Kotch (1971 For Movie Rob's Genre Grandeur Series)

 GG (Feb) chosen by Richard of Kirkham A Movie A Day! GG (Genre Grandeur) is a series Rob started a few years back where each month a different blogger chooses a genre for everyone to write a review of their favorite film (s) of the particular genre. (There is no limit or restrictions on the number of reviews)

A 1971 picture that contains a nomination for best actor, by one of the big stars of the sixties and seventies, that has largely been forgotten, despite the fact that is the lone directorial effort of another oscar-winning actor. Kotch features a sentimental story about an aged man, coping with the complications of being a burden to his family, while he is still relatively active, cogent, and financially independent. It also contains a sweet story about an unwed mother who's only 15 and is trying to navigate her pregnancy.

I saw this movie when it came out in 1971, and I remembered it slightly. The details of the story are hard to hold on to because nothing too dramatic happens in the course of events. This is really a character piece and that's the thing that's easy to remember here because Walter Matthau is a character in every role he plays but in particular in this one, where he is cast 30 years senior to his actual age. In fact he was only 5 years older than the actor who was portraying his son. Mathau had been in three successful sex comedies in the preceding 3 years, and was probably thought of as a comedian with the leading man's charisma if not looks. 20 years down the road he would be playing this same part at his own age and making a big success of that as well. If you want to you can kind of think of this as a prequel to “Grumpy Old Men”.

Joe Kotcher is a 73 year old man currently living with his son Gerald, daughter-in-law Wilma, and their toddler child Duncan,in a nice suburban house in Southern California. Kotch does not have dementia, there is no disease on the horizon, and he does not pose a threat to anyone except those who jump to the worst kinds of conclusions about what an old man is doing at a park. However, anyone who has lived with a person, who has personality quirks that may be bothersome, knows that it can be stressful. His daughter-in-law, is maybe wound a little too tight, but of course Joe Kotcher is an avuncular guy who is free with information, opinions, and advice. Those things may not always be welcome and sometimes seem like a bombardment of information that's unnecessary. Imagine a child who is telling you about their day, and tells you the name of every child that they sat with at lunch, and what they had to eat. It's not a bad thing but it's an unnecessary thing for the listener, it seems to be a needed function for the old man, he has to talk,and Kotch is a talker. He keeps a running commentary on all sorts of things, he has a vast knowledge of arcane information he's happy to drop into every conversation. That's the kind of thing that is driving a wedge into this family. Walter Matthau plays Kotch as a genial old man not as a curmudgeon, but sometimes you can just be too genial.

The son Gerald, is played by veteran television actor Charles Aidman, who anybody who has seen 70s television, will recognize from some program that they have watched. Aidman is great casting because he has the same hangdog face as his costar. Gerald is a sympathetic son and he is a little bit dominated by his wife who is struggling under the pressure of having her father-in-law live with them. At one point they have the delicate moment when the father and the son have to confront the possibility that Joe is going to relocate to a retirement community. The daughter-in-law is not a monster, she sees how tough this is for her husband and his father. She is the one in fact who sheds tears at the thought that this has become necessary by the way, she is played by the director’s wife). But like “Harry and Tonto”, which will arrive in a couple of years, old people can be a lot more resilient than their children want to think. Kotch has no intention of giving up living the life that he wants just to make his children feel secure.

At one point the old man feels a little bit like an informer because he has to share with his son the fact that the babysitter, while not being negligent, was distracted by having sex on the living room couch during an evening supposedly taking care of the grandson. When he shares this information we think he might simply be acting out of the feeling that he is being nudged out of his child care responsibilities by this young interloper. There's a nice moment done in a flashback, which reveals that Joe and his late wife Vera, faced some of the same issues that the babysitter did. The location for their assignations was An old Hudson, instead of his parents' living room couch. Erica, the babysitter, subsequently becomes an important character in the story. After Kotch has spent a little time away from his family traveling, he returns home to discover that the babysitter has been pushed out of school, sent to San Bernardino, because she became pregnant. We learned that her much older brother is her guardian, and there is a brief moment of sadness when we discover the story behind her orphan status. Koch is not going to take this lying down, he feels that he might have betrayed the girl and pushed her on this path because he told his son that the babysitter had misbehaved. He decides that he's going to help her as best he can.

The film meanders along, giving us a few incidents about how these two, the pregnant teen and the slightly distracted older man, form a dependent relationship and care for each other over the course of her pregnancy. Nothing too dramatic happens, they go out to eat, or they fix meals at home, where they spend time sitting in the living room working on some hobbies that are a little strange but charming. As the end of her term comes, she is faced with some important decisions about her future. And without telling her what to do, Kotch has a huge impact on the decisions that she makes.

This is the only film that Academy award-winning actor Jack Lemmon directed. He got an Oscar nominated performance out of his close friend and frequent co-star Walter Matthau, and efficiently tells the story without an excessive amount of sentimentality, but with just the right amount of humor to keep us going. This time period looks grand in the film, and you might think that Palm Springs would be a reasonable place to move to. Maybe the one big flaw in the story is the location, because even in 1971, Palm Springs was overpriced and maybe not a wise choice for a retiree and an unemployed pregnant girl.

The film received three other Academy Award nominations, so it was widely respected and even though it didn't win any of those Awards it seems to have gathered enough Goodwill to make it a multiple nominee. I bet if you ask anybody who the nominees for best actor were in 1971 people would only be able to name the winner, Gene Hackman, and maybe one other nominee and not this one. This for the most part is a forgotten film. Kotch is largely done in a style that is not typical anymore. It's not fast paced, it doesn't have surprise plot twists, and the characters are all generally good people without there being a villain in the scene. It's a nice story, about the struggles of a couple of nice people, who find a way to make the world work for them. That seems enough to recommend it.

Land of Bad

 

I'm getting to this almost a week after I saw the film, sorry. I've been under the weather for a few days and just not in the mood to think much about blogging. There's nothing particularly special about this film, it's also getting such a limited release that it will probably be out of theaters after the first week, which was when I saw it. That's too bad, because this is a pretty successful action film for those who are looking for some combat activity to get them through an afternoon.

The setup for the film is pretty simple: a Commando team is being sent to a remote island in the Philippines, in order to retrieve a human asset for the CIA. The thing that makes this an intriguing film is the detail that is added by the use of high altitude drones that contain not only sophisticated Communications equipment, but also a substantial amount of weaponry. Most of the time the Drone in this particular scenario was being used to assist the team on the ground with surveillance of the site that they are about to engage in. There are however some dramatic uses of the weapon at appropriate times to create diversions or potentially rescue members of the team. The way the Drone communication is integrated into the mission is the thing that was new to me. An operator flying the Drone at a location in the States, is communicating information to the team on the ground about enemy activity and potential locations for the asset. It looks like it's a pretty sophisticated set up and I don't doubt that the film is reasonably accurate in presenting how the basics work. Of course for drama purposes, they're always going to be complications and distractions and anybody who is dependent upon this technology would be frustrated with the behavior of some of the team at the Drone base.

Liam Hemsworth is the odd man out on the team, he is basically the Communications tech and not the warrior that the other people on the team are. He is of course a trained soldier so he has the basic ability to handle himself, but obviously the Special Operations group is used to having their own people there and that throws in a few wrinkles. Hemsworth is perfectly fine in the action hero mode, he performs admirably, makes some basic mistakes, and redeems himself a number of times on the mission. So it's easy for us to have him as a rooting interest.

I'll probably get in trouble with some people for the way I'm about to describe the next actor in this film, he's the biggest movie star in the world, …by weight. Russell Crowe at one time was a lean mean fighting machine, but in the last several years his waist has expanded much like my own, so that now when he appears on screen, it's much like Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a little bit lumbering. The guy can still act his ass off, and he's great as the Drone operator, although even sitting in a chair behind a console I would assume the Air Force has some physical fitness requirements that they are going to be imposing on their officers. Russell Crowe still has great screen charisma, and He commands the screen even if it doesn't require him to do any tumbling, running, or hand to hand combat.

There are really no big themes or messages in the film. At one point the villain wants to suggest that hiding behind a drone is a cowardly way of engaging in combat, but when that comes from a guy who decapitates a helpless woman and wants to do the same for a child, he pretty much loses all credibility. Alan Rickman made a film not too long before his death, that featured a more nuanced View of drone Warfare called “Eye in the Sky”, if you're looking for a message, that would be the film to seek out. If you're looking for shootouts, dramatic firefights, explosions, tense torture scenes, and a few people surviving a lot longer than you might expect, then this is a film that you should probably look for. Good guys taking out the bad guys in modern combat situations is what this whole thing is about. Of course it's going to be a lot harder to find unless you have your own Drone to assist you.

Dune 1984 Revisit and Comparison

 

Here is a brief video comparison of some of the visual styles of the David Lynch film in contrast to the Denis Villeneuve version. 

Madam Web

 

The amount of hate this movie is receiving is hard to understate. I have seen reviews that suggest this movie will be able to be the measure of bad films for the next 15 years. People have even suggested that a root canal is more entertaining. I haven't seen this level of disdain for a movie since Morbius opened a couple of years ago.

It will certainly not be my position that this is a good movie, but the notion that this is going to be the worst film in the last 20 years and for the next 10 seems to be hyperbole of the worst sort. Madame Web certainly has flaws, and will not be well thought of over time, but I found it perfectly watchable, and kind of interesting in how long it took to set up the character at the heart of the story.

This is a superhero movie about a hero that you've never heard of, with a villain who basically is evil Spider-Man. The idea of this Hero's superpower is kind of a strange one, it's a psychic ability to see a short distance into the future. And when I say a short distance it seems like it's probably less than just a couple of minutes. It’s a little bit like the Omega 13 device from “Galaxy Quest”. Does it allow you to change the future? Maybe. The other problem with the film, in addition to the fact that you have an obscure hero, is that it seems to be setting up another Trio of Heroes, that is going to be another girl Power Team, and that just seems a little trite.

Dakota Johnson is the star of the film, and if you are not a fan of hers then you probably are not going to care much for this movie because she is in 90% of the scenes. I think she's been fine in a number of films, and there is a certain quality that she has on screen that makes her appealing. That does not mean however that she is ready to carry a whole movie on her own. That is pretty much what's required in order to get this movie off the ground, and an interesting screen presence is not necessarily sufficient to keep us intrigued.

There are two or three lapses in logic that make plot holes large enough to drive an 18-wheeler through. Maybe that is the cause of so much of the dissension about this film. It's hard for me to know though because most of the reviews that I've seen, from fans online and from professional critics, all spend their time looking for the greatest put-downs they can come up with, rather than explaining what the faults of the film are. An evaluation without any context or explanation just seems like an exercise in stringing together adjectives and adverbs. I much prefer an analysis that tells me why a person thinks the things that they do.

So the reservations I have, concern the cliche tropes of this movie, and some of the logical lapses that occur because of the superpowers involved. Just to give you an example near the climax of the film, the villain is smacked down by an ambulance, essentially falling from a building, and that's not enough to kill him. A few minutes later however, a much less significant object is more effective, for no reason that we can discern.

The three girls who are being set up to be a superpower team in the future, are as annoying as all heck. They do exactly the opposite of what they're supposed to be doing, and most of the time they simply end up screaming and running. They need to be a little bit more interesting, and they need to have a little more agency in the film. The villain doesn't seem to have very much motivation either, except for nightmares, and of course we're getting a Time Loop story where the nightmares might very well be created by his reaction to the nightmares. There is such a thing as a circle of life, but circular reasoning never convinced anybody except those who are exceptionally undemanding. His acquisition of the powers that make him a supervillain seems to be pretty artificial, and apparently there's a curse, but all that gets explained in exposition that wasn't written very well. The time setting of the film is largely done for the purpose of limiting the influence of Technology. That way it is just the one tool, stolen by the villain, that's going to be important in the story.  Everything else can just happen the way it did before people had easy internet connection and access to mobile phones.

Again I'm not saying it's a great film, in fact I'm saying it's a poor film, it's just not the wretched pile of crap that so many other people are saying it is. You shouldn't be embarrassed by going to see it, but you won't remember it for long, and you'll have a better time with the popcorn then with the story.

KAMAD Throwback Thursdays 1975: The Fortune

Throwback Thursday #TBT

Throwback Thursday on the KAMAD site will be a regular occurrence in the next year. As a motivational project, to make sure I am working on something, even in a week where I don't see a new film in a theater, I am going to post on movies from 1975. Along with 1984, this is one of my favorite years for movies and it is full of bittersweet memories as well. 1975 was my Senior Year in High School and my Freshman Year in College. The greatest film of the last 60 years came out in 1975, as well as dozens of great and not so great cinematic endeavors. Most of the films in this weekly series will have been seen in a theater in 1975, but there are several that I only caught up with later. I hope you all enjoy.

The Fortune

As usual, I tried locating a trailer to accompany my film selection, but this does not seem possible with "The Fortune". I was unable to locate a trailer on YouTube, which is the most likely site that it would be available on. I looked at Google to search for the same thing and also got no results. Maybe this is the reason that this film was a Blind Spot for me, I never remembered seeing anything promoting it, except newspaper ads. The fact that the movie flopped on release probably accounts for it never being available for me to see in 1975. To catch up with it today, I purchased a copy from Umbrella, an Australian Media company, this actually had to clear customs before being delivered to me. Anyway, the above video is a clip from TCM when they showed the film a few years ago.

"The Fortune" stars Jack Nicolson (This is his fourth film in the Throwback Thursday Series) and Warren Beatty (Only his second). They were both big stars at the time and the movie was directed by Mike Nichols. With that pedigree, you would think this was a surefire smash. Unfortunately, like "Lucky Lady", also in 75, casting cannot make up for all the elements of a movie. Somehow this light comedy farce, just lacks the delicate touch that it takes to pull off this kind of material, and part ofd the problem is the two stars.

Nicolson and Beatty are both laconic actors, who need some pushing to feel like active participants in a movie. Here they seem to be cruising rather than working, and the script and direction are not enough to compensate for a lack of wattage from the stars. There is a scroll at the start of the movie, to explain the complication that the story is trying to deal with. This immediately suggests trouble. When you have to have a history lesson before the story starts, it is never very promising. Basically, the two are small time scam artists, who are trying to get a hold of the wealth of an heiress by marrying her. Unfortunately, the man who wooed her is unable to complete a divorce, so if he takes her with him across the country, he could be violating the Mann Act. 

 During the 1920s, in the United States, the law known as the Mann Act was much feared. It prohibited transporting a woman across state lines for immoral purposes. Because of the Mann Act, a man who wanted to run off with a woman and was willing, or unable, to marry her, would sometimes go to unusual lengths.

So Beatty wants to marry Stockad Channing, but can't, so he has her marry his pal Nicholson, as a way of getting around the law. Of course that presents some awkward moments in the story, and those are the only places where the film comes to life. The movie is less than an hour and a half long, but it seems to take forever to get to the real complications. A car ride, train trip and Airplane flight, all use up a lot of screen time, without really building the story or the characters. Once the trio arrives in Los Angeles, and settles into the same courtyard apartment that was used in "The Day of the Locust", the comedy feels more connected to the goings on. There just isn't that much of it.

Channing is in her first credited role here, and for the most part she is great, but there are a couple of scenes where bickering is featured and she was given the direction "louder". It annoys rather than amuses. The final section of the film, is where the slapstick humor comes in, and the hapless con men, having decided to murder the woman they both claim to love, can't quite pull off the act. There is a scene of a traffic jam on a bridge that showcases what the film could have been, if only that spirit was infused in the rest of the story. 

Anyway, it's not as big a misfire as "Lucky Lady", it still isn't something you need to add to your list of essential viewing. 

Lisa Frankenstein

 

I didn't hate this movie but I didn't love it the way I wished I had. Diablo Cody has written a couple of films that I do admire quite a bit, both “Juno” and "Jennifer's Body" are regular visitors on our TV screen. So it was with some enthusiasm that I looked forward to this newest film penned by this talented screenwriter. I can't say the fault for this film's failures is entirely with the director, because the screenplay is a mess. Instead of being funny or cute or sexy, it's just gross and it relies on obnoxious stereotypes to sell some of its jokes.

The premise is a cross between “Heathers” and “Warm Bodies”, two films with horror at their heart that also try to slip in some romance. Maybe “Heathers” can successfully pull that off because its black heart is clear from the very beginning. “Warm Bodies” just didn't work when it was released a few years ago, and this film has the same problem, dead bodies are just not sexy or romantic. Dress them up in period clothing and try to style them as if they were poets of the era, they are still decaying, oozing, cold bodies that would not be attractive to anyone.

This film takes the idea of a wicked stepmother, and tries to update it into Dawn of the Dead. There's not enough humor to make it work when the film's tone changes dramatically after the first murder. At first the film seems to want to be a wacky romance between a girl who's an outsider and a little odd, and the idea of a Lost Boy from the old days, you know, when men were cravats and vests. The idea that a short circuiting tanning bed will substitute for the elaborate Laboratory of Dr. Frankenstein, is funny at first, but the joke gets repeated several times and it never really makes sense in the story why this would work. I know this is supposed to be a fantasy, so I shouldn't take most of these things seriously, and I don't, but come on. There needs to be a little bit more of an explanation about why a body that's been in the ground for almost 200 years suddenly rises from the grave because of the lightning strike. Lisa, the teen girl who is the protagonist in the story, is suffering from PTSD after the loss of her mother by an Ax Murderer, and the acquisition of a sister and mother when her father remarries. So okay, she's not stable, but her reaction to the character that shows up in her bedroom makes no sense at all.

Speaking of teen comedies that this film borrows from, we also get a little bit of “Pretty in Pink”, where there is a romantic interest, but not the one that we should be rooting for given the setup. It just doesn't make much sense that Lisa continues to want the editor of the school literary journal, after practically engaging in voodoo to get the corpse of Victor Frankenstein animated. Expecting the corpse to go along with this, without any jealousy also makes no sense. This is just a series of scenes that are supposed to be funny but don't work. We get ax murders that aren't funny, and characters who act as if there's no consequence to their actions, when in fact anybody can see the consequences coming from a mile away.

Oh, and another team comedy that we can throw in, “She's All That", where the dowdy little girl turns into a teen Queen that all the boys at school want to be with. Not sure that this is the right way to go from a screenwriter who came up with the clever premise of “Jennifer's Body”, and the terrific contrarian “Juno”. This movie feels like it was manufactured by somebody who is trying to make a successful Teen Movie by doing the same thing that Dr. Frankenstein did, sewing together the parts of dead films and hoping to revive them as something new. It's been tried before and rarely is it successful.

Comedy in horror, it's hard to pull off well. When it happens, like in the film “American Werewolf in London”, we are lucky that we can laugh and be scared at the same time. Lisa Frankenstein doesn't pull this Balancing Act off, it's not as disappointing as Five Nights at Freddy's, but the number of laughs is almost as low, and despite the cute actors, and three or four clever lines, there's just not much here to recommend.

Dune Part 1 (Revisit)

 

In anticipation of the second chapter of Denis Villeneuve's Dune films, the first part from 2021, has been released in theaters for a week so that we can all catch up. When I say we, I was hoping that there would be other Dune fans in the theater, sadly I was by myself without another soul in sight. That didn't change the movie much for me, I still liked it very much, and was happy to see it on the big screen.

There was an interesting phenomenon in the film and my experience in the past 3 years which showed up at yesterday's screening. I had read the original book again for a book club 3 years ago, and we had talked about some of the scenes that were missing in the film. Apparently my memory of the book intruded on my memory of the film, and I kept waiting for a scene that I saw vividly in my head, but was never in the film to begin with. That's just my imagination working overtime and filling in some blanks. I may have done the same thing 40 years ago when I saw David Lynch's Dune, and I thought the film was great even though others saw it as occasionally incoherent. My brain apparently wants me to embrace the concept of Dune as a film in a more complete form than either Lynch or Villeneuve was able to complete. 

Next week I am seeing the David Lynch version of Dune on the big screen, and I'll make more comparisons between the films then, but for now I'm happy to have the new version of Dune. This version has a magnificent score, some terrific visual effects, and casting that is quite effective. Josh Brolin, Jason Momoa, and Oscar Isaacs are all excellent in their respective roles. It's taking me a little while to get used to Zendaya as Chani, and I'm still not sure why we had to gender swap Dr. Keynes. Timothée Chalamet has turned out to be a much better choice for Paul Atreides than I had hoped. 

I know several film fans who are irritated that the film stopped where it does in the story, but given the impracticality of having a 7-hour movie, I think it was the correct cut off point. The story finishes at a spot that completes what is essentially the First Act of the story and sets up what is to come pretty effectively. At the conclusion of the film screening, we got an 8 minute preview style trailer, which featured a long segment that will certainly be coming near the beginning of part two. Paul, riding a giant sand worm for the first time, is the important plot point, and it's a little surprising that they give away this sequence in a trailer. I guess they don't think any real Dune fans are unaware of what's going to happen, and those fans who are casual fans, need a little inducement to push the button.

Of course I have already purchased my tickets, I'm excited for the movie, and I would be happy to go to a double feature and see both part one and part two playing together. I'm sure that will happen sometime down the road, until then the spice must flow.