Morlock
Joined Apr 1999
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews11
Morlock's rating
Maybe it's simple enough to blame the new decade on this failed attempt to create what should have been a decent disaster film, but we all know that is not the case.
Given the creative production team and combined casts of such disaster greats as "The Poseidon Adventure" and "The Towering Inferno," one would expect "When Time Ran Out" to be an entertaining, successful follow-up, but it is neither. It lacks the adventure of the prior, the suspense of the latter, and the emotional involvement of both. It does, however, follow almost every disaster genre convention, including the inclusion of an animal in peril--a rooster, in this case. One convention it lacks is the inclusion of a "hit" song sung somewhere in the film.
The film impotently attempts to invoke a sense of history and emotional attachment to its haphazard melange of characters that "naturally" come together as the film progresses. Of course most serve as mere disaster fodder while others borrow too heavily from pre-existing roles in both prior Irwin Allen films. Their acting pendulum swings in extremes from melodramatic to stale and one-dimensional. Strangely enough, the age range for the cast seems to make the same swings.
The only interesting and unique yet relatively unexplored and unresolved aspect to the plot and its characters' development is the inclusion of two different romantic triangles. Beyond these, I found it refreshing that the "greedy developer" role was split into two characters, and William Holden's part (Shelby Gilmore, the investor) actually deviated from tradition.
Ironically, the disaster--a volcano--is less menacing and ultimately less fatal than most the of the film's cast. This is actually humorous because they treat their situation as dire when, in actuality, it is absurd. Most of the actions (and reactions) related to the impending disaster are totally unfounded, contrived, and almost self-serving.
Unfortunately, this film does nothing in moderation, which is probably its strongest fault. As mentioned earlier, it spends an inordinate amount of time (poorly) developing useless characters. It also feels the need to linger on pointless scene segments (e.g., the rooster chase, a helicopter crash, etc.), intending to heighten their intrigue when all it really does is bore the audience. I will not say chopping it down considerably could have saved this film, but at least the audience would not have to suffer as long.
I think the thing that angered me the most was the climactic letdown of the volcano's final strike. After being built-up, explained, and conveniently ignored, it took all of about 2 minutes to actually have its "revenge" against those who defied it, and even that did not play like it had been explained. In a word it was quick.
This film probably signaled the end of the traditional disaster as the industry moved into the 80's. My advice: let time run out on this one; do not ruin whatever image you have of these otherwise great stars and production personnel.
Given the creative production team and combined casts of such disaster greats as "The Poseidon Adventure" and "The Towering Inferno," one would expect "When Time Ran Out" to be an entertaining, successful follow-up, but it is neither. It lacks the adventure of the prior, the suspense of the latter, and the emotional involvement of both. It does, however, follow almost every disaster genre convention, including the inclusion of an animal in peril--a rooster, in this case. One convention it lacks is the inclusion of a "hit" song sung somewhere in the film.
The film impotently attempts to invoke a sense of history and emotional attachment to its haphazard melange of characters that "naturally" come together as the film progresses. Of course most serve as mere disaster fodder while others borrow too heavily from pre-existing roles in both prior Irwin Allen films. Their acting pendulum swings in extremes from melodramatic to stale and one-dimensional. Strangely enough, the age range for the cast seems to make the same swings.
The only interesting and unique yet relatively unexplored and unresolved aspect to the plot and its characters' development is the inclusion of two different romantic triangles. Beyond these, I found it refreshing that the "greedy developer" role was split into two characters, and William Holden's part (Shelby Gilmore, the investor) actually deviated from tradition.
Ironically, the disaster--a volcano--is less menacing and ultimately less fatal than most the of the film's cast. This is actually humorous because they treat their situation as dire when, in actuality, it is absurd. Most of the actions (and reactions) related to the impending disaster are totally unfounded, contrived, and almost self-serving.
Unfortunately, this film does nothing in moderation, which is probably its strongest fault. As mentioned earlier, it spends an inordinate amount of time (poorly) developing useless characters. It also feels the need to linger on pointless scene segments (e.g., the rooster chase, a helicopter crash, etc.), intending to heighten their intrigue when all it really does is bore the audience. I will not say chopping it down considerably could have saved this film, but at least the audience would not have to suffer as long.
I think the thing that angered me the most was the climactic letdown of the volcano's final strike. After being built-up, explained, and conveniently ignored, it took all of about 2 minutes to actually have its "revenge" against those who defied it, and even that did not play like it had been explained. In a word it was quick.
This film probably signaled the end of the traditional disaster as the industry moved into the 80's. My advice: let time run out on this one; do not ruin whatever image you have of these otherwise great stars and production personnel.
Normally, I feel that it is a travesty to remake an older, classic film (sequels excepted). Profits aside, what is the motive? What is there to add? "The Wiz," however, is one of the few exceptions to my belief. Whereas "The Wizard of Oz" is more of a child's film, the intended audience for "The Wiz" is a few steps above that. Like its predecessor, "The Wiz" is both visually stunning and musically engaging. It compliments the seriousness of its themes and situations--both of which it has in more abundance than its predecessor--with a copious amount of humor. Seldom have I witnessed a more creative work of adaptation than that which is presented by "The Wiz," which is, of course, adapted from L. Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz." A few others that spring to mind are "Logan's Run" and "The War of the Worlds." I mention these not because they were simply a good translation of book to film, but because they maintained the book's overall story (plot, theme, characters, etc.) while retailoring the environment and/or situation. "The Wiz" focuses on the "black situation." It redresses all of the elements from its source material to meet the needs of its revamped, modern, social subject matter. From the Scarecrow, who represents a pitiable, underachieving product of his environment; to the poppies, which represent drug addiction; to the denizens of Oz, who are ready to follow the latest trend just to be "in;" the story presents its audience with a generalized glimpse at the breakdown of "black" culture and society. Though "The Wiz" does not convey the same childlike wonder, magic, and fantasy that both the original film and the novel do, it translates those elements into more of an industrialized, mechanical, inner city playground. Unfortunately, albeit appropriately, the Oz we witness is through an older Dorothy's eyes. Interestingly, due to her advanced age, the circumstances that befall her must be harsher in order to invoke the necessary change of heart. Unlike the setting in "The Wizard of Oz," which exists in our dreams, "somewhere over the rainbow," the setting in "The Wiz" occupies our nightmares. The contrast between Judy Garland's Oz and her native Kansas is many times greater than that between Diana Ross' Oz and her native New York. The incentive to return home is greater for Diana--even though the colorful lure of a fantasy land is not present--since her Oz may be merely a preview of things to come (back home), if she does not start to make a difference. One of the few things for which I did not care was all-too-recognizable, yet modified New York as Oz. Though the entire film's art direction was brilliant, I found New York to be too distracting and too contemporary to be an adequate Oz. Another subject of distaste for me was the "end of slavery" segment after Evillene's liquidation. The song and dance were nice and full of energy, but the symbolism was too literal and seemed out of place with regards to the rest of the film. I could have also enjoyed a bit more denouement and perhaps even an epilogue about Dorothy's reunion with her family. Three interesting notes: 1) The landscape of Oz in "The Wiz" actually does change after Dorothy intervenes to make a difference; this does not happen in "The Wizard of Oz." 2) While Judy's visit to Oz seems to be concussion-induced, Diana actually appears to visit that fabled land, which is closer to the book. 3) "The Wiz" contains all four witches presented in the book; "The Wizard of Oz" only contains three. Though it seems rather dated today, "The Wiz" is still a fun movie to view, and it contains a number of known (Motown) celebrities.
Regardless of what one may say about "My Dinner with Andre's" dialogue, message, and overarching content, the fact remains that it should not have been a film.
I will admit to a personal bias when it comes to philosophy--for the most part I find it boring and a waste of time. Similarly, I think this movie is a waste of film stock. It would have played much better in written form, as a radio broadcast, or even as an extended one act play. Unlike children, the film should be heard and not seen. One gains nothing from watching this film. If you do not believe me, turn down the volume and sit through it again.
As an art form, film carries certain responsibilities and devices that make it unique. The director employed virtually none of them, which is not too surprising considering that Andre Gregory asked him to direct it; it was not Malle's conception. Therefore, it is not a French film. Can you imagine actually working on this film as either its director or editor? I can not think any task more boring.
If Andre was adamant that his life philosophy be brought to film, I would have expanded the visual landscape beyond the four different shots currently employed. I would have also populated the environment with more "characters," who could have interrupted the conversation from time to time, as well as provided some visual allegory for Andre's varying views. To make matters even more interesting, I might have even employed (dream-like) flashbacks to help flavor and represent Andre's background and highbrow dialogue.
As an art form, film should strive to represent its creator's beliefs, ideas, and message so that they can be interpreted individually by those who view it. As a commercial medium, varied demographics within a given target audience should be able to associate with, understand, and enjoy a film's content. Aurally, "My Dinner with Andre" satisfies only the art; visually, it satisfies neither.
My suggestion: Skip the film and buy the screenplay.
I will admit to a personal bias when it comes to philosophy--for the most part I find it boring and a waste of time. Similarly, I think this movie is a waste of film stock. It would have played much better in written form, as a radio broadcast, or even as an extended one act play. Unlike children, the film should be heard and not seen. One gains nothing from watching this film. If you do not believe me, turn down the volume and sit through it again.
As an art form, film carries certain responsibilities and devices that make it unique. The director employed virtually none of them, which is not too surprising considering that Andre Gregory asked him to direct it; it was not Malle's conception. Therefore, it is not a French film. Can you imagine actually working on this film as either its director or editor? I can not think any task more boring.
If Andre was adamant that his life philosophy be brought to film, I would have expanded the visual landscape beyond the four different shots currently employed. I would have also populated the environment with more "characters," who could have interrupted the conversation from time to time, as well as provided some visual allegory for Andre's varying views. To make matters even more interesting, I might have even employed (dream-like) flashbacks to help flavor and represent Andre's background and highbrow dialogue.
As an art form, film should strive to represent its creator's beliefs, ideas, and message so that they can be interpreted individually by those who view it. As a commercial medium, varied demographics within a given target audience should be able to associate with, understand, and enjoy a film's content. Aurally, "My Dinner with Andre" satisfies only the art; visually, it satisfies neither.
My suggestion: Skip the film and buy the screenplay.