billymac72

Originally broadcast on PBS, this deadly serious, Ken Burns-ish, take on the evolution of rock and roll manages to deliver some incredibly absorbing archival footage and interviews presented in a very concise, logical manner. Far superior than the other rock n' roll documentary that aired around the same time, this series places such icons as the Beatles, Chuck Berry & Elvis Presley more firmly within the fabric of the other music of the time. The history is mostly told through racially-themed observations, often at the expense of some white artists, such as the always-overlooked Bill Haley, who doesn't garner a single mention, let alone any credit. While one would be careless to avoid the racial importance that rock and roll deserves, the accusation that the Beatles were deliberately poised as "safe" replacements for black music (specifically Motown) is simply lacking merit.

Most any rock fan will find issue not so much with what's included, but what's omitted. Heavy metal is given as much slight mention as Haley.

Other problems arise as the series approaches the modern day, devoting much too much time by lavishing over-significance on such schlock as the Beastie Boys, as well as the overstated influence of reggae (as briefly seen in such bands the Police, the Talking Heads and The Clash). Racism (as well as gay-bashing) is credited yet again, this time for the ultimate rejection of disco. Alternative/grunge music - being all the craze at the time - is hoisted into the spotlight by the final episode, presented as some kind of ultimate culmination of the rebel ethic began by all those who proceeded them. Just my opinion, but this type of "history" gets so complicated and uncertain at this point that the film would've been much better served halting it's anthropology around the pre-disco/punk period of 1975 or '76. Rock has been less easier to define since then.

Still, the series is at its best covering the post-Buddy Holly/pre-Monterey Pop era, when rock not only demonstrated some of its greatest artistry, but - it could be argued - its highest diversity. Here, ample time & affect is given to the pop, folk, soul, surf & psychedelic movements. Ultimately, for all its faults, "Rock and Roll" is a terrific primer for the uninitiated, and a wonderful conversation piece for die-hards.

How great "Futureworld" could have been. Had Yul Brenner, or even Richard Benjamin for that matter, been fully committed to this sequel, the old charm may have been recaptured in this ambitious continuation.

The problem begins with Yul Brenner's Gunslinger character (conceptually a robotic rehash of his "Magnificent Seven" role). In some recycled footage from the original "Westworld," we're reminded very early on in "Futureworld" how Brenner's intimidating presence in that earlier film contributed to its overall effectiveness. With the introduction of this footage so early in the film, we're suckered into expecting fulfillment of a promise that is never delivered. Unfortunately, this footage only serves to provide Blythe Danner's character with a motive for reproducing our favorite Gunslinger in her dreams, where he has strangely become her fantasy lover. By dangling this vision of the Gunslinger in front of our faces, our disappointment is only made greater by it being yanked away. The fact that it serves no discernible purpose in forwarding the plot only adds further insult. In doing so, the filmmakers are telling us that our desire to see the Gunslinger return is really of very little importance.

Of course, Brenner's brief presence may have been related to contractual obligations, agents, and such other fun Hollywood stuff that make his scene feel oddly removed from the main story. That said, "Futureworld" does have its merits (apart from reminding us that the original was far better). Even though Peter Fonda can be awfully wooden in his style, he & Blythe Danner are kind of fun and freewheeling together in that "Heart to Heart" kind of way. The story, which owes a lot to "The Stepford Wives," is dated but still engaging. As in the original, the entire idea of Delos – essentially a fantasy world without consequence - is still an engaging idea worth exploring.

But here lay more problems with "Futureworld." In "Westworld," half of the fun was following Richard Benjamin & James Brolin as they experienced the fantasy. Before things go haywire, we see them break out of jail, engage in showdowns and fend off a barroom brawl. In a minor subplot, we occasionally follow a middle-aged, oafish character in Medievalworld as he tends to his palace and maidens fair, only to be actually slain by a Black Knight robot gone wacko, the first of the major malfunctions in the park. "Futureworld" is very arbitrary in its use of such devices, and typically does not follow through with their development. Futureworld itself is somewhat of a disappointment it should be said; mainly a simulated rocket ride, a swinging lounge with some nifty gadgets and a swank apartment with shag carpeting. The illusion is never made real, and only seems secondary to the plot. While the oaf visiting Medivalworld in the original served to humanize the tragic fate of this first victim, the Japanese businessmen in "Futureworld" are developed straight into a dead end (a subplot involving their smuggling of a camera into the resort is remarkably forgotten).

An earlier poster imaginatively suggested that Clark, Harry's faceless robot servant, could have been used to revive the Gunslinger by revealing his true identity towards the film's third act. I think that would've been great! But as it is, the relationship of the mechanic to his machine is also a road not fully traveled. The oddness of such lines like, "don't get involved with people! It's always the same," or "the outside world wouldn't understand, you and I," speaks toward a strange bond with hardware that is off-putting - in a very creepy way - precisely because the concept is abandoned in the story by the character of Harry himself. When Clark is left deserted in his behind-the-scenes corner of Delos' underground, I felt as confused as much as his computer-chipped face seemed to convey. And then there's Harry's bizarre explanation as to Clark's origins: "he was one of the original iron men in all the orgies at Romanworld. He's seen a lot, Clark has." Apart from the obvious dilemmas (moral and otherwise) regarding robot-human sex, does this somehow make Clark an empathetic victim? What consequences would our empathy for Clark have upon the main plot involving human replacement??

As someone pointed out, "Futureworld" is a nice companion piece to "Westworld," and on that level, it's fairly enjoyable despite its flaws. There are certainly glimmers of the old "Westworld" charm to be savored, but its ultimately a tease for the real thing.

I saw `The Right Stuff' at the tender age of 10, alone in a giant theater on a rainy Sunday afternoon. I consider it one of my great all time film experiences, perhaps the first moment I comprehended how much I actually loved film & what a part of my life it truly was & is. Seriously. I honestly remember mulling over this epiphany as a pre-teen, sitting comfortably in a sparsely-filled movie house, completely enthralled with not only my independence as a lone audience member, but also by my enthrallment over this strange story with an astronaut's mentality at its center. I was a slightly strange kid. But, it's a slightly strange movie.

`The Right Stuff' no longer holds the appeal for me as it once did. How could it?? I'm older, more discerning & critical of film, but also more knowledgeable about the history represented through this story. I know that most of it is fiction. I can argue all day & night about film's responsibility to be historically accurate (my philosophy more or less boils down to, `well...it depends.' Nice, eh? Years of schooling helped me come up with that one). I guess in the case of "The Right Stuff," I take the inaccuracy personally. The astronauts were heroes of mine as a kid and when I was old enough to understand the actual depth of their stories, I guess I just came to love the real-life drama over the spiritual, and fictional, context Kauffman presents them in here. Just a few historical notes:

a) The `fireflies' John Glenn saw from his capsule window was actually urine emptying from his catheter into space. The effect was duplicated time & again by the astronauts that followed. Why the film would want to juxtapose this event with the tribal fire of the Aborigines is beyond me.

b) There simply was not as much doubt about Gus Grissom's splashdown snafu investigation as was portrayed. Even though Fred Ward is great in the role, it makes appear as if Grissom was a brute, which he wasn't. He was a very well respected engineer amongst the NASA staff & kept himself highly involved in the development of the capsule. The film represents this in an off-the-cuff remark about having a window & explosive hatch (get ready for the irony folks!). In fact, NASA was so impressed with Grissom, even after losing his capsule, that he was granted the first spot in the Gemini program as well as the Apollo program in which he died in a fire. Anyone who's familiar with the Apollo 1 story knows that he was tirelessly in the process of testing the capsule's equipment when the fire broke out. c) Gordon Cooper & Grissom & Yeager were never at Edwards Air Force Base together at the same time. The timelines are completely out of whack. In fact, Pancho Barnes' Happy Bottom club had burnt down long before Cooper was ever there. More than that, Barnes was a good friend of Cooper's family & he had known her since a child. The film shows her berating him for his cockiness. Didn't happen, at least not there. d) Sally Rand, whose famous fan dance is recreated here, was really, really old by the time the astronauts are shown watching her show. She did, however perform this routine well past her prime in actual life, but wouldn't have looked nearly as good as she does here. e) The astronauts not represented in depth here (Carpenter, Slayton & Shirra) also had fascinating stories. Too bad they're given so little time here. f) Why isn't Kennedy, a huge supporter of the space program, represented at all?? The political figures that are here (LBJ, Ike, nameless others) are completely clownish and cartoony. The press corps seems entirely robotic.

I know I'm leaving out some major stuff, but that's good enough for now. So, yes, I am not such a hard case that I can't still enjoy `The Right Stuff' for its entertainment value, and it even manages to get a few things correct (e.g., the testing sequences & press conference scene are great & Glenn did actually scold Shepherd & the others for their carousing). For pure accuracy, nothing has yet come close to `Apollo 13' in my opinion (`From Earth to the Moon' was excellent, but didn't convey the professionalism in quite as interesting a manner). `The Right Stuff' is, indeed, an epic. It's a brilliant piece of storytelling, albeit with some laughable earnest dialogue, but welcome comedic relief. It's even a nice metaphor for American ingenuity, ruggedness & spirit too. I still respect and accept the film on those levels. But every time I see it, I am transported back to an old theater in 1983 where I watched it in earnest, feeling like an adult, and quickly realize once again that I will always love it for that cherished day.