Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Manhattan’

I’d Spell It Out For You But I Can’t Spell…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 14, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“The Apartment” (1960) — movie review
Today’s second film review is for the romantic‑drama workplace comedy “The Apartment”, directed by Billy Wilder and starring Jack Lemmon as C. C. “Bud” Baxter, a lonely mid‑level insurance clerk who lends out his apartment to company executives for their affairs;  Shirley MacLaine as Fran Kubelik, the elevator operator Baxter quietly adores, who’s stuck in an on‑again / off‑again relationship with a married boss;  Fred MacMurray as Jeff Sheldrake, the personnel director who abuses Baxter’s ambition and Fran’s feelings;  Ray Walston, David Lewis, and Willard Waterman as the three philandering executives who treat Baxter like a doormat;  and Jack Kruschen as Dr. Dreyfuss, Baxter’s neighbor who thinks Baxter is a playboy but eventually sees the truth.  The film uses its Manhattan corporate setting to explore loneliness, moral compromise, and the cost of wanting something better than the life you’ve settled for.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I came to this film by way of it being a Best Picture Oscar winner.  Over the years, I kept hearing that Billy Wilder is a great director and (lately) this was one of the great American films — and it is!  It won five Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.  It’s also one of the last major black‑and‑white studio films before color became the default.  Wilder made it right after “Some Like It Hot”, and you can feel the confidence of a director at the top of his game.  This is a movie about adults, made for adults, at a time when Hollywood was still figuring out how to talk about sex without saying the word.
Plot:  C. C. Baxter works at a giant New York insurance company.  He’s a decent guy who wants to move up, and the way he’s found to do that is by lending his apartment to four executives who use it for their affairs.  Baxter hates the arrangement, but he’s also lonely and ambitious, and the temptation of promotions keep coming.  He has a crush on Fran Kubelik, the elevator operator, but doesn’t know she’s involved with Jeff Sheldrake, the personnel director.  When Sheldrake demands exclusive use of the apartment, Baxter thinks it’s just another step toward a better job — until he discovers Fran is the woman Sheldrake is stringing along.
On Christmas Eve, after Sheldrake breaks things off with her (again), Fran attempts suicide in Baxter’s apartment.  Baxter finds her, calls his neighbor the doctor, and spends the next few days caring for her.  They talk, they eat, they play gin, and Baxter slowly falls in love with her for real — not the fantasy version he had in his head.  Sheldrake, meanwhile, keeps lying to everyone, including himself.  Eventually Baxter refuses to let Sheldrake use the apartment anymore, even though it costs him his job.  On New Year’s Eve, Fran realizes Sheldrake will never change and runs to Baxter’s place.  The movie ends with her dealing the cards and saying the line everyone remembers and the film is famous for:  “Shut up and deal.”
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  clean and purposeful;  a few (minor);  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  This is one of those movies that feels simple on the surface but keeps deepening the more you think about it.  Wilder balances comedy and heartbreak without tipping too far in either direction.  The script is tight, the pacing is steady, and the emotional beats land because the characters feel like real people.  It’s also surprisingly modern in its view of corporate culture — the way ambition can hollow you out if you’re not careful.
Acting:  Lemmon is terrific.  He plays Baxter as a man who’s trying to be decent in a system that rewards the opposite.  His physical comedy is great, but it’s the quieter moments (the way he looks at Fran when she’s not looking) that make the character work.  Shirley MacLaine is even better!  She gives Fran a mix of vulnerability, humor, and sadness that feels real.  Fred MacMurray, who had already played heels in several films before this one, is perfectly cast as Sheldrake:  smooth, selfish, and entirely believable.  The supporting cast is strong, especially Jack Kruschen as Dr. Dreyfuss, who gives the film its moral spine.
Filming / FX:  It’s black‑and‑white, shot in a clean, straightforward style that fits the story.  The office scenes use forced perspective to make the workspace look endless — a nice touch that sells Baxter’s insignificance in the corporate machine.  The apartment set is cramped but warm, which is exactly the point.  There are no special effects to speak of, but the cinematography is sharp and the editing is invisible in the best way.  The film looks like what it is:  a well‑crafted studio production from a director who knows exactly what he’s doing.
Problems:  A few (minor).  The middle section can feel long if you’re not in the mood for a character study.  Some of the corporate behavior, while probably accurate for the era, might strike modern viewers as cartoonishly sleazy / offensive.  And Sheldrake is almost too consistent in his selfishness — he never has a moment of real self‑reflection.  But these are minor issues.  The movie works because the characters work.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes . It’s funny, sad, and honest.  The ending still lands, even after all these years.  The movie has a warmth to it that sneaks up on you.  Baxter and Fran feel like people you want to root for, not because they’re perfect, but because they’re trying to be better than the world around them.  It’s a movie that rewards the sense of being good.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to very strong.  “The Apartment” is a classic for a reason.  If you like character‑driven stories, sharp writing, and films that mix humor with real emotional stakes, this is worth your time.  It’s one of Billy Wilder’s best.  If you’ve never seen it, watch it.  Final note / A Word of Caution:  This movie may not be appropriate for all viewers.  MacLaine’s character attempts suicide over a broken heart and sometimes viewers can be triggered by seeing this activity in films.
.
Click here (14 May) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Call Me Plissken

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 4, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Escape from New York” (1981) – movie review
Today’s review is for the dystopian action thriller “Escape from New York” (1981),  starring Kurt Russell as “Snake” Plissken (a one-eyed ex-soldier turned convict, drafted into a rescue mission he doesn’t believe in), Donald Pleasence as the President of the United States (a captured figurehead with a tape that could prevent nuclear war), Lee Van Cleef as Hauk (a militarized bureaucrat who offers Snake freedom in exchange for success), Ernest Borgnine as Cabbie (a jazz-loving relic of pre-internment Manhattan), Isaac Hayes as The Duke of New York (the self-styled warlord of the island prison), Adrienne Barbeau as Maggie (a loyal companion with a deadly aim), and Harry Dean Stanton as Brain (a former engineer turned survivalist strategist).
Background:  I first saw “Escape from New York” on TV in the mid-1980s, long after its release but still within the Anti-Crime shadow that shaped its premise.  I was attracted by the concept — Manhattan as a maximum-security prison — and stayed for the mood:  grim, stylized, and unapologetically cynical.  This was my third viewing (first without TV editing or commercials), and it holds up as what it is (and not much more).  Carpenter’s vision of a decaying America, where patriotism is transactional and heroism is coerced, feels eerily prescient for the current time (2016 – 2028) even it not for it’s release date or it’s “predicted” future date.  Snake Plissken isn’t a savior — he’s a symptom.  And his role / character is what makes the film somewhat more interesting than compelling.
Plot:  In the near-future of 1997, crime has surged beyond containment.  The U.S. government converts Manhattan into a walled prison — no guards, no law, no escape.  When Air Force One is hijacked and the President crash-lands inside, the authorities turn to Snake Plissken, a decorated war hero turned criminal.  Injected with explosives that will kill him in 24 hours, Snake must infiltrate the city, locate the President, and retrieve a cassette tape containing vital diplomatic information.  Along the way, he navigates a post-apocalyptic landscape ruled by The Duke, aided and hindered by survivors who’ve adapted to chaos.  The film builds toward a tense extraction, a double-cross, and a final act of rebellion that redefines who the real enemy is.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  somewhat (mostly no);  dated and stylized but surprisingly committed;  atmospheric and a little better than the overall film;  yeah;  not really.
Any Good?  Not really, but watchable.  “Escape from New York” is a genre piece that transcends its budget through conviction.  It’s not a blockbuster — it’s a mood piece (mostly depressing).  The film seeks spectacle but mostly just settles for atmosphere, and its cynicism feels real, but, with the hind-sight of history, unearned.  The narrative is dark and simple, but the implications are layered:  surveillance, militarism, abandonment, and the erosion of civic trust.  Snake isn’t trying to save the world — he’s trying to survive it.  And that’s the point.
Acting:  Kurt Russell sheds his Disney past (he was child star in multiple Disney movies) and fully inhabits Snake Plissken — laconic, lethal, and perpetually unimpressed.  His performance is all posture and subtext, and it works.  Donald Pleasence plays the President with a mix of entitlement and desperation, and his final scene — post-rescue, post-humiliation — is quietly devastating, Lee Van Cleef brings gravitas to Hauk, and his scenes with Russell spark with tension, Ernest Borgnine adds levity, Isaac Hayes oozes menace, Adrienne Barbeau balances allure with intent, and Harry Dean Stanton’s Brain is the man who knows the system and still tries to game it.  The ensemble is surprisingly tight and the casting feels near perfect, except for the fact the script fails and has gotten worse with time.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is dark and deliberate — shadows, silhouettes, and neon decay.  Manhattan is rendered as a wasteland, and the production design sells it:  burned-out cars, graffiti, torch-lit corridors.  The FX are minimal but effective — gliders, explosions, and matte paintings that evoke scale without excess.  The film’s visual language is consistent:  low-tech, high-stakes, and always on the edge of collapse.
Problems:  Yes, multiple. The main problem is the film is set 15+ years in the future – which is now almost 30 years in the past – and literally nothing predicted in the film has come to pass.  Not even close…   In the film itself, some character arcs feel truncated — Maggie’s fate, Brain’s motivations — or unexplained – the Duke’s power structure.  The film’s budgetary constraints are obvious throughout the film, especially in crowd scenes and action choreography.  These flaws don’t break the film, they just don’t help its quality / scope.  Also, the ending — while modestly satisfying — will probably leave some viewers wanting more closure.  But that’s Snake:  he doesn’t explain, he exits.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  So-so.  Even dated, it’s not really a BAD film.  It’s just not a very good one.  I watched it without feeling like I suffered through it.  “Escape from New York” is a film about Snake’s autonomy more than his “triumph” over New York or the President.  Watching Snake navigate a world that’s already lost, and still choose defiance, feels oddly empowering (IMHO) to us as viewers.  The film’s final gesture — a cassette swap that undermines diplomacy — is a classic stroke of antihero logic.  Snake doesn’t save the world;  he exposes it.  And – probably – that’s partly why the film still resonates somewhat.
Final Recommendation:  Low to Moderate Recommendation.  “Escape from New York” is a dystopian thriller that trades polish for personality.  It’s a film that understands its limitations and tries to leverage them into style.  If you’re a fan of Carpenter, Russell, or post-apocalyptic cinema with a political edge, you’ll want to catch this film.  It didn’t win any Academy Awards, but its influence is undeniable and Snake Plissken’s (Russell’s) DNA is everywhere.  Watch it for the mood, the message, and the man who doesn’t care if you remember his name.  …Proof you don’t have to be the main character in a good movie in order to make a name for yourself.
.
Click here (4 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Size Does Matter

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 10, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Godzilla” (1998) – movie review
Today’s review is for the big-budget creature feature:  “Godzilla” (1998), starring Matthew Broderick as Dr. Niko “Nick” Tatopoulos (a worm specialist / biologist turned monster tracker), Jean Reno as Philippe Roaché (a French intelligence agent with a taste for espresso and espionage), Maria Pitillo as Audrey Timmonds (an aspiring reporter and Niko’s ex-girlfriend), Hank Azaria as Victor “Animal” Palotti (a cameraman with guts and a Brooklyn accent), Kevin Dunn as Colonel Hicks (military brass with a skeptical eye), and Doug Savant as Sergeant O’Neal (a level-headed soldier who actually listens).
Background:  I saw this film in theaters during its original release, drawn in by the marketing blitz — trailers teasing a monster that crushes a T-Rex skeleton.  I hadn’t revisited it in over ten years, but curiosity (and a discount Blu-ray bin) brought it back into my queue. I’m using this as the jump off point to watching / reviewing the King Kong and Godzilla films from this millennia.
Plot:  A mysterious creature attacks a Japanese fishing vessel and soon makes landfall in New York City, leaving a trail of destruction and confusion.  Dr. Tatopoulos is brought in to study the beast, which turns out to be a mutated iguana born of nuclear testing.  As the military scrambles to contain the threat, Niko discovers that Godzilla is nesting — laying eggs that could unleash a new generation of monsters.  The film becomes a race against time to stop the creature and its offspring before Manhattan becomes a permanent reptilian habitat.
So, how’s the movie?  The acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  okay to good;  serviceable;  flashy but dated;  many;  sort of.
Any good?  Better than expected (or remembered), but not really the Godzilla I grew up with.  “Godzilla” (1998) is a film that wants to be a “tent-pole” for a series, but ends up as more of a bigger T-Rex Jurassic Park.  It borrows heavily from “Jurassic Park” and “Aliens” but lacks the insight or depth of either.  The creature design is more T-Rex sized velociraptor than kaiju, and the tone veers between disaster flick and slapstick farce – mostly at the expense of the military.  It’ll be a disappointing film if you’re a fan of the original Japanese franchise.
Acting:  Broderick plays Niko with his usual affable awkwardness, but he’s miscast as a leading man in a monster movie.  Reno adds some dry humor and gravitas, though his character feels parachuted in from a different film.  Pitillo’s Audrey is underwritten and often reduced to a plot device.  Azaria brings energy, but his comic relief sometimes undercuts the tension.  Kevin Dunn’s Colonel Hicks is the standard military skeptic, while Doug Savant’s Sergeant O’Neal is one of the few characters who feels grounded — he’s competent, calm, and actually pays attention.  The ensemble is fine, but no one really stands out.  You’re here for the monster, not the humans — and unfortunately, even the monster feels underdeveloped.
Filming / FX:  The visual effects were cutting-edge in 1998 and they’re still pretty serviceable.  Godzilla’s design is sleek but generic, lacking the mythic presence of its Japanese counterpart.  The destruction scenes are loud and chaotic, but rarely suspenseful.  The nighttime rain-soaked aesthetic tries to mask the CGI seams, but the creature’s movements often feel weightless.  The baby Godzillas in Madison Square Garden seem clearly inspired by raptors from “Jurassic Park“, but the sequence plays more like a campy take-off than a serious monster film.
Problems:  Plenty.  This version of Godzilla simply isn’t the correct size of the old days.  The plot tries to make the film about people and forgets to keep the camera on the money.  The film sidelines its own mythology, turning Godzilla into a misunderstood animal rather than a symbol of nuclear reckoning.  The military is portrayed as both incompetent and trigger-happy, and the romantic subplot feels forced.  Traditionally, Godzilla was never really interested in people – eating or chasing.  He (it) was only a problem because it was so big and lumbering, it just laid waste to any city it entered.  Worst of all, the film lacks tension when Godzilla is not on screen and those are big chunks of the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes!  There’s a certain 90s charm to the excess — explosions, one-liners, and a soundtrack that screams “MTV era.”  But as a “Godzilla” film, it misses the mark.  It’s more disaster porn than monster movie, and it trades / loses “something” (depth?) by going for spectacle and people (relationships).  Still, if you’re in the mood for something loud, silly, and vaguely nostalgic, it might scratch the itch.  It scratched mine…
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation.  “Godzilla” (1998) is a cautionary tale in franchise adaptation — how not to reimagine a cultural icon.  If you’re a kaiju fan, stick with the original Toho films or the more recent Legendary reboot.  If you’re just looking for a creature feature with explosions and quips, this might do the trick.  It worked for me…
.
Click here (10 October) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started