stories were connected well, but it didn't make any difference if the characters (the glue of the stories) didn't hold them together. In your eyes, and in your DVD player, you can see where this film just falls apart. If you are looking for a stronger emotional powerhouse film where characters work with their characters and push the envelope even further, I would check out Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia. This film reminded me of Magnolia except bad. I don't suggest anyone wasting their three hours on this film, but who am I except a lost guy in this film.

Again, if found, please return!

Taken from Review Done: NOVEMBER 16th, 2004

From this review, "Va Savoir" will get a yellow highlight with a black mark. Never to be watched again.

V: The Miniseries (1983)

"V: The Miniseries" captured the attention of the 80s. It was what American audiences needed after such success of "Star Wars" and "Star Trek", it was a new chapter of science fiction, and the marketing gurus behind it were ready to make history. Released in 1983, this short chapter is part of a bigger idea, but it was a powerful start to that idea. Randomly, what I envisioned a Tuesday afternoon, the sky is flooded with huge alien spacecraft ready to make contact. We are scared, the flush of the unknown is heavy, but as soon as we see that they look just like us - we are calmed. They want resources, talk of a dying planet, and even during a Cold War, we - the nations of the world - extend an open hand to them. It is the beginning of the end ... well, so to speak.

Nearly 26 years after its original release on television, "V: The Miniseries" is continually voted one of the top cult shows of the 80s, and one can agree - it is a pioneering show for television, but the pressing question is - does it still hold up after all of these years? With CGI a staple in Hollywood, and the science fiction genre proving to be a lucrative endeavor, does "V" feel all-powerful, or is it just another hokie film masquerading history with reptilian creatures? Passively, the response is yes. "V" (excluding "The Final Battle") was a fantastic miniseries in the 80s, and continues to provide unparalleled entertainment today. What lacks in an elongated story pressured by history, it overloads with magnificent visuals. Consider "V" in the 80s to be the "Battlestar Galactica" of today -- thrilling characters, the idea of the unknown, and the creatures that will leave a lasting, and iconic, impression for weeks after viewing. Yet, a modern viewing will have to patiently wait for the reward as it arrives in waves throughout the entire three hours. A bold opening, the over-zealous spacecraft appearing in the skyline, the fear of the unknown, and the arrival of those red suits will pull you in, but then it slows as we introduce characters (both big and small), and further bring connections between 1983 and German influences in the 1940s. Patience is more than a virtue with this series, as it is important to watch through the ending, there are just small details that pull away from the overall impact of the show. The scientist elimination and discrimination was random - at first - having to readjust your concept of "why" - we are jolted from a sudden disappearance to a hatred from both the alien race and human. It was shocking to see how quickly one human could turn on another - but again - it was at that time when Kenneth Johnson was pushing the German/Jewish undertones. A stronger transition from alien arrival to a debunk of social standards would make the flow stronger, and allow modern eyes to adjust.

This said, "V: The Miniseries" is more than just your 8pm Wednesday science fiction, it is symbolic, hurtful, idealistic, charming, incredibly 80s, and pioneering for today's television. Between this and Lynch's "Twin Peaks", it is shameful to think "Lost" is that creative. "V" is a great show to watch, and from a personal standpoint, I loved watching everything Johnson brought to the screen. The posters within the film are as vibrant and vintage as when released. The visual of red spraypaint creating that V on the cartoonish prints are just as important as that of the first discovery of the reptile. It was a slice of my youth, but it is not a show that I could watch again and again. The intensity was high, the acting was mid-level, and the central story (outside of the action-packed intro and outro) was mediocre at best. I wanted to fall back in love with this show, but the middle drama was overly symbolic. I didn't need overbearing Nazi implications, I wanted to discover it for myself. Johnson, again, did a great job - just a bit too pushy with the message.

The DVD itself was not as sharp as modern discs, but it was an 80s TV show. It felt like it was coming on TV for the first time, complete with lackluster colors and over-budgeted special effects. I liked this style and release, and am highly excited about jumping into "The Final Battle". For this chapter, I liked what I saw - what I was re-exposed to - I just didn't love it as I did was I was 7.

Found in my "Videohound 2009" book, this begins the next chapter of "V"(ironically) films. Alas, not as excited as I was with this film when it first arrived via Netflix, this is going to get a pink mark in my eyes. I loved re-watching it, but I could not endeavour through it again.

Table for Five (1983)

Oh yes, I watched this movie. Oh yes, I watched a film with a cover like this. Oh yes, it did have a very pathetic Jon Voight screaming from the back of his boat, in a very Spock-ian fashion, "Nooooooo" (modern audience may liken this yell to that of Darth Vader in the third Star Wars film when he becomes the caped crusader). My journey to watch every film ever made has had its ups and downs, but I must admit - this is my first Voight-ian slip. This is a twisty movie to watch, not from a plot standpoint, but from what worked and what didn't. There were elements that worked, there were elements that were powerful, but then there were these specific scenes, these moments (aka Voight screaming) that knocked it from a theatrical film to this unjust made-for-TV daytime drama.

Let me be the first to say, Jon Voight has some acting chops. He has some powerful abilities in front of the camera, but in Table for Five he just cannot seem to catch his footing. In one scene he is a freeloading father who finds jokes as a substitute for "real life" situations, then he is ripping his shirt off to seduce another mom on the cruise, then he tries to fight literacy into his middle child, then he is crying. He is not a defined character in this film, and it hurts - not just as an actor, but as an audience member trying to keep up. I never once saw him as these kid's father. He was always Jon Voight or JP Tannen - never "dad". His, "I would like to be your friend speech" didn't come from the heart. The scene in which he chases his adopted child Trung through the streets of a 3rd World country felt randomly inserted for no other reason than scenery. Voight was himself. While that is not always bad, it didn't fit in this film. Coupled with this was the bored emotion coming from his faux-children. Were they his? What was the story? Why did they love him one moment - and yet greedily upset the next? Our situation becomes that we just knew nothing about our characters pre-cruise, so we are left assuming that their actions now are the actions all-the-time, which is not right. The gives near the end of the film, where Voight really doesn't have money, are not only dark blows to his character, but also to us as audience participants because we spend two hours with a guy we suddenly know nothing about. It was as if the rug was yanked from our feet.

Why am I so wishy-washy on this film when it sounds like I hated all the characters? I think it is because there were parts that I truly enjoyed. I kept my eyes open for the entire two hours, I didn't need to break this film into several nights of viewing, it was a joy to see a drama of a recent generation - and it was fun to travel. The locations were fabulous. I loved being in Rome - to see the open sea - to be with this family when it landed from port to port. There was a great feeling of confinement that director Robert Lieberman was able to convey translated well, helping to build the tension, and giving us some great final moments. Then, call me a sucker, but I liked the conflict between Mitchell (played by Richard Crenna) and Voight. I wish we could have seen this closer to the beginning of the film, the dynamic these two had - with the chemistry should not have been contained.

Overall, I am a bit confused with this film. While I did enjoy smaller elements of this elongated film, there were big parts that I could not stand. The scream, the deaf British widow, the random kissing of a young Kevin Costner, and the tangent storyline with the ring found in Rome. It was all good ideas, not the best, but they were not executed well. I place blame on the director (while giving us great visuals - he could not gel his story together) and on Voight. Give me one character Jon, not twelve in an attempt for me to discover the one I like. I could not watch this film again. I wanted to give it a strong "good" rating, but after some ponderment, I cannot.

Table for Five (why this film is named this is rather unique and one of those underdeveloped ideas that decidedly went nowhere) will get a yellow highlight with black mark. It will not be suggested to friends or to family, and will not be watched again. I was intrigued with this picture, alas, I just didn't love it. Too much mess, ergo it missed the overall tone and story. This was the final one in my "Videohound 2005" book. It was not a powerful run (I think there were three nare to be watched again), but we are moving up. Modern films - here I come.

Oh, and perhaps my first television series - does that work in this experiment?

T-Men (1947)

Finally, I know what I want to be when I grow up. After several years of hoping to be a Ghostbuster or even a lawyer, the knowledge of how I best can use my abilities can be clear. I can become a T-Man. What is a T-Man you may ask, well it is an agent in one of the six fingered mutant known as the Treasury Department, and from this classic noir film, it is obvious - that we hide in shadows, rough up guys, take Turkish baths, and go behind the scenes in the rough-and-tumbles of the US of A. We are the people bad guys fear most - we are ... dum da da ... T-Men! If you haven't guessed by now, I just finished watching this 40s classic that should never be forgotten. From the classic lines, to the strong characters, to the "I liked the part when..." moments that seemed to creep up on you like one of these T-Men at night. The film, T-Men, the premise is to understand how the Treasure Department uses these agents to stop counterfeiters from gaining the upper hand. Stand aside Donnie Brasco, be quiet Goodfellas - you ain't got nothin' on the T-Men.

This was an impressive movie from the beginning with its use of semi-documentary style, this was a bold new way to give us the excitement, tension, and toughness of these T-Men. It was like the voice of God showering from above, keeping this otherwise dry film on a concurrent course. The now infamous lines about taking Turkish baths for 10 days to find a man seemed more apt today, and the scene in which our undercover agent uses the whisky glass to gain an upper-cut on a villain was more than classic - it is a move that needs to be used more often in bar fights. There were also other elements that made this film stand above others - the nature of some of the deaths, the fact that some of our protagonists died, the fact that the way they died was more than exciting (anyone who says they saw the Turkish bath death coming is surely lying), and that final scene on the boat where we don't know which direction is up is a pure definition of this genre. From beginning to end, T-Men proved the test of time - proved that it could survive the decay of late-night TMC showings, and really be a cult-esque film for the midnight theaters. T-Men was unintentionally funny, or perhaps intentionally funny just to demonstrate its power to be a semi-action film. Whatever it was, it worked. I laughed, I jumped out of the way, I nervously paced the background just to see if our undercover man would get the rewards of his job ... and in the processes learned a bit more about the C.S.I. of the Treasury Department.

Found in my "Videohound 2005" book and is nearly the finale of the "T" listings. I have one more drama to go, and I don't think anything can take down what I witnessed here. The film was quick, intelligent, and action packed - exactly the feeling I want from a summer blockbuster - well - without being a summer blockbuster.

I am giving it a green mark with blue stars. I will watch this film again - I will be a T-Man for Halloween, and I cannot wait to tour the Treasury Department - I gotta see what the inside of MI-5... ahm ... I mean Treasure Dept looks like. I cannot wait to watch this film again. Impressive.

T Bone and Weasel (1992)

I grew up in the 90s. I remember the "buddy" craze, the idea of putting two polar opposites together in a film and force them to travel together. I remember all of that. It is rare to find films like that today - yet here in 1992 it was in full effect. Christopher Lloyd - Gregory Hines (the poor production version of Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor) are on the run from the law, randomly, inconsistently, and oddly, they are stopped by every tangent event imaginable as they learn about class, culture, and especially race. The film is T Bone and Weasel and it hasn't found its face in the DVD catalog yet, and alas, I don't think it ever will. This is one of those film destined to be lost in the VHS black hole. It is a painstakingly difficult film to watch, from the mismatched casting to the haphazard plot, the tone of this film is never found - and our ultimate goal is never reached. This is a film with slight possibilities and lacking opportunities. Labeled a comedy, this passionless film never cracked a smile in my hour and a half. Neither from the central cast nor from the surrounding special guest appearances. Nothing in T Bone and Weasel worked - nor would a second viewing help.

The argument is this. Was racism still a central and uprooting issue in the south (specifically South Carolina) in the 90s? Does this film translate into today, providing a message that modern audiences would understand? Alas, with both of these - the answer varies. Sure, racism surrounds us even today - but would it have been as relevant in the culture in which these two "ex-cons" ran? Would Gregory Hines' T Bone really be forced off a job site merely due to the color of his skin (or ostracized by a woman at a beach) and secondly, would Christopher Lloyd's character be so blind to this atrocity? I just don't see the direction director Lewis Teague wanted this film to travel. You have two polar opposites, this could be funny, but alas Gregory Hines cannot capture his character. I think he is supposed to be the firecracker here, but instead dances his way from one scene to the next - he slips in and out of character so much that one cannot tell who T Bone is really supposed to be. The same can be said about Christopher Lloyd's character. From the beginning we see him as one character, in the middle of the film as another, and by the end he has reverted to half of the man and half near the center with no segment of continuity. Teague cannot control his characters - AND - this is the big part - they are completely miscast.

Then, Teague takes us from one random place to another giving us no jokes, no moment of sincerity, or reason to like where we are headed. The moments with Rip Torn, Wayne Knight, and Ned Beatty are just horrendous. Nothing links together - sure, we have a car that occasionally takes us to point A to point B, but it just don't gel together. It doesn't make sense. Add to this that there is absolutely no humor in this film at all. Racism funny? The Wayne Knight joke was like a nail in the coffin for me. I would like to state again, that there were options here, but it is hard to tell if Teague chose not to take them, or if the producers were just looking for a two hour filler. Typically, I can pick one think out of this film, but even the CCR references were dated and overused. It felt stale from the beginning, and the entire final 30 minutes continued to feel that way. T Bone going to jail - the randomness of Beatty, and the brick laying moment (or when they revisit Rip Torn) - it just didn't work. Nothing was of value in this film, and I cannot force myself to watch this again. Urg. I wish there was something to give - but nothing - I am sorry 1992 - you deserve two hours back.

Found in my "Videohound 2005" book - this film obviously is going to get a yellow highlight with black mark - never to be seen again. I would not suggest this film on my worse enemy, or perhaps only to a Gregory Hines enthusiast - to demonstrate the point that even strong actors take really bad parts. Avoid at all costs. It is not even worth the plastic of the VHS. The hunt for this film (found on HALF.COM for $5) is grossly overpriced. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

T-Force (1994)

I am very excited with the direction in which this blog has taken me. Not only did I have the chance to experience my first "man" movie (aka boobs, bombs, and best buds), but also this little ditty of a film nearly brought a tear to my eye. It was so full of humor (though probably not intentionally), it was so full of excess punch, and so full of of overplayed gimmicks, that for me - this worked. If I were going to give a friend of mine a bachelor party, this film would be on the agenda. Who needs strippers when you have T-Force. Honestly, I had no idea what to expect when this film filled my player, but this project of watching any films anytime has really opened the door to opportunity and possibility. So - I guess what I am trying to say throughout the humdinger of this review - don't be biased, watch movies that you wouldn't typically watch - you may get a T-Force out of it.

What am I trying to say? I was a virgin of any Richard Pepin films, but now I want more - I was a virgin to any Jack Scalia films, but now I cannot wait for him to play the bad cop turned worse cop in another mind bending performance. Let me set the air correct. This was nothing remotely close to Oscar nominated films. When the cyborgs (which is used in a very loose term in this film) find a dirty magazine in the trash, they decide to do some role playing. How is that not hilarious?!? Then Scalia gets drunk and tries to have cyber sex, then he gets drunk again (quite a standard in this film) only to work on his car, tell his cyborg partner that he hates computers because of what they did to his dad, and pass out. Did I happen to mention that this is a pure, uncut, powdered "man" film. Pepper within these award winning scenes are hardcore explosions. These aren't your low-budget firecrackers, these are huge ... and they happen without reason, and even if it is grazed with a bullet.

Explosions. Slight nudity. Humor that reminded me of what direct to DVD (aka too low-budget for major studios) were supposed to be. Sure, there are some great ones out there ... Slumdog Millionaire was supposed to be one of them ... but this one is a triple threat. It has everything. If you look beyond the unglamorous facade, there really is something neat about this film. The cyborgs are people, Scalia hates everyone, but in his heart - and by the end of this film - there is a really tender moment. This movie surprised me. I didn't like it, then I loved it, then I really laughed hard. It is one of those films that needs companionship - it needs friends to enjoy. I can spot a dud a mile away, but this film had something - a glimmer of hope. I am not ashamed to show it to friends - I am not afraid to have this film in my collection. It is an honor to have Scalia in my world.

Found in my "Videohound 2005" book - I am going to be bold with this film. I am going to give it a green mark with blue stars. I could watch this movie again. I would easily give it to friends, and I cannot wait to see what else comes my way. Not groundbreaking cinema, but one cannot have that every night!

Also, any film that has both "Fists of Honor" and "Sword of Honor" as its previews - not too shabby.

T-Bird Gang (1959)

Apple Blossom is in the air. The wafting of funnel cakes and deep fried whatevers loom within the background. It is spring. Rain is falling - the non-residents of Winchester have just told their children that they cannot buy books, but they can buy a $45 stuffed Scooby-Doo, so, yea, I'm a bit cynical. So, why not put in a film that centers is short, ill-staffed plot around a boy getting revenge on the death of his father. T-Bird Gang ushers in an era pre-Donnie Brasco or any other mob related film and slows it down, giving us a mere 65 minutes to introduce ourselves to the characters, watch the elaborately crawl-paced robbery, and end ... well ... rather visionary. What should have taken me the same amount of time it would have for a small television series episode, took me in truth, three days to finish. This was the slowest revenge film ever made, and to add more kindle to the flame, even had a "Changing Reel" moment that lasted two of those sixty-five minutes. Was it needed? Was the film T-Bird gang one that will remain forever? How has this film been released on DVD when I cannot even get other stronger films like LA Without A Map or Quadrophenia on that format? Will all of these questions be answered in this review?



Probably not.



When this film began, I had quite a bit of excitement - this villain named Alex, a corrupt chess player with overly-elaborate heists, uses a white T-Bird to use as his calling card - yet the police can never quite catch him in the act. Thus, this group is aptly named the "T-Bird Gang". Frank's father is killed accidentally one night during a heist gone bad, and Frank will do anything to put this group behind bars ... or the equivalent of that. So, he infiltrates this caper and does some good heists that eventually lead to a very anticlimactic ending. So, with all of these exciting elements - how did this film fail? (read: sarcasm) While there were some solid performances, mainly from the dynamic between Frank and Alex, the tone for the overall film bored me. The elaborate twists and tricks could have been strong, but the lack of dynamic between man vs. man was pathetic. There wasn't any excitement, there never was that moment where the violins shrill and you begin to wonder who really does have the upper hand. It wasn't tense - there was no sense of urgency - these characters moved from one screen to the next without giving us, the audience, a chance to understand.

It was a disappointment. Then, suddenly, to add to the already elongated 65 minutes, there was about three minutes where the reel had to change. How is it that I have watched other films from the 1950 - or even the 1940s - and there hasn't been the need for a reel change. This was like adding gasoline to the fire, it just continued to bore me. This film needed to end. There needed to be a conclusion quickly because I cared nothing for the primary or secondary characters. Then, when the ending did finally happen, it was nothing to write home about. It was dull - again - leaning onto the realm of anticlimactic and just plain sad. I end this review by saying that T-Bird Gang was a concept that should have been well executed, and I don't argue that 65 minutes is too short - we just needed more. We wanted to see the relationship between Frank and his father - the idea of codes with his girlfriend, and perhaps a less dull heist with Alex. I wanted to see his music loving, chess engaged mind at work - and I just didn't get that luxury. This movie was boring - and I don't say that often, but it just didn't work on plenty of levels.

Found in my "Videohound 2005" book - this film - alas - will get the black mark with yellow highlight. Never to be seen again. I am excited about my new book and look forward to what the "T" category will bring.