Lamb Chop in the Land of No Manners (1991)

Perhaps it was my age. In 1991, I was a mere 13 years old, and watching Lamb Chop on PBS (or Shari Lewis for that matter) wasn’t in the repertoire of “fun” programs to watch on television. There was action, there was sci-fi, there was Saturday Morning Cartoons, but there was no Lamb Chop. Was I deprived of greatness when I was young? Should I prepare my unborn children for VHS copies of Shari Lewis’ creation within our home? Watching my first episode (albeit a longer direct to video release), I was surprised by how well Lewis with her sock-puppet creations of Lamb Chop, Charlie Horse, and Hush Puppy kept my attention. The humor seemed sharp (or felt sophisticated), the theme – at least in this episode – was obvious, and the inclusion of a half puppet half human world was intriguing. This seemed to be a cheaper version of “Sesame Street”, without the genius of Jim Henson. There is no doubt in my mind the talent that Shari Lewis had, her positive mental attitude towards children, the simplistic approach to giving a strong moral, and those gosh-darn cute puppets were impressive on a low-budget level … BUT … has it remained as popular today as it was first introduced in 1957?

Not to disappoint, but the answer is a hesitant “yes”. The hesitancy is not from Lewis’ creation, but instead the format used to deliver her message. What she created, using ventriloquism instead of Henson puppetry, was genius. Her characters were, and still are, appealing to children and adults alike. Would this still hold a child’s attention today? Tough call with the special effects used in every venue, but for me – there was something genuine about the simplicity of Lewis’ work. All of this is a big introduction into the film that I watched recently entitled, “Lamb Chop in the Land of No Manners”. Found obscurely on VHS, this was my doorway into this unknown world. This is where the hesitancy comes into the mix. While the message that Lamb Chop learns about manners is universal – and incredibly important even today – the road to get to the finale was paved with rushed drawings, mixed media headaches, and Hush Puppy; a character I was not quite prepared for.

In the 1990s, one of America’s leading cartoonists was a man named Mort Gerberg. He is the headline for this film, portraying not only himself, but also a sort of sketch artist as Lamb Chop attempts to recreate her impression of the “Land of No Manners”. Transported there via a door wished for in her bedroom (after a difficult day of no manners), she and my arch nemesis Hush Puppy, get pulled into this world where children run free, but nobody is allowed free time to take a shower. The film is mixed between Hush Puppy telling her story, Lamb Chop trying to get some food, and Gerberg keeping up with everything. Tough? It was harder to watch than it was to explain. Gerberg’s images seem sloppy, while for a majority of the scenes he is just retracing a full image below his paper. I realize that he couldn’t create on scene, but it felt staged and cheap. Meanwhile, Lamb Chop kept popping up everywhere. In one scene she would be at the table, in another scene on his shoulder, in another scene next to Lewis. If there was ever a more spastic puppet, Lamb Chop would be it.

As if Lamb Chop was directing, our scenes cut between Gerber drawing, Charley Horse talking, and animation to fill in the gaps. The animation, not surprisingly was cheap and ill-represented Gerberg’s ability. It felt as if Shari Lewis had one good idea, and they needed to stretch it into 45-minutes. The scenes, animated or otherwise, just didn’t run smoothly – causing inconveniences and headaches. Again, Lewis’ message was sweet, delivery left much to be desired.

Which now leads me to my final conflict with this made-for-TV, capture-the-kiddies VHS release; a character I was unprepared for – Hush Puppy. Did this puppet have a dialect that would be unsuitable today? Was it stereotyping, or merely trying to add spice to a new Lewis creation? As I watched, I – fresh eyes and all – had trouble with this character. The dialect seemed off, pushing the envelope of humor and into derogatory. Again, I don’t want to dismiss Lewis’ contribution to the education of children, and Charley Horse even made sense, but Hush Puppy felt rough around the edges. Was this the intention?

VIDEO: This was a decent child’s film. Short enough to keep attention, and the mixed media would probably be appreciated by the young, but as an adult it just felt sloppy. The message was strong and successful, but overdrawn and repetitive. The dinoslobs, while creative, were not developed and due to budget, seemed a bit one-dimensional. There was no true fear; we spent a considerable amount of time getting to the Land, explaining the characters, and less time escaping. Overall, a bust of a story.

VISUAL: VHS people. It was grainy, noisy, but very vibrant. Lewis knew what colors would stand out – and used them to her advantage.

SOUND: There was a slight theme song, but it was lost in the shuffle. It was synthesizer based, and equally as cheap. For a show that ran for 7 years, they knew how to cut a budget.

EXTRAS: Surprisingly, there was an extra. One minute into the credits, Lewis gives us a clip of one of her 1950s show. The creativity was impressive. I liked this black and white juxtaposition with the puppetry. Also, Lewis was kinda hot at that time!

Overall, I wasn’t impressed. Yes, I liked what Lewis was attempting, but this “special” just felt extremely cheap. The idea of the dinoslobs was creative, but ill-conceived. What was said, and pushed for 45-minutes could have easily been done on one of her 25-minute segments with a stronger effect. Does this stop me from watching Lewis’ work? Nope, just stops me from suggesting this film.

…oh, and Hush Puppy still confuses me….

Found in my “Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Films”, I am slowly wrapping up the “L” category. Two more films, and this hasn’t been that bad of a ride. After the “Y” debacle, this feels like I am back to watching stronger cinema. So, what to give this – my first children’s made-for-TV short. Pink or Yellow? Despite my oddity towards Hush Puppy, I did find levels of this entertaining. I am going pink. Good, not great – definitely not re-watchable.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

“The Lady Vanishes”, in my eyes, is the penultimate work of director Alfred Hitchcock. While most will argue “North by Northwest”, “Vertigo” or even “Rear Window”, this film – the last of his British – remains a stronger entry. The strength of the characters, the vast unknown as you travel on this train, the small (yet important) clues, the comedy of Caldicott and Charters; all of these merely scratch the surface of what “The Lady Vanishes” represents. It demonstrated that even with a small budget, a relative unknown cast, and a strong macguffin; that no special effects were needed. Money is not the solve-all for Hollywood. As films are released today, big effects and big budgets, nothing can compete with the power of a strong story. Hitchcock was aware of this, and thus, “The Lady Vanishes” was born. Criterion has included it, with a plethora of special features, in their growing collection, and for me – it stays as one of my favorite films of all time. Like a jigsaw puzzle, Hitch gives you only small piece by small piece, not even telling you which lady is going to “vanish”, and with each viewing – the suspense grows deeper and stronger. As with most Hitchcock, it is not just about what happens in front of the screen (the introduction of the characters, the scenery, the time), but also what happens behind. It is this discovery which allows future viewings of “The Lady Vanishes” and proves Hitch’s cinematic worth.

As I sat down to write this review, draft after draft was tossed out because I wasn’t sure what to discuss on a film that has been dissected by some of the biggest film critics (Geoffrey O’Brien, Charles Barr, Robin Barr) and discussed by another great film maestro, François Truffaut. What could I say that hadn’t been said before (also ranked #235 of the Internet Movie Database’s Top 250 Films), so why not pick three scenes and discuss why they impacted my decision to name this one of my top 10 favorites … a tough list to be on – especially today. So, here are the three moments in “The Lady Vanishes” that confirmed its honorarium in the Criterion collection as well as the accolades that Hitch has received for this body of work alone.

The first scene has to be the brief introduction of our characters in the small inn. Upon first viewing, there was no indication which of the multiple ladies would not be the one “vanishing”, nor was there any direct way of knowing how these groups of different individuals would eventually come together on one train. Just sitting there, waiting for the avalanche to be cleared, we see adulterers, comedians, cricketers, wealthy Americans, musicians, and a little old lady who would eventually be at the crux of all this madness. It is this unknown upon first viewing, the sweetness with the second viewing, and the complexity of the third viewing that makes this nearly opening scene one that cannot be shaken from the mind. Hitch presents you with the early “who” of the film, but without that sense of direction, the darkness allows your mind to discover all possibilities, no matter how many times you watch it. Exactly how many were involved with the plot? Who knows, and that my friends, is only half the fun.

The second scene that stood out in this film was the cult window scene. Without indulging in spoilers, early in the film the window dirt is used as merely a greeting, and later as a divergence from madness. It is during the scene where the name is revealed a second time that always sends tension through my veins. The word in question is just staring at you within the scene, it evokes the need to scream from your couch to look up, to see what we all see, like Hitch is toying with his audience – to say that the beautiful Margaret Lockwood’s sanity may not be in question. With merely one word, Hitch has created audience involvement, a level of excitement, and tension beyond belief. It is as if he is flaunting it. It is an iconic scene, but also one of those that speaks for itself. This dirty “word” proved that with a small budget (and no special effects) that you could pull your audiences in deeper. I would challenge any modern film to do the same, alas; I don’t think they would have the same result.

Finally, the remaining scene that makes this film more than just print through a projector is actually not a scene at all, but Hitch’s involvement of music into this entire film. Yep, it is a broad (and perhaps cheat) third scene, but from the beginning opening scenes a certain tune is flaunted in front of us as maybe just a mere theme music, but as the film continues we learn it is much, much more. Like the name on the window, the missing woman, the confused passengers, the music has a double meaning. It not only represents the mood of the film, but it also sends another message. What is that? Oh, I’m not telling, but Hitch smartly includes it whenever possible. Listen to the scenes, each one, there is a hint of this music throughout – almost including you within the overall story. “The Lady Vanishes” is not just a movie to watch, but also one that should be listened to. The score (if it can be called that) carries nearly more meaning than the characters. That, again, is the power of Alfred Hitchcock.

VIDEO: For everything mentioned above and more, this is a cinematic triumph. The actors are powerful, hilarious, and unique in their respective roles. What Hitch provides is small, yet powerful as he delicately gives us the whole of the story. He has created a film that can be enjoyed over and over despite knowing the ending. The macguffin stands out as not just a plot devise, but also a cult Hitchcock staple.

VISUAL: Criterion has done it again. Their transfer is immaculate. The released this film a while ago (as it is spine #3), but then re-released it about a year ago and this second release is by far the best. The cracks in the frames were cleared, the black and white seemed bolder, and the delivery of the small amount of special effects seemed clear and crisp. Watched on a DVD player that up-converted, this looked and sounded like I was in the theater (maybe even better).

SOUND: This was important in this film, Criterion realized that, and made it as clear as the visuals. The technical aspects of this film were vastly improved and restored to a quality Hitch would appreciate.

EXTRAS: Criterion, as always, has double-whammy-ed you with this double disc. It includes and audio commentary by film historian Bruce Eder, Crook’s Tour, a 1941 feature-length Charters and Caldicott adventure, available for the first time on home video, starring Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne reprising their beloved The Lady Vanishes roles. Not to mention excerpts from François Truffaut’s legendary 1962 audio interview with Alfred Hitchcock and Mystery Train, a new video essay about Hitchcock and The Lady Vanishes by Hitchcock scholar Leonard Leff. If you aren’t saying “WOW”, then something is wrong with you.

If you haven’t guessed, I love “The Lady Vanishes” not just because it is a great film, but because it best represents Hitchcock’s work. There is something for everyone, young audiences and mature cineophiles alike. The characters, the sound, the visuals all blend together to make a phenomenal cinematic journey. Every detail within “The Lady Vanishes” is important – and this is a film that should be watched – again, and again, and again. Impressive.

Found in my "Movie Mom's Guide to Family Films", these "L" entries have been life changing cinema watching. "Labrynth", "The Lady from Shanghai", and now this - bring it on film guide. If it isn't obvious, this film is getting a green mark with a blue star - to be watched - nay, cherished again and again. I am proud to own this film and cannot wait to pick up the laserdisc version for the collection. Impressive Mr. Hitchcock, I say it again - Impressive.

The Lady from Shanghai (1947)

Orson Welles has done it again. For $50,000 and a promise to Columbia to direct a book with a different title, he was able to save the costumes for his “Around the World in 80 Days” theater performance as well as give us another butchered masterpiece. Being a relative “newbie” to Welles, one always argues that “Citizen Kane” remains his magnum opus, but after watching “The Magnificent Ambersons” (a stronger, more genuine film) and now, “The Lady from Shanghai”, the argument seems a bit too one-sided. Welles is a powerful director, a decent actor, and a detailed storyteller; one doesn’t need to argue that all day. Yet, it is impressive that he is known only as a one-film man, when everything else watched has continued to get stronger and stronger. “Magnificent Ambersons” proved that he could tackle the family drama as well as a social commentary on the wealthy, and with “Shanghai” he proves that he can transform a movie star from pin-up girl to sadistic lover. Part noir, part travelogue, part confusion, “Shanghai” was an experience all within itself. Harry Cohen, head of Columbia, has stated that if anyone could tell him what this film was about, he would pay $1000. That speaks volumes about the ability that Welles had to construct an intelligent, gripping noir. “Shanghai” is about love, it is about revenge, is about mirrors, and it is about the law – all brought together in a way only Orson Welles could do it.

Originally two and a half hours, the version viewed was under 90-minutes, meaning quite a bit of Welles vision was lost in the editing room. One even hears stories that his original score was cut and replaced with cartoon music and constant repetition of the theme song. It would be hard to imagine what Welles’ original vision would have produced, but even with his missing elements – “Shanghai” proves thought-provoking, entertaining, and downright diabolical. It begins with two actors, Rita Hayworth and Orson Welles, together in a park, learning that even the most beautiful women come with baggage and history. From the very bizarre car park sequence, we soon get the impression that this isn’t going to be your normal film. Welles pulls you in with the unknown, and unique characters. His portrayal of Michael O’Hara is possibly the weakest element to this film, as his accent fades in and out of existence with each scene. Welles is good as an actor, but adding the Irish element to his voice diminished the ability to truly believe who he was meant to be. On the other hand, Rita Hayworth was phenomenal. Her transformation in this film could be likened to a modern day Theron’s “Monster” or Swank’s “Boys Don’t Cry”, shedding her long red hair for a short platinum look. She was not only impressive physically, but as mysterious as noir women come. From the opening scene, she is always someone she is not – and when Glenn Anders looks at her from his binoculars several scenes later – it is as if Welles is saying, we all need to be watching her. Up until the final moments, we don’t know where her loyalties remain, and that speaks value of both the director and the actor.

With Hayworth giving her best, Welles taking strides behind the camera (not quite in front of), the other one to watch is Everett Sloane, who plays the handicapped Arthur Bannister. Welles gives Sloane this meaty character who drinks, worries, plans, and is the best lawyer in town – yet has this crippling physical attribute which creates this darker, more diabolical character. Sloane was my favorite character in this film, because, like Hayworth, we were never quite sure what his next play was, or who he was doing this all for. With “Shanghai” Welles has crafted this amazing noir that keeps you guessing from beginning to end, impressively shot, and delivers an ending that remains a cult favorite – attempted to be recreated time and time again, but always lacks that panache only Welles could film.

VIDEO: The film was impressive. It takes you from a park, to the open sea (look for Errol Flynn), to a native island, back to San Francisco. The images are sharp to coincide with the power of Welles choice of actors and ability to carry a scene. The only downfall, this was originally filmed (like most Welles) around 2+ hours, and the version I watched was under 90 minutes. What did we miss? How amazing could this film have been?

VISUAL: Stunning black and white imagery. Welles is not afraid to give us the long shot or the intense close up. In hot places, everyone was sweating. Was it due to the heat, or their knowledge of what was to come?

SOUND: Gunshots were loud, the courtroom scene was intense, and the waves were present. Even though his original score wasn’t used, it worked. With his stark visuals, the sound only collaborates with Welles. He may not have liked it, but for this edited version, it worked.

EXTRAS: Surprisingly, not bare boned. There is an introduction by Peter Bogdanovich which gives us quite a bit of detail on this film, but he uses the same material again for his audio commentary. I liked what Bogdanovich had to say, but when he just starts reading from his book instead of giving us insight on the scene, it gets a bit dull to hear. The visuals and him rambling on saying “he said, then I said”, just didn’t pan out. Good, but not great. We wrap up with a couple of trailers and language options. Overall, pretty well rounded.

This is a character driven film, and despite my flimsy nature on Welles the actor, the other background characters have enough heart to carry what he lacks. The power of Hayworth, Sloane, and Anders alone is worth watching. Who are these guys? How did they choose O’Hara? Why be so elaborate? The twist and turns continue to come, and “Shanghai” has that repeatable feel that your DVD player will love. I cannot wait to rewatch this film and see what was missed. There had to be more clues, something in the background that the virgin eye would miss. This was noir at, well, maybe its best looking, but well represented.

Thank you Mr. Welles for continuing to impress me with each passing film.

Found in my "Movie Mom's Guide to Family Films", I am excited what the L-category will bring. After a disastrous last book, I think this is going to be a great run. The next three films already have me excited, and I cannot wait to see what they will bring. "The Lady From Shanghai" gets an obvious green highlight with blue star. I cannot wait to watch this again - and I can suggest it to everyone. Will be added to the collection!

Young Lady Chatterley II (1985)

Nearly a month later, it is done. What began as a simple five films to watch, suddenly turned into a month long disaster, with the penultimate cinematic “triumph” arriving (and ending) with the uber-classy “Young Lady Chatterley II”. For those unfamiliar with this series, it centers on the exploits of a young American whom has newly discovered that she is the heir to the infamous Chatterley estate. The first film sets the groundwork, or perhaps she does all the grounds people, but none the less – Young Lady Chatterley (youngly played by Harlee McBride) discovers her inner urges and never looks back. This second film, which doesn’t stray too far from the original’s course, Chatterley is bombarded with new issues, disastrous sex, and a comedic Adam West. Will the Chatterley estate become a nuclear power plant by evil developers? Will West discover a historical nude ride that took place on her grounds? Will she ever have naked time with the gardener? Answer all of these questions AND throw in a priest for good luck, and you are just barely scratching the surface of this film. Does this self proclaimed sequel live up to the lackluster excitement of the original? This is a question to be answered by all those who watched Cinemax after midnight … or for those eager enough to continue reading.

Hesitancy was in the air when this film arrived; an import from another land and the disappointment of the original; this was not a film one could get excited about. The original tried to prove that lush scenery would already enhance the draw to an erotica film, and without worrying about plot, they poured the “classic” scenes on hot and heavy. But, “Young Lady Chatterley” needed the plot to survive, due to the surprising inability for Harlee McBride to carry a scene. Yet, in this sequel, she seems to have acquired a bit more talent (not to mention, being a bit more top-heavy) and the surrounding plots (as cheesy as they are) actually strengthens this sequel. “Young Lady Chatterley II” is not a tour de force of cinema, but in comparison to the original, this one stands prouder. The story is the initial keeper. With the addition of the hilarious Adam West (who gets to throw in a “Batman” reference just for fun) and the evil developers who want nuclear power – it helps to keep this film’s flow intact. Keeping in mind that Chatterley still continues to be with any man that moves, it is what surrounds the frame – the path from A to B – that makes this more than just an erotic film.

Surprisingly directed by the same Alan Roberts that brought us the first film, he seems to have grown as well (no pun intended). His editing was much stronger in this film as well as the fuller-wide shots and actual background seemed to be stepped up with more dedication to the story. While some will argue that this is not quite a sequel, but instead a fresh retelling of the original “Young Lady Chatterley”, for this reviewer it felt more like a sequel. Nobody returned except for McBride (even the gardener – Peter Ratray – must have requested more money) and that is alright. McBride seems more comfortable in the already flimsy role, and that works. Her strength makes us ignore her tantalizing scenes and focus on what is happening around her. We learn more about her character – by going to her past – which again, strengthens the plot; leading back to my earlier discussion.

This is not a great film. Don’t get me wrong. My excitement for this film being stronger than the original comes from some of the issues I griped about earlier being answered – but it is not a film that needs to be watched again and again. Adam West (a point to directors, if you don’t think your film is funny enough or needs that cult stamp, throw in an Adam West and it jumps up several notches on the “great” scale) was a trip. He had no real character, he kept looking into the camera, and he never was nude, but his lines were the most memorable out of the bunch. Despite the West appearance, it still isn’t cinema. This entire series could have been a cult staple, perhaps like the “Emmanuel” series, but instead flopped due to lack of everything except erotica.

VIDEO: Although they claim a R1 version of this film is coming, my R0 had to do the job. Bare bones across the board, this could have perhaps been more entertaining with some extras and less subtitles. DVD is always stronger than VHS for this type of film, so I can’t complain – but if this is the furthest this film goes – I would be comfortable with that.

VISUAL: A bare bones import DVD, this is nothing short of a VHS conversion. In fact, there is several times where you could see the infamous reel change a la Tyler Durden as the film progressed.

SOUND: Surprisingly strong in this film. Nothing Dolby, but it was loud in my speakers.

EXTRAS: Nothing. Language, Scene, and that was it. A commentary wouldn’t have hurt this – I would like to hear what Roberts feels about this film nearly 26 years later. His masterpiece or a joke among friends?

Overall, I cannot suggest this film at all. While there were improvements, the overall completion of this series didn’t make me want to go back and start again. For me, it rests on Harlee McBride who is a terrible lead. She cannot seem to control any of the scenes that she is in, and quintessentially always leads with her top. Not surprisingly, the only excitement with this film is Adam West. For those fans of his, this needs to be watched.

Found in my "Videohound Video Premiere", I am glad that this book is over. Only one good movie out of five is not a good way for a book to work, and I do not look forward to going back to this book soon. But, inevitably - it will happen. I am giving, not surprisingly, this sequel a yellow highlight with black mark. Not to be watched again, nor suggested to friends or family. Only enemies.