Not exactly maudlin...

I recently purchased the 1971 cult classic, "Harold and Maude", having seen the movie about a year or two ago.

Did I mention that a merely saw only bits and pieces of it? Nevertheless, something about the film moved me enough to take the plunge and buy the movie without ever having seen it from start to finish.

Big mistake.

"Harold and Maude" is, essentially, a May-December love story about two misfits who connect by way of funerals and a shared need to be loved. Walter Chasen (played by Bud Cort) is a 19 year old man-child of wealth whose idea of a good time is to stage repeated suicide attempts in front of his mother for attention. In contrast, Maude (played by the rascally Ruth Gordon) is a nearly 80 year old free-spirit who devours life as if it were her last day on Earth. The two meet and bond in the most unlikely of places (one of many funerals they attend; each for their own reasons), and thus begins the start of a beautiful friendship.

This all sounds well and good, except the film never exactly takes off for me. One problem is that I never found it to be as outrageously funny as all the Amazon reviews I read seemed to attest. Yes, my first introduction to the film a couple of years ago led me to believe, otherwise, but upon full viewing, I just didn't get it. I don't know. Maybe in the past couple of years I lost the sick humor gene that would have been an asset in viewing a film of this nature.

This is essentially a black comedy; the type of film that stretches the boundaries of funny and veers to the dark side. Witnessing Harold's myriad of attempts to get his mother's attention is at turns painful and amusing, but never gut-bustingly hilarious. Perhaps it was those dark undertones that did me in, in addition to the thrumming of the rain outside. I just couldn't keep my attention on the film. The wall clock seemed more interesting to me.

In all fairness, there WERE a couple of times that I actually guffawed, and the film DOES attempt to balance sentiment, comedy and drama and throw in just the right amount of weirdness to try and make it interesting..but maybe that's the problem. There is too much going on in the mix. I never knew where the film stood. Is it a flat-out comedy? A drama with comedic undertones? A sentimental romp? A lesson in how to live life? Was I not supposed to take ANYTHING seriously?..even the death of one of Harold's possible suitors (which I later discovered wasn't AT ALL what it seemed), or even the death of Maude, herself?

..which is another thing. Here was an 80 year old woman who celebrated life to the fullest and lived on the edge; a sheer contrast to Harold's obsession with death and indifference to life. Cut to Maude's death and the circumstances surrounding it and I felt cheated. There was a definite irony and contradiction in the way she died, and somehow that deflated the whole point of the story for me. Yes, in the end, Harold learns to embrace life, thanks to Maude, but given the way she died, it seemed rather implausible that he would.

Perhaps the film is to be treated as nothing more than a complete farce; something that takes you along on a darkly comedic ride while trying to impart an important message about life and love. Maybe I had to be in the mood..maybe not take it so seriously, (despite knowing that it was, indeed, a comedy). Then again maybe dark, morose themes with comedic edges just isn't my style.

Does this film deserve another chance? Sure. Sometimes upon a second or third viewing I discover things about a film that make it grow on me. Such might be the case with "Harold and Maude". But if nothing else, its message to live life to the fullest should be a mantra for us all. It's too bad, though, that this admirable point becomes somewhat convoluted in a maze of quirky and omminous circumstances.

"Hell Upside Down" Revisited

As a lover of movies (second only to music), I have decided to create this blog so I can unashamedly critique any and all films I should have the fortune (or misfortune, as it may) of seeing.

I don't get out to the movies very often, so this blog will include any and all movies I happen to see, whether on tv, DVD or in the theatre. Since films are a wonderful form of escapism and I am, admittedly, highly opinionated, I thought this might prove a fun way to spend some of my time.

Okay..so..you get the picture. Now, on with the show! ;-)

Now..it just so happens that a friend of mine wanted to see "Poseidon" which, as most of you who are old enough to remember Nixon may know is a remake of the original, "The Poseidon Adventure". I, however, wasn't all too eager to see it. Being a purist and of the 70's generation (from whence the original came) I wasn't all too keen on a remake, having an already established opinion that no other movie could top it. However, I relented after my friend gamely "tortured" herself watching my DVD of "West Side Story", which I threw out as blackmail in exchange for "having" to see this picture. She met her end of the bargain; now it was time for me to meet mine.

Having decided that I was going to watch the movie on its own merits and not compare it to the original, I set about hoping to enjoy the film. Prior to that, however, I had to sit through at least 20 minutes of previews for upcoming films, most of which looked less than stellar..I mean, at least THREE movies about football??? Spare me!

By the time the actual film rolled, much to my dismay I had discovered that I had to go..as in PEE..and pee in the worst way. Now..you DON'T sit through a film about water if you have to go, know what I mean? You get your ass up to the bathroom and PRONTO..but I sat there because I didn't want to miss it; nevermind that my friend had so generously paid for my ticket. I also didn't want to get lost coming back. It was "safer" for me to stay and put up with the uncomfortable swelling of my bloated bladder.

So I sat there as I tried very hard not to panic over the possibility of peeing in my seat. Chugging down bottled water during previews did not help. Now I had to pay the consequences.

I had read that within fifteen minutes of the film all Hell breaks lose, so I patiently sat and watched things unfold. Josh Lucas, one of the main characters, proved to be a nice piece of eye candy, but apart from him and Kurt Russell, there was no one else that moved me. I found Kevin Dillon as a sneering, belligerent drunk to be an annoyance, and the little kid in the film was right behind him. Everyone else was pretty much unmemorable.

Before I knew it, disaster struck and we were taken on a rollercoaster ride of grand proportions. It did not surprise me in the least that the action was fast, furious and dominated by high-caliber special effects. You really feel as if you are being taken for the ride of your life. I didn't want to miss one second of the action now that it "officially" had started, but my bladder had other ideas. It wasn't long before my seat became a rocking chair as I tried to steadily quell the need to release my burden.

In about 103 minutes, it was over. THE END..and I gratefully (and not too steadily) made my way to the nearest restroom. Ahhhhhhhh, sweet relief!

Now for my review..

I have to say that in and of itself, "Poseidon" delivers. It sets out to take you on a thrill ride and succeeds at nearly every turn..HOWEVER, it fails MISERABLY in the character-development department. You barely get a chance to know these people when disaster strikes. At best, you are given dim sketches of who these people are and their myriad of hang-ups. At worst, the post-disaster action fails to expound much on anything you already know about these people. Instead, it is like cartoon characters taking a backseat to the action; very two-dimensional and lacking in depth.

Kurt Russell has always been a fine actor, but I somehow felt him wasted here. As an overprotective father to his recently engaged daughter, he tries to make the most of his limited characterization, but falls flat. Who could blame him when the thing that purposely takes center stage is the disaster, itself?

I wanted to like this movie once I accepted that I shouldn't compare it to the original..but the bottom-line is that it WILL be compared, and in fact, opens itself up to comparison. You cannot make a film and entitle it, "Poseidon" without leading people to think of the original. The problem is, once you compare it to the original, then you see the true flaws inherent in this film...and there are many.

Recently I had the pleasure of seeing "TPA" on AMC while promoting their new Special Edition DVD. WHAT a difference!!! Right away the depth of the story-telling grabbed me from start to finish, something severely lacking in this new generation film. By comparison, the disaster did not occur until 30 minutes into the film, vs. 15 in the new edition.

But there was something more.

All along the way, the characters become RICHER. You get to really know these people and all their idiosyncrasies...Shelly Winters' character yearning to make a difference..Ernest Borgnine's character's wife becoming yet another casualty..the sacrifice Reverend Scott (Gene Hackman) makes as he tries to lead his "flock" to freedom. You are taken on an emotional journey with these people. The disaster and special effects become secondary.

Okay..so you're sitting here saying, "HA!! WHAT special effects??!! They can't compare by TODAY'S standards!" Well, good for you!..because you are RIGHT..they can't..BUT..here is where I take the wind from your sails..

As I sat watching the original "Poseidon", I was deeply impressed with what they COULD do at the time. You have to remember..."TPA" was made in 1972. This was way before anything remotely resembling computer graphics even existed. Yet, I never felt while watching that I was looking at a set. Everything looked no less real to me when comparing it to the newer movie. What they were able to accomplish back then considering they DIDN'T have special effects technology is nothing short of incredible. That, too, also worked to their advantage. Today when movies would rather delight you with visual gimmicks over characterizations, "TPA" benefits from having been made in a time when FEELING and THE HUMAN CONDITION were more important. The tragic circumstances presented only serve to enhance and supplement who these people are and what they are about, not take away from them.

In contrast, in "Poseidon" I never got a sense that the people were that important. They were just there.."tools", if you will, to help illustrate the carnage around them. When someone died it was comically heartbreaking, a rather strange contradiction, but true. The scene where Richard Dreyfuss kicks an unfortunate ship employee free from his grip made me feel at turns horrified and indifferent. Afterall, I didn't know him well enough to care.

And that, in itself, is the problem with this movie. You never feel an emotional connection with these people enough to bleed along with them. When Kurt Russell makes the ultimate sacrifice you shrug away your sadness and know that somehow, life goes on.

Another problem with the film was the almost constant need to show death and distruction at every turn. Yes, I know we live in an age where this has become practically favorable. "Give us more gore, more guts, more action!" But something is definitely lost along the way. Where is the suspense? The drama? The HEART?

In "The Poseidon Adventure" your heart breaks when those initially opting to stay with the Purser make an unsuccessful attempt to escape up the Christmas tree. Cut to a shot of Reverend Scott closing a door to their doomed screams. Tell me THAT doesn't get you every time for what you DON'T see.

For today's generation, "Poseidon" will prove to be an exhilarating ride as you watch card-board characterizations try to flee from the effects of a big bad wave. I found I enjoyed it immensely, despite myself. However, for sheer cinematic story-telling, nothing beats the original. It remains in a class by itself.