What was the last film you watched?

[Willie Oleson]

SERPICO (1973)



It's not as slick and sensational as the copruption stories I had already seen, but SERPICO is based on a biography therefore it makes sense that it looks a bit messy.
Especially the first part is great because I was still figuring out what kind of protagonist he was going to be, and then he gets involved with artistic people and goes to hip parties.
Al Pacino's magnificent coiffure alone is worth the admission. It's a horribly misguided consensus that the seventies looked ugly because the people looked cool and sexy (except for the grey-blonde look for women) and the hair could be as big as it would become in the 80s but without that neurotic gel & spray look.
Soft and shiny and quasi-casual. Fabulous interior design with neo-hippie colours and idealistic flora & fauna themes, it looked almost as good as the sixties - the #1 decade for spectacular and mouth-watering design - but still better than the 80s.

There is some over-acting in the quarrels, particularly between Serpico and his girlfriend (I wanted her to say, with just a single tear, "your garden doesn't look so beautiful anymore") but apart from that Al Pacino is in top form.
It's the corruption that puts Serpico in such a difficult position and yes there are some greedy characters but I'm sure there were others who accepted it simply because it was the easiest way to do. Corruption and any kind of organised crime has the power to chain people while the very reason behind dishonest money is (in a way) to buy freedom. It's a perfect trap.

Regardless, the film doesn't portray Serpico as a very heroic and likeable protagonist because for the most part he acts as the victim he chooses to be. I think that sets it apart from the other, more obvious anti-corruption heroes. In many ways it's just as offbeat as DOG DAY AFTERNOON and I usually like those kind of films.

 

[DallasFanForever]

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

It’s always been one of my favorites and today I watched it for the first time in quite a few years. As is often the case with these things, I was wondering if I would feel differently about it now.

I was pleasantly surprised that I still enjoy this movie just as much as I did 30 years ago. It is an amazing story to watch from the time we see Andy arrive at Shawshank in the late 40’s until his escape almost 20 years later.

Of course there are some things that defy explanation, like the prison guards never once checking behind the Hollywood Starlet posters in all those years to see the tunnel. But I digress.

 

[Willie Oleson]

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

I've never seen it but I always confuse it with THE GREEN MILE (which I haven't seen either)

 

[DallasFanForever]

I've never seen it but I always confuse it with THE GREEN MILE (which I haven't seen either)

Having seen both I put Shawshank far above The Green Mile but that’s just my opinion of course. I’ve only watched The Green Mile once, whereas Shawshank is one I can watch over and over. I seem to always come back to it at some point.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE (1990)

View attachment 51268

I wasn't sure if I was going to like the film because there was something about Ron Silver's character that irritated me. Maybe it was the basketball game in the opening scene, I hate that sport.
Somehow this put me in the same position as that very character, who had to deal with Jeremy Irons with a phat accent.
In the end, Ron Silver didn't manage to win me over but I'm glad I stuck with him.

As the story goes on and adds layers to certain key scenes, the hedunnit?/hedinnit? gets overshadowed by the question: should Sunny von Bulow have lived longer?
She didn't actually die and was still alive when the film was made - 28 years of care and medication to keep one single person alive. That's perverse.
Overall, a thought-provoking mystery, and that also goes for the village, the mansions without land. It looks absolutely ridiculous.
The inside of the mansion used for the film is awful, it's just a huge space with lots of rooms crammed with expensive stuff. Was there a plan when they decorated the house?
There are lots of people in this world who ought to be prosecuted for Bad Taste.

Oh, that was a good one. It's what the Colbys -- or, ideally, the Fallmonts -- should have been like.

And Von Bulow's girlfriend was Alexandra Molke (Isles) of DARK SHADOWS fame, by the way (the character, not the actress who played her).

 

[Willie Oleson]

And Von Bulow's girlfriend was Alexandra Molke (Isles) of DARK SHADOWS fame

Oh.my.god. How come I didn't realise this?
With this knowledge I must watch it again.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Today was a "sixties babes" double feature.

DARLING (1965)



Julie Christie's character Diana Scott is a liar, a hypocrite, an opportunist and a self-indulgent, immature narcissist.
But that's not saying much in a film that often caricatures the shallowness of the beau monde and the ruthlessness of the entertainment industry.
It's possible that "darling" refers to the situation as a whole, rather than just the female protagonist.
Because of its cynical approach I feel it kinda precedes VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, and without a single character to root for it gets dangerously close to being a downright unlikeable film.

Thankfully it's saved by a delightfully bitchy and tongue in cheek tone, and the more straightforwardly funny stuff is hidden in the details. It's all very cleverly done, imo.
It's one of those extraordinary vibrant films with a bit of voyeurism that always works best in sixties cinema (except for Peeping Tom, ironically) and just like THE SWIMMER you can play it on a continuous loop because it doesn't really matter where it begins or where it ends.
Nevertheless, her last job is that of an Italian version of Princess Grace Kelly of Monaco, and since she was born as "Scott" I'm going to fanwank her into The Colbys universe as Frankie and Sable's cousin who shoulda coulda guest-starred in the soap's third season.


CANDY (1968)



This is an odd combination of American counterculture social commentary and the European softcore folly, a sub-genre that has aged terribly and was never any good to begin with.
It also looks like a remake of ALICE IN WONDERLAND in which Candy encounters various characters of authority, celebrity or self-imposed divinity, and they're all preying on her wide-eyed naivety.
One of the first scenes in DARLING tackles the subject of "breaking away from the conventional", but the interviewer played by Dirk Bogarde puts such a spin on it that the "breaking away" itself has become a conventional thing to do (the first sign that it was going to be good film).
The mockery of the establisment in CANDY is done in such an uncool and sledgehammerish way that it almost parodies the mockery.
Of course it's also possible to watch the film from a completely different point of view. Candy might represent the youth who's being tricked into a war they don't understand, let alone support.
Or maybe it's about a father/daughter relationship...who knows? Candy has a lot of questions and all she gets is bullshit.

Never mind the "how" or "why", CANDY has enough entertainment to put some dolce in your vita, as Walter Matthau's character would say it.
I mean, just look at that cast.
Richard Burton as a rockstar poet who has his own personal "total eclipse of the heart" wind blowing through his hair.
THE Marlon Brando as the enlightened guru trucking through the nation - I think it might his best role ever - and also real life "Darling" Anita Pallenberg as the psycho nurse to James Coburn's matador surgeon.
It's all totally camp and unabashedly chewing the scenery but the production itself looks quite lavish, something that will definitely please the fans of Ken Russell's work.
And even if the film had failed in every single aspect then there's still that amazing soundtrack.
The only thing that holds it back for me is that it doesn't have any serious and memorable shock value. It's feathers, instead of beans.


I really wanted to double feature DARLING with WHO ARE YOU, POLLY MAGGOO? but the latter is only available as part of an expensive William Klein collection box set and I think that's too extravagant for a blind buy. Maybe later, maybe tougher.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

I don't think I've seen this before, but I couldn't swear to it. Almost nothing felt familiar as I watched, though the morning after watching I've realised that the scene of Carol Anne speaking to her grandmother on the toy phone wasn't unfamiliar.

Expectations were fairly low for this one... as would be the case for almost every sequel of the era. In many ways it's exactly what you'd expect.

It's nice to see most of the core cast of the original film returning, but I don't recall the older daughter even being mentioned (actress Dominique Duane had been murdered by her boyfriend months after the original's release). They do good work with so-so material.

The most noticeable absences are offscreen. There's no Tobe Hooper and no Steven Spielberg, whose touches are most certainly missing. This is almost balanced by the return of Jerry Goldsmith whose score is impressive (even that, though, got a bit too boisterous in the last act as it matched the onscreen action).

While the film is essentially more of the same, where it falls down compares with the original is the "prosaic suburbia" motif (a favourite of Spielberg) which opened the first film. After the events of the first film, the family is no longer the people down the road, and so the starting point is on a very different footing. And while it tries for an arc and a buildup, it's simply missing that essential sense of journey from our world to the other side.

It's very effects-heavy and this is not always a saving grace in a film that's almost forty years old. By the standards of the time they're impressive, and some certainly look expensive, but sometimes less is more. H.R. Giger is credited, but apparently hated what was done with his designs by the Hollywood team. There are shades of John Carpenter's remake of The Thing in some of these, but most of it is ultimately quite forgettable.

It's better and has more class than most of its Eighties horror sequel brethren. But at the end of the day, it's still an Eighties horror sequel.​

 

[Biggie]

Megamind 2010.

Normally the whole superhero/supervillain premises find no kinda love with me. Except Supergirl as Melissa Benoist knocks it out the park and into interstellar space, even if she has pierced ears. Sabot kinetic tank rounds bounce of our girl of Krypton but. yeah, the local tattoo parlor can stick a needle through her earlobes... I digress.

So our supervillain fancies getting a piece of the local news reporter Roxanne Ritchi, only to find himself facing a Romeo & Juliet, Westside Story, The Outsiders, Jungle Fever type situation. As old as old is this scene. While another chap is looking to dip his wick in our Roxanne. Two suitors after one lady garden...

Megamind cooks up some insane and convoluted plot to win the hand of Ms Ritchi by disguising himself. While he is wooing the hot reporter that's got no kinda love for Megamind, she get him to see the error of his ways. Think road to Damascus. There some other subplots about thwarting the other chap with amours intensions and unmurdering a wanna be rock star, and the whole invisible car thing..

The romance between the two star crossed lovers taking shape and becoming meaningful, only for the deceit that Roxanne bought into to place a strain on the beginning relationship, and then bonding over a common foe. That played out beautifully. The romance aspect between the to main characters made this movie, a lot of other good stuff, but Supervillain and down to earth reporter steal the movie.

The star of the show was... Roxanne wearing that red dress while indifferent to the fact she's been kidnapped again.

 

[Willie Oleson]

After the events of the first film, the family is no longer the people down the road, and so the starting point is on a very different footing.

While we accept and enjoy that a lot of bad and bizarre things keep happening to our beloved soap families-and-neighbourhoods - mostly because they are supposed to forget what happened in the previous seasons, if they want to keep their sanity - it doesn't always work that way for their cinematic counterparts. It also depends on the genre, of course.
Perhaps this sequel would have been better if it had been the story of a different family, the way they did it in The Conjuring series.

I've rewatched a part of it some time ago because I remembered the attack of the braces and I wanted to see that again. And that's what the film looks like: "some things we didn't do in the first one".
It really is the only appeal of these kind of sequels. What bizarre death scenes are they going to show in the next Final Destination? Will there be more blood and big teeth in the next Jaws film? It's not the most artistic kind of appeal, but an appeal nonetheless.

any serious and memorable shock value.

CALIGULA (1979)



This had been in my to-watch list for ages and yet, for reasons I can't explain, I've never been terribly eager to watch it.
While it's still very much the curiosity it was back then, the "watching everything you want on the internet" in these modern days may have tempered some of its controversy.

Let's start with the one thing that put a smile on my face. Caligula has "conquered" Britain and he's got the papyrus to prove it!
Not that that makes any sense, and it wasn't supposed to make sense, but naturally it made me think of another famously nefarious character.

The way I see it, CALIGULA is made up of three elements. The characters and story, the production (it looks like they had some money to spend) and the pornography.
The challenge here is to present it as one thing, finding ways to glue it together, as it were. And that's where this film fails because these three elements are competing with each other, with the unfortunate result that almost everything is being cancelled out.

The pornography looks too much out of context and I believe it was filmed seperately from the story scenes, so there's already the idea of two films edited together.
It is audacious to bring hardcore porn into a mainstream release (as opposed to "underground" cinema) but since it doesn't involve the actors that matter it isn't quite as envelope-pushing as it wants to be.
If you want to see a film that surprises with its erotic themes and nudity and violence then EQUUS (1977) is a much better choice. It also happens to be a terrific film with incredible performances.
Furthermore, the producer's argument to incorporate graphic sex for the sake of realism is absolute nonsense because there's no real torture and killing in it (well, thankfully).
All these orgy scenes could have been filmed with just enough nudity to spice things up.

The sets and set pieces are a feast for the eyes, to the point that it almost makes the actors disappear, and that's why it's another thing that kinda operates on its own.
I understand that they wanted to show off but good cinematography also means that you understand what's important in what particular scene. It's never used to create a certain mood or intimacy, it's just standing there tall and shiny. Sorry but I can't be bothered to apologise for any unintentional puns.

But the worst is yet to come because this film has absolutely nothing to say.
These Ancient Rome stories are, by nature, always fun to watch because of all the plotting and scheming, the feuds and treachery, the paranoia and lust for power.
CALIGULA tackles some of it but only in the broadest way because Caligula himself is the only mover & shaker and all the other characters stand by passively.
The film has zero sense of conflict or suspense; the death of Drusilla is the only thing that came close to something of a drama but everything else in the film doesn't allow it to be.
Malcom McDowell is up for the task of playing the psychopathic child in a man's body, but since that's the only thing the story has to offer it becomes a bit irritating after a while.

I wouldn't call it a Bad Film but my personal experience might be even worse because for all it's obvious and somewhat successful attempt to create controversy I found it an underwhelming 156 minutes to sit through. My curiosity is the only thing that's been satisfied and even that doesn't mean very much.
I could tell anyone who wants to hear it that "I've watched Caligula!" - but does anyone care?

Disc 2 has the....*grabs DVD*....alternative pre-release version which is three minutes shorter. I'm not in hurry to spot the differences.
The picture quality of both films is dreadful by today's standards. I guess the high definition transfer was something else in 2009. I'm very forgiving when it comes to digitalising old crap movies and TV series, but for a film from 1979 this is not acceptable anymore.

Disc 3 (!) has the best part: The Making Of. The secrecy and anti-press regarding the production of the film really creates the promise of something extraordinary and exciting, like, maybe the Best Film Ever Made.
Watching those people working very hard to create the epic sets - and knowing that it's all going to be a waste of time, energy and craftsmanship - almost made me cry.
It also got hours of alternative and deleted scenes and one of those scenes was filmed in Charlie Chaplin style (maybe it was simply the wrong speed) and I thought, hey that works!
Instead of the porn they could have done lots of wacky stuff, have a UFO descend on the stage, do a musical number about cunnilingus, just anything to make it more fun.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Perhaps this sequel would have been better if it had been the story of a different family, the way they did it in The Conjuring series.

It's a tricky one. Naturally, the powers that be will want to include as many familiar ingredients as possible - and the audience will feel disappointed if they're not there - and they've done a great job of that here. But of course it's the presence of those ingredients that makes it so unlikely.

I remember when Jaws 2 was shown on TV back in the Eighties, the voiceover on the promos asked "Can lightning really strike twice?" And that's exactly what so many sequels are about: that an improbable event occurring to a certain group of people can happen to the same group a second or even third time.

that's what the film looks like: "some things we didn't do in the first one".

Yes. A number of these scenes could be inserted into the original as part of an "extended TV cut" or something and it would be hard to tell.

It didn't help that the "fresh" twists that differentiated this from the original just didn't appeal. The only part that worked was the retread, which was still far inferior to the original. It's a lose/lose situation.

do a musical number about cunnilingus

Now there's something that gives a film a USP.

 

[Willie Oleson]

And that's exactly what so many sequels are about: that an improbable event occurring to a certain group of people can happen to the same group a second or even third time.

I think I still prefer that to the sequels that explain the first one.

 

[Willie Oleson]

THE TWO FACES OF JANUARY (2014)



There was something about the title and the "Death On The Nile" image that intrigued me.
The short description on prime also made me think of Ripley therefore it was no surprise to find out that TWO FACES is indeed based on a Patricia Highsmith novel.
It's a very entertaining and pleasantly old-fashioned psychological thriller but the change in tone in the last scenes feels a bit abrupt. It was one of those "oh?" moments.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Tonight was an "underrated gems of 1980s cinema" double feature.

REPO MAN (1984)



A philosophical comedy with charming B-movie effects, but I think the best part is the background noise.
Characters never stop talking and there's always something going on on the radio or TV. It reminded me of the industrial score that is often used in David Lynch films.
I always confuse Emilio Estevez with Mario Lopez even though Mario is the only one who looks like his name.
Emilio plays Otto, and the connection with Auto-mobile is made in the film but I also think it's one of those names that could feature in a Euro-obsessed Sparks song.
Most of the humour is deadpan and I think it helps to make REPO MAN a genuine cult classic. DALLAS gets soap-dropped, by the way.


THE MOSQUITO COAST (1986)



The 6.6 IMDB rating is ridiculous because this film has everything that Aguirre, Wrath Of God doesn't have: an all-round terrific cast, big drama and one of the most impressive explosions I have ever seen in a film. Directed by Peter "Picnic At Hanging Rock" Weir.
Former action-adventure hero Indy seems a logical choice for MOSQUITO's techno-Frankenstein who's trying to build a new and untarnished civilisation in the jungle, except that this Harrison Ford is far from likeable.
The first 20 minutes is almost a non-stop tirade against US consumerism and waste culture, and it even continues when the setting moves from America to their green nirvana.
There is the irony of the disillusioned American who then buys a jungle village and accuses another white man of trespassing.
I've never really thought about it but there's something truly bizarre about "man" owning a piece of the planet. Who the hell do we think we are?

Yound and fresh-looking River Phoenix was the eighties answer to Leonardo DiCaprio and I must check out some of his other films.
Andre Gregory is a joy as Reverend Spellgood and I wish his part had been bigger. "Dinner With Andre" added to the watch list.
The twins are the stereotypical twin toddlers who only serve as extra precious baggage. At one point they have to be strapped to a mast to keep them inside the boat. Funny.
Conrad Roberts is the main black actor who plays Mr. Haddy and he's so good that I almost didn't notice it. Perhaps it's also a bit racist to assume that these kind of roles are easy to do for black actors.
Protagonist Allie Fox is definitely a racist, a dictator and a lousy father, and not in an entertainingly villainous kind of way. It goes completely against Harrison Ford's blockbuster charm and that alone makes it an interesting performance to watch.
Helen Mirren is never not good but I wonder if the novel describes as being British.
Somehow it kinda works that she unintentionally creates an air of detachment, it makes it easier to believe that she would follow her bossy genius-husband all over the world, like a devoted Mary Poppins wife.
It's a beautiful and very intense film, and as with most great films of the 80s decade a bit harder to discover. But it's always the payoff that counts.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The 6.6 IMDB rating is ridiculous because this film has everything that Aguirre, Wrath Of God doesn't have: an all-round terrific cast, big drama and one of the most impressive explosions I have ever seen in a film. Directed by Peter "Picnic At Hanging Rock" Weir.

It's Harrison Ford's stated favorite film amongst his filmography.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I did some background reading on wiki and I found it interesting to learn that sweet River's childhood was not that different from the role of obedient son of Harrison Ford's self-imposed cult leader The natives call him "Father" until they are converted by the other Father, and I kinda hoped it would end in a much more physical confrontation like it happened in THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Martha Plimpton was River's future girlfriend, I don't know when that started because River as a 16 y/o male (and I always confuse his death with Kurt Cobain's) still looked very much like a child. She, of course, didn't.
I only knew her from THE GOOD WIFE and that brilliant Covid-made film MASS in which she plays opposite Ann Dowd who, incidentally, looks very much like Martha's MOSQUITO COAST mother.

I must say that it is a story that requires the viewer to buy into it from the very beginning. Some of it looks so bizarre that it could only happen in reality, and fiction is usually about believability which is not the same thing.
Considering the Spielbergfication of 1980s cinema it is probably not surprising that MOSQUITO wasn't a hit, and personally I think it would have fared better in the next decade or the decade after that.
Needless to say I couldn't help drawing the comparison between the Mosquito disaster and the explosion of KNOTS' Empire Valley with its unintentionally nasty side effect.

 

[James from London]

"Dinner With Andre" added to the watch list.

He also wrote Vanya on 42nd Street which I really liked. It's a very unusual film.

River Phoenix was the eighties answer to Leonardo DiCaprio and I must check out some of his other films.

Have you ever seen My Own Private Idaho?

 

[Willie Oleson]

It's a very unusual film

Then I must have a taste of it (could it be something like a John Cassavetes film?)

My Own Private Idaho?

The film exists in my 1990s consciousness and it's been referenced here on tellytalk by highly-qualified forum members, but just like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN I've never actually watched IDAHO. For no particular reason, whereas I've avoided BROKEBACK intentionally (and will continue to do so no matter what people say).

I see prime has it, I guess I could double feature it with another previously unseen 1990s film.

 

[James from London]

could it be something like a John Cassavetes film?

It's very different in style, but possibly similar in spirit.

I guess I could double feature it with another previously unseen 1990s film.

If you're looking for a theme for your '90s double bill, My Own Private Idaho includes Laura Palmer's mother/Karen Mackenzie's assassin in a small but interesting role, and if by any remote chance you've never seen Lynch's Wild at Heart, she has a small but interesting role in that too.

I don't know if you're a podcast sort of a person, Willie, but 'You Must Remember This' recently did a fascinating series called Erotic 90s, dealing with sexy-themed movies of the period. If nothing else, it might give you some interesting ideas of films to watch (not that you need any, I'm sure).

Erotic 90s archive — You Must Remember This

Erotic 90s continues the story of Erotic 80s, with 21 episodes tackling sex in Hollywood movies of the 1999s, spanning the creation—and disastrous rollout—of the NC-17 rating in 1990, through the release of Eyes Wide Shut in 1999. Listen to all 21 Erotic 90s episodes here. Erotic 90s E

www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I did some background reading on wiki and I found it interesting to learn that sweet River's childhood was not that different from the role of obedient son of Harrison Ford's self-imposed cult leader The natives call him "Father" until they are converted by the other Father, and I kinda hoped it would end in a much more physical confrontation like it happened in THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Martha Plimpton was River's future girlfriend, I don't know when that started because River as a 16 y/o male (and I always confuse his death with Kurt Cobain's) still looked very much like a child. She, of course, didn't.
I only knew her from THE GOOD WIFE and that brilliant Covid-made film MASS in which she plays opposite Ann Dowd who, incidentally, looks very much like Martha's MOSQUITO COAST mother.

I must say that it is a story that requires the viewer to buy into it from the very beginning. Some of it looks so bizarre that it could only happen in reality, and fiction is usually about believability which is not the same thing.
Considering the Spielbergfication of 1980s cinema it is probably not surprising that MOSQUITO wasn't a hit, and personally I think it would have fared better in the next decade or the decade after that.
Needless to say I couldn't help drawing the comparison between the Mosquito disaster and the explosion of KNOTS' Empire Valley with its unintentionally nasty side effect.

Even River observed the eerie parallels between hauntingly lyrical MOSQUITO COAST (which I love) with his own life. River "lost his virginity" at age four to women during his family's tenure in The Children of God cult, which had an enthusiastic child-sex policy. It apparently wasn't pleasant, as one could imagine. He was celibate from age seven (when they left the cult at River's urging, his being determined to save his younger siblings from the same fate) until he was fourteen. His relationship with Martha Plimpton indeed began during MOSQUITO COAST (and they subsequently did RUNNING ON EMPTY together, where River is again very good -- which I also recommend, although Judd Hirch's casting irritates the bejesus out of me).

In 1999, The Children of God conducted an interview from the grave with River, six years after his death, where he "condemned" male homosexuality -- specifically -- because male-on-male was the only combination cult leader David Berg wasn't "into". And some people didn't realize the interview was bogus, and didn't reflect Phoenix's viewpoint at all (in fact, he'd dabbled).

River -- in real life -- said the cult "is ruining people's lives" in much the way it ruined River's.

The film exists in my 1990s consciousness and it's been referenced here on tellytalk by highly-qualified forum members, but just like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN I've never actually watched IDAHO. For no particular reason, whereas I've avoided BROKEBACK intentionally (and will continue to do so no matter what people say).

Speaking of haunting, MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO is a flawed but fascinatingly little avant-guard, occasionally cinéma vérité, mess of a movie (they use real street boys in the cast), and is the perfect film to capture the cusp-of-the-'80s-and-'90s zeitgeist (whatever that is). Again, River Phoenix is terrific, Keanu is Keanu (god-bless-him), the cinematography is breath-taking. And it almost works.

And it has those numerous prescient moments contained in so many River Phoenix movies (like his collapsing onto sidewalks, roads, etc.) we've come to expect.

Curiously, Gore Vidal turned down the role of the pederastic mentor of a band of hustler kids (ultimately played by William Richert) a real life portrait of the guy cast to give River a B.J. in the near-opening scene. Although Vidal liked the movie -- well, he wrote Myra Breckenridge -- he didn't want to play it (some have suggested it was too typecasting for his tastes).

I liked Heath Ledger in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (I always call it "Bareback Mounting" because I'm clever) yet found the film a little too patronizing for me. But my demands are unreasonable.