Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: For those who like depressing films with sleazy characters and a sordid storyline, this one is for you! From the bleak New York City atmosphere, which comes across as an extremely grim and almost hopeless place, to two diverse lead characters devoid of much sense of morality, this movie is a real downer.

Why it won the Academy Award was because it was so shocking at that time that Hollywood, brand new its freedom to show anything it wanted with all moral codes abandoned, wanted to celebrate that fact. Filmmakers then were like an immature six-year-old with an unlimited expense account at the local candy store. So, Hollywood gave theater viewers (for probably the first time) a dose of rape, prostitution, homosexuality, child nudity, homeless existence and other such wonderful sights and sounds only its twisted brain would think is appealing....and then awarded its work.

It also hoped, I'm sure, to shock mainstream audiences. Well, it succeeded on that level. Audiences were stunned at what they say and heard and the Academy, proud of itself for being able to display filth and make money at the same time, couldn't help but bestow honors upon this piece of gilded garbage.

Forty years ago, as a very young man, I found this film fascinating, too. However, seeing it again in the 1990s left such a bad taste in my mouth I never watched to view it again.

The acting was good, but so what? Acting is good in many films. Nobody ever said Dustin Hoffman and Jon Voight couldn't act. Hoffman was particularly good in his younger days in playing wacked-out people. He was kind of like the Johnny Depp of his era, playing guys like "Ratso Rizzo" in this film and then going to be the "Rain Man" later on. Yes, "Ratso" is a character you'll never forget, and "Joe Buck" (Voight) is one you want to forget, but the story is so sordid, it overwhelms the fine acting.

This movie isn't "art," and it isn't worthy of its many awards; it only pushed the envelope big-time in 1969 and that's why it is so fondly remembered in the hearts of film people and critics. It's two hours of profanity and ultra-sleazy, religious cheap shots, glorifying weirdos (Andy Warhol even gets in the act - no surprise), and generally despicable people.

I did like the catchy song, "Everybody's Talking'" that helped make Harry Nilsson famous, but even that was bogus because Fred Neil wrote the song and sang it better, before Nilsson did it....and few people have ever heard of Neil (which is their loss). And - as mentioned - the name "Ratso Rizzo" kind of stays with you!

The film is a landmark, but in a negative sense, I fear: this marked it as "official" that Hollywood had gone down the toilet, and it has remained in the sewer ever since.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: In the Hollywood west those trail hands were a rough bunch who when they came to town, partied pretty hardy. After all trail driving was a lonely business back in the day before railroads got to all parts of the USA.

The drovers who worked for trail boss Gil Favor as played by Eric Fleming were no different. But Fleming was a man of all business, he had a job to do and hired a top crew to do it.

With the long run of Rawhide and the fact that the regulars stayed with it for the most part, we got to know all the drovers at some point. A some point story lines were focused around all of them, though the bulk were with Fleming and Clint Eastwood's character Rowdy Yates, the number 2 guy with the herd.

Clint Eastwood's western image was molded by Rawhide, it's a shame that these are not shown more often. Probably because they were done in black and white. Had this been an NBC show, this would have been done in color like Bonanza and be running as often as those shows are. We'd get to see a lot more of a man who became a move legend.

Ironically enough it was Eric Fleming who left the show before it closed to do films. He did a few them and was hoping the show would give him a bankable movie name. Sadly he was killed on a movie location doing an action film, drowned in a river. Had he lived he might have become a name like Eastwood's.

Clint took over as trail boss in the last season and then the show completed its run. And he of course became the icon he is today and not just in the western genre.

Rawhide was a tough western who had some tough guys in it. No frills in this one, these were working cowboys just doing a job and battling the elements and whatever situations they were thrown into every year.

They really don't make television series like these any more. What a pity.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This film is something like a sequel of "White Zombie", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.

We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.

Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).

I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up "The Hills Have Eyes" then this film has hope.