whitesheik

Let us, for once on the imdb, get real. I'm looking at a handful of "reviews" by people who have only seen this on some bootleg DVD with a different title, yet they talk about the sweeping and breathtaking photography - from a bootleg DVD. So, yeah, we can take those reviews real seriously.

Here's the thing. I'm one of the eight people who actually endured this thing prior to Paramount's poor attempts to recut it - that version is what's on the DVD and what was shown once on the CBS Late Movie. I saw it at a sneak preview in Westwood, at the Plaza Theater, one of Westwood's small houses with about 700 seats. Back then, I was one of several so-called "preview" nuts who went to as many Major Studio Previews as I could. I saw great movies long before they came out, and I saw horrible movies that underwent new footage being shot and the film re-edited. At this same theater, I saw previews of Bonnie and Clyde and John Frankenheimer's Seconds, both of which I loved - but I knew Seconds would flop and that Bonnie and Clyde would be a monster hit.

Well, to the point. Fade In was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Dreadfully paced and written, lethargic, nicely photographed, but not so well directed by Jud Taylor, who was credited then. I haven't seen it since so I have no idea what the recut is like, other than to say they probably made it even worse, but we all know there are wacky people who "adopt" movies like this. Anyway, there were about 300 people there when it began. Halfway through, it was me and about six others who stuck it out to the bitter end. Of course, Paramount did the recut then shelved it until the TV sale. I don't believe it's ever had a legit VHS or DVD release, but it is shockingly coming on Blu-ray from a 4K scan of the negative, which I'm sure was in pristine condition, since there was not a single print struck from it other than the answer print we saw at the sneak preview.

There, some fun reality for you.

Dear Writer Idiots: Here's what you don't do. You don't take an iconic character from books, film, and TV, and turn him into something that your feeble minds think is relevant somehow to today. You didn't create this character and you've got a lot of chutzpah turning him into whatever this character is, which isn't, by the way, Perry Mason. Just use another name and doing soil what Mr. Erle Stanley Gardner created because you know what - you're not better than him. In fact, you're just typical now TV writers, copying other shows and genres, with a "director" who's trying awfully hard (emphasis on the awful) to be David Fincher. Eight episodes to solve a case? Really? Especially when we know who at least one of the guilty parties is in episode one. You love all your digital period detail and I can just imagine you all clapping yourselves on the back for it, but then you go and have someone get a phone number that is a prefix and FIVE digits. Dear people who have no idea about LA or its history - FIVE digits didn't come to LA until 1950 and it was a rarity even then. Prefix and FOUR digits. It's really not hard to find that out if you're not lazy. There were no restaurants/diners on Larchmont Blvd. In the early 1930s like the one you picture, which is, of course, Musso and Frank. Why not just call it Musso and Frank? Seems simple to me.

Your leading man never seems to shave. In the early 1930s men shaved and did not look like some buy from the 2000s. In the 1930s the F bomb was not dropped like it is today, a mile a minute. What do you gain by showing some three hundred pound Fatty Arbuckle-type's tool hanging out. Explain it? Is there an HBO rulebook? Why do the murder scenes look like they're right out of Seven? Why are the supporting characters all cliches out of other stories and films? Why is Aimee Semple McPherson always depicted in these tales and never by her real name?

But the bottom line here is this isn't Perry Mason. It's that simple. It could be Perry Merriwether or Richard Mason or Mason Jar and then people would perhaps go with it. Finally, to those who cannot go one second without using some now cliche - no, this is not an origin story about Perry Mason, because Mr. Gardner never felt Mr. Mason's origins were of interest because that's not what he was writing about. Eight episodes that could have probably been two. But not HBO. No, stretch it out beyond any logical endurance.

If you read reviews here on the imdb, you most likely know that most of them are written by utter morons. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let's cut to the chase. This is the only review you need to read - you certainly don't need to read any review that contains more than one star.

This is, simply put, a complete embarrassment. Bryan Forbes, who once showed a little talent, here is at his nadir - this is one of the worst movies ever and his work here is truly awful, both as screenwriter and director. The only amusing thing he's managed to pull off here is the casting of Anne Archer, an almost dead-ringer for Forbes' actress wife Nanette Newman. Roger Moore never has a chance with his incredibly ridiculously written character. Archer is terrible, and all the supporting roles are played by bad actors because after Moore, Steiger, and Gould, they probably had nothing but scale money left. That was, of course, the Golan-Globus way.

And that brings us to Mr. Steiger. In a career filled with method acting scenery chewing, this is his most egregious performance. He is so bad here that one wonders if Mr. Forbes simply had to give up. If Forbes encouraged this kind of performance, well... If any cop acted the way Steiger acts he would be sued and drummed out of the force, it's that simple. He gives over the top a whole new meaning - it's a super size ham on rye performance with much screaming and yelling - it's just laughable. I liked him in No Way to Treat a Lady and In the Heat of the Night and perhaps Duck, You Sucker, and he's good in a few of his early movies. But as the years went on, I'm guessing he was just impossible to direct. I wonder if he was up for a Razzie for this - he should have been. Gould is the only one who escapes this mess by underplaying everything.

The film looks okay, the musical score, right from the get-go with those stupid eighties' electronic drums, is terrible - Michael J. Lewis was very talented, but this stupid film seems to have done everyone in.