slothropgr Reviews

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

Sorry, not the greatest movie ever made

[20 September 2015]

A disappointment. Living proof of 2 old adages: "too many cooks spoil the broth" and "the longer the joke, the bigger the punchline has to be." Too many cooks definitely hurt this flick, and as long as the movie is, it should've had a MUCH bigger punchline. In this case the journey was far more enjoyable than the destination. It would've been nice if the bunch that wrote the first part had communicated a little better with the crew that did the second, so we'd have a more coherent second part. After the intermission we are introduced to a whole new Max, one who suddenly is Bugsy Siegel and flips out periodically (which he never did before) because his old man was nuts (which we never knew before), and whose life ambition is to knock over a Federal Reserve bank--which we not only haven't been told before but he and he crew have (as far as we know) never even robbed a bank! At the inexcusably weak punch line, a long talky confrontation between a still newer Max and Noodles (did we ever find out how he got that stupid nickname?) we also learn that Noodles is a stone cold killer who Secretary Max wants to kill him, for reasons that are muddy at best. Almost as muddy as the way he went from street tough to Cabinet member. This despite Noodles' not having killed a single person in the whole flick--in fact having gone ballistic when people were killed. Say WHAT?? I won't even go into the whole business with the garbage truck and the amazing disappearing whozit. Even the commentary throws up its hands at that. And finally there's the whole "friendship/loyalty" schtick. It works for the kid versions of Noodles and Max, but De Niro and Wood have NO chemistry at all. They act friends because the script says so, but that's all. Woods has never had chemistry with anyone, in any flick. And I thought the first US release was muddled. The movie should've stayed with the kids.

The Wind and the Lion (1975)

Not the greatest adventure film ever, but close enough for me

[10/10 · 20 February 2015]

This was the final step in Sean Connery's return to stardom after leaving the Bond franchise and making Zardoz (one good step, one horrible one). And he did it without the rug. His Scots accent gets in the way for awhile only--Omar Sharif would've been more authentic. You could call it the anti-"Sheik" movie. I mean, the Raisuli and Eden Pedicaris never even kiss! The closest to a romantic statement he makes is "Mrs. Pedicaris, you're a great deal of trouble." The opening is breathtaking and the rest confounds expectations at every turn. And of course Brian Keith plays the quintessential Teddy R. I mean, this is John Milius, who wishes he'd been TR (see "Rough Riders" if you doubt me, it could be called a prequel to this film). It makes Keith the only actor to play 2 succeeding Presidents, McKinley (his last role) and Teddy. NOT a picture for Islamophobes, being intelligent and treating them Ay-rabs as human people. It also has maybe Jerry Goldsmith's best score--big and heroic and the best desert score since "Lawrence of Arabia." Definitely a picture that could NOT be made today, unfortunately.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

One play that should not have been a movie

[7/10 · 30 May 2014]

Saw the play a bunch of times and got to play Rosen or Guil twice. The problem with putting its action into a realistic quasi-Elizabethan setting is you're doing the equivalent of setting Waiting for Godot at a Times Square bus stop. You simultaneously drown and dilute the characters and their words (which are after all the only things R&G have to depend on) in reality. And the ending is ruined by being literalized. The other serious problem is Richard Dreyfuss--sorry, he just ain't The Player. They needed John Rhys Davies, who has the power and presence and weight to do the role justice, especially in The Player's final doom-laden speech. On the other hand, Roth and Oldman are the quintessential R&G, ain't nobody could do 'em better. They crystallize the Laurel-and-Hardyness of the two, with Oldman as Stan and Roth as Ollie. This was both written and directed by Tom Stoppard so one has to take it as his final word, but Dreyfuss impresses me as a last-minute choice. Personally, I'd rather have seen a filmed stage presentation, where (if done right) the ending is truly heartbreaking.

Rio Bravo (1959)

Yakkity Yak!

[7/10 · 15 March 2014]

When I was teaching screen writing in Santa Fe I passed out copies of this gabfest's screenplay at the beginning of the "Dialogue" segment. Then at the end the test was to go through and edit out all the useless, superfluous or repetitive dialog. The most generous editing cut it down to about 120 minutes even, the most severe to 107 minutes. Soooo much gab, so much useless verbiage, especially from Angie Dickinson, who plays a typical Hawksian woman--a BLLAABBBERRMOUTHHH(to quote the great Ralph Kramden). Not that she was the only guilty party. Scene after scene that could be dealt with effectively in a couple of lines and a look or two (if you have the actors, and Hawks did) went on and on and ON! Even the Duke couldn't shut up! Sometimes he'd go on for 10 or even 15 words in a breath! No wonder Quentin Tarantino loves this movie so much! As a follow-up, I asked my students to justify Angie's presence in the picture, and they all agreed (even the girls) it was because of her legs, and (the more perceptive noted) she was replaying Lauren Bacall from "To Have and Have Not" who Hawks wanted but Bogie got. Wonder if he got Angie. I won't even go into the typical 50's Mann Act romance with Wayne. Angie was playing older than her 19 years, she could've been at least half the Duke's age. This was Hawks' answer to TV?

Sabrina (1954)

Mostly Hepburn with a side of Wilder and a little Holden, hold the Bogie

[8/10 · 27 July 2013]

This movie is mostly for Hepburn fans, less so for Wilder acolytes, and has little if anything for Bogieists or Holdenites. Wilder is milder here than anywhere else (except maybe his other Audrey, Love in the Afternoon), leaving a little wit and cynicism scattered about to remind viewers who sat next to the camera. Bogie is uninvolved and uninvolving, reads his lines dutifully, and has NO chemistry with Hepburn. The only advantage of his casting (as opposed to Grant) is that the romance isn't a foregone conclusion--Bogie's romantic days were behind him. And shoulda stayed there. Holden is 10 years and several previous Wilders too old for his carefree playboy--the bad bleach job just makes him look older. At least he and AH have some on-screen chemistry (and a lot more off-screen). Not much of a comedy, all in all, and no romance. Audrey carries it, and carries it off, both with ease

The French Line (1953)

You gotta know how to watch flix like this

[4/10 · 5 July 2013]

This is what "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" could've been without Hawks. It's as close to a remake as you can get. If you want to see a really BAD version, see "Gentlemen Marry Brunettes." I really only posted this to let everyone know that the FULL "Looking For Trouble" scene is posted on You-Tube. Makes it pretty obvious (the watchword for the whole flick) what the censors were up in arms about. Not to defend the CLD though they were the most effective publicity machine Hollywood never came up with, but JR does a WHOLE LOT of shaking' in the complete version. And it's definitely worth the trouble to check out. Amazing what "devout Christians" allowed themselves. We can only hope that if they ever put this out on DVD (and it isn't looking good) they'll include the whole thing instead of the prim careful official version.

Larry Crowne (2011)

Blaaaaaaand

[6/10 · 20 January 2013]

Some like it hot, some like it cold, some like it somewhere in the middle--in this flick's case, squarely exactly millimetrically in the middle. There's nothing exciting here, nothing dramatic, nothing that can get the pulse racing or so much as slow the popcorn-eating. Or, for me at least, get the interest-o-meter rising above tepid. Glad I saw it on cable, for free, it was worth that much of an investment. Even gladder because in the theater you can't fast-forward over the parts you already know about, as though you've seen the movie, which you have. It isn't as predictable as "Avatar" but almost. And it rather smugly doesn't try to be. It's a nice amiable story about a nice amiable guy buffeted a bit by society who meets nice amiable folks at a local community college who all ride scooters, and if that ain't symbolic I don't know what is. He works out his minor problems (joblessness, lack of education and affordable transportation) with relentless amiability and good-naturedly negotiates life's little speed bumps, in the process turning his sour bored speech teacher Julia Roberts into the smiling amiable Julia we all know and love. The best that can be said about "LC" is, it's a pleasant diversion ALMOST worth the time it takes to watch. But Tom and Julia are WAY overcast, and bring nothing to the story that far lesser actors couldn't. Of course, I doubt anyone less than Hanks could have gotten this thing made. I did yearn deeply for Hooch, or at least Buzz Lightyear, to show up and get his and our blood flowing.

The Twilight Zone: The Night of the Meek (1960) Season 2, Episode 11

One of the great Zones

[10/10 · 26 August 2011]

A Christmas story to rank with "A Christmas Carol" and "The Gift of the Magi." Man, Rod could be a cynical even mean-spirited SOB in his writing, but when he opened his heart he opened it all the way and let everything out. Carney overdoes it a bit as drunken moth-eaten ol' Henry Corwin, but he goes down easy, just like his booze. If nothing else, this is a good example of tight writing--every scene, almost every line, contributing to the shamelessly heart-warming ending. Compare it to the later remake with Richard Mulligan (who also does well) and you'll see what I mean. The 10 stars is despite the fact they videotaped it instead of filming, which I understand Rod regretted later on. Makes the set look even more artificial than it is, but only dents the enjoyment very slightly. And it's great to watch wonderful character actors and TZ stalwarts like John Fiedler, Bob Lieb and Burt Mustin (the eternal Old Man) doing their thing. "And we'll thank God for Christmas, Officer Flaherty, that's what we'll do. We'll thank God for Christmas."

Relative Values (2000)

minor league Coward, major league Julie

[21 August 2011]

I've always believed that every movie is allowed One Big Coincidence, and the bigger it is, the earlier in the picture it should be sprung. This is known (don't ask me why) as the "Of all the gin joints in all the world" rule. This example of lesser Coward has a HUGE coincidence which if the above rule were followed would have to have been sprung on the audience at least a week before the movie began. The irony is, the coincidence isn't even particularly germane to the main story and the movie could've gotten along without it. And should've. Said main story involves the clash of solid traditional veddy-upper-clahss English values with more casual boorish Yankee lack-of-values, brought about when the Lord of Marshwood (named Nigel and well named) brings his American bride-to-be, a big movie star, home to meet his mum, a proper but likable paragon of British nobility (Julie Andrews of course). The HUGE coincidence manifests when Lady Marshwood's maid and boon companion confesses that the big American movie star is her sister whom she hasn't seen in 20 years! The story never really recovers from this astonishment because nothing more is made of this beyond some awkward comedy (the movie star doesn't recognize her sister) and once the maid reveals her true identity to the star, the whole thing is shuffled aside and the movie becomes another of the kind of class comedy the Brits love so much. You get the feeling Coward threw it in just to liven things up because he couldn't think of anything else--it comes from deep in left field (or over the wider field boundary, this being England) and pretty much stays there. The sisterly relationship is never resolved (the star makes a totally unbelievable former Brit) and once everyone's had a night's sleep cooler heads prevail and the engagement hassle comes to its foreordained conclusion. Fortunately there are xlnt performances to help us through this, particularly Colin Firth as the Coward stand-in (dry wry and quite a guy) and Stephen Fry as the very model of a modern English butler, dealing out wisdom and consolation as needed. And Julie is magnificent--impossible to believe she was 65 when she made this, especially in the green off-the-shoulder leather evening gown she wears in the opening sequence. You'd never have caught Mary Poppins or Maria von Trapp in something like that.

At Long Last Love (1975)

The Man Who Knew Too Much

[7 August 2011]

A musical comedy by a director who knew nothing about either genre. Should be a requirement in every film school curriculum, subject: The Dangers of Film School, or Sometimes They Who Remember the Past Are Even More Doomed to Repeat It Than Those Who Don't. This could be called Bogdanovich's "1941." I wonder if Spielberg looks at Bogdanovich's career and shivers in fear, wondering where he'd be if he'd followed "1941" with "Hook" and "Amistad" instead of "Raiders" and "ET"? Probably where PB is, writing books and making excuses. Where would Bogdanovich be if he'd just dug into directing instead of cinematic scholarship? No career has ever gotten off to such a rousing start then died so completely. With this picture. Could he have been so enamored of Orson Welles that he was compelled to share his fate, be the modern Orson Welles? There really is nothing particularly wrong with "ALLL", but there's nothing especially right about it either. It's like Hill House: a collection of small wrong angles that add up to a massive distortion of the whole. You can start with the fact that except for Madeline Kahn none of the cast was much of a singer or dancer, and as has been repeatedly pointed out, his recording them live only made things worse. And though Maddy is the sole laughable and listenable thing in the picture, she only serves to emphasize everyone else's lack of these qualities. My God, the woman even blows cigarette smoke out humorously--like a belch. Even more than with "What's Up Doc" PB showed he knew the letter of the law without having the slightest grasp of the spirit. I add this as an afterthought: this misguided missile may finally have been the last nail in the coffin of that (by then) long moribund tradition known as The Classic Hollywood Musical, especially of the wretched practice begun with "Camelot" of having non-singing actors sing, or try to. "Paint Your Wagon" was worse, but this was the final curtain. My wife opined that PB was trying to kill off the musical the way "Blazing Saddles" killed the Western. I've never been able to dispute her, then or since.

Saratoga Trunk (1945)

Two wildly different movies for the price of one

[7/10 · 15 March 2011]

This movie is like that old breath mint commercial--you get two (clap) two (clap) TWO flicks in one! The first stars Ingrid Bergman in a tale of revenge in the Big Easy, the second Coop in a railroad adventure taking place 2000 miles away. "Trunk" in this case having nothing to do with luggage, but with a railroad's trunk line. So the title has nothing ay-tall to do with the first half of the movie. In fact except for Coop, Bergman and her bizarre servants neither half has anything to do with the other period. While the novel probably tied these two widely disparate stories together, the movie doesn't bother. You know they're going to end up together, the only question (seeing that they have as little in common as their stories) is how. They're Ingrid and Coop, that's how. NOT one of those romances that make you wonder how they'll get along after the marriage. That said, I enjoyed it. Coop plays Coop, 'nuff said. Ingrid's character is unapologetically out for blood and makes almost no attempt at being sympathetic. It's the perfect antidote for those tired of her hapless helpless milquetoasts in "Casablanca" and "Gaslight." She's gorgeous and in your face. Saved both flicks for me. Great train collision at the end, too--real ones, or so they tell me.

Charley's Aunt (1941)

Requires several stretches but worth it, in a weird way.

[7/10 · 12 December 2009]

Most cross-dressing films ("Crying Game" excepted) require a fundamental stretch of the imagination--that Dustin Hoffman, Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon (and Tom Hanks for that matter) can all be accepted as women with only a wig, a dress and a falsetto voice. Hoffman took the disguise farther since "Tootsie" was a much milder farce, and almost succeeded, but still there was that voice. Jack Benny in drag requires far more of a stretch than the rest, as he is easily the uuuugliest cross-dresser ever. Wearing only a bad wig and a Mother Hubbard over rolled-up pants (from which much humor derives), he could well have been used as the model for J. Thaddeus Toad's female get-up in Disney's "Wind in the Willows." What makes it funnier is, he's the most reluctant female impersonator of all, and not above mixing it up in most manly fashion with the fellow students who have coerced him into this masquerade. You can get the plot from several other reviews. What's weird is that the two gorgeous ingénues in the flick (one of them Anne Baxter, long before Eve and Nefertiri) spend a lot of time necking with this supposed old lady, and not reluctantly. WE know "she's" a man but THEY don't, yet there they sit smooching it up with "her" and enjoying it. Kinky-winky, as Paul (center square) Lynde used to say. Fortunately for those who find all this a bit too odd even for farce there's the wavishing Kay Fwancis, wavishing indeed, as the title character and reason for all this foolishness, and along with Laird Cregar (playing it straight for once) the calm center of the storm. Quite funny even if some of it is unswallowable.

Together Again (1944)

A little better the first time around

[7/10 · 17 November 2009]

I was a bigger fan of "The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer" before I saw this little gem. "Bachelor's" Oscar should've been for Best Adapted Screenplay, not Best Original. Shows what a short memory Hollywood had even back then, since only 4 years separated the two. Item: Irene Dunne plays a single small town mayor (very well) while Myrna Loy in "Bachelor" plays a single judge. Item: Charles Boyer plays an astonishingly well dressed artist (sculptor) while Cary Grant also plays an astonishingly well dressed artist (painter). Item: both involve faux romances between the artist and a precocious willful girl much too young for him--Dunne's daughter in "Together", Loy's sister in "Bachelor." Both have meddlesome older relatives who push the reluctant lovers together--Chas. Coburn here, Ray Collins there. Dunne and Boyer don't have the chemistry here that they had in "Love Affair" (a huge hit 5 years before and the very circumstantial reason for the title, which has no relation ay-tall with the story) but they get along believably. Dunne gets put through some fairly humorous paces that play off well against her upright public image. It's almost as much a Hollywood satire on small town life (like its DVD-mate "Theodora Goes Wild" also with Dunne) as a romance, with less snickering at the narrow-minded rural bumpkins than most (including "Theodora").

Something's Got to Give (1962)

A Mess From the Get-Go

[30 October 2009]

I guess it isn't ironic that 20th had two historic disasters on their hands at once--this and "Cleopatra." Says something about management, doesn't it? My take on MM's non-performance, both on set and off, is that she knew from the start this was going to be a disaster and just couldn't bring herself to go along with it, contract or no. Now, I don't believe in stereotyping and I DO believe in giving an actress a chance to stretch herself, but come on, gang--Marilyn as a yachtsman, photographer, AND mother of 2?? And Dean Martin as a lawyer??? Marrying Cyd Charisse at her most brittle as a controlling unpleasant hopeless neurotic? Isn't SOME part of a movie supposed to be believable? The casting makes a ludicrous premise all the more so. Cukor had a rep for directing female stars, but on the basis of this and "My Fair Lady" (where he kept the fact Hepburn's singing voice was to be dubbed from her for the whole shoot) he must've become a hardcore misogynist somewhere along the line. What a rotter. Interesting how completely opposite the final version ("Move Over Darling") was--no one would mistake Doris Day's sanitized squeaky-clean wife as anything like Marilyn's.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1968 TV Movie)

The first version that makes sense--and tells the truth

[9/10 · 3 August 2009]

The perfect supplement to the melodramatic soap-operatic March version of 1932, that polluted so many later versions. It's the first to satisfactorily solve the two main difficulties: the make-up and the motive. The big problem is how to make Hyde look sufficiently different from Jekyll without turning him into something that in a real world would be caged in a zoo. The Tracy version is the one extreme--the fact no one recognizes Hyde as Jekyll after a 3-day bender is absurd. The March is the other, especially toward the end when Hyde becomes positively simian (and March has all but given up trying to enunciate around those godawful teeth). This version solves the problem neatly, by casting an actor (Jack Palance) who starts out looking more like Hyde than Jekyll. In fact Dan Curtis has said they used almost as much make-up to soften Palance's appearance for Jekyll as they did to turn him into Hyde. As to motive: this version cuts out the romance that in earlier versions provided the impetus for Jekyll drinking the potion, and substitutes a motive that even Stevenson didn't have the courage to recognize. As Devlin sums it up at the end: "Hyde was just a chemical concoction. The real monster was Jekyll."

Jurassic Park (1993)

Great Dinos, and that's all

[6/10 · 10 July 2009]

Sloppy story-telling from start to finish. It's pretty obvious Spielberg didn't give a damn about anything but the dinosaurs, especially not about tight, coherent plotting or believable characters. When I taught screenplay writing in Santa Fe NM I used "JP" as a perfect example of how even established directors who should know better can forget what's important. But Saint Steven's always cared more for effects than logic. And the dinos are impressive, even now. They almost distract one from the illogic of that first Grand Revelation with the brachiosaurs, as definitive a moment for fantasy as the star destroyer's overhead entrance in "Star Wars." But Sam Neill & Co approach these walking skyscrapers over a mile or so of gently rolling terrain, and they don't notice them until they're almost under hoof. Like I said, effect over logic. Too many of the characters are superfluous or just plain unbelievable. Jeff Goldblum doesn't add a thing to the plot, he just cracks wise and makes pretentious pronouncements (a faculty he perfected in the sequel). In the book his broken leg gave them a time limit to get off the island before the break went septic, but nothing like that here. Once his leg is broken he's basically forgotten. And Richard Attenborough's John Hammond is a kindly old Scots Santa Claus here, but sends his beloved grandkids out into a park that's chock full of dangerous predators--and even more dangerous computer bugs. In the book at least he was a nasty old SOB, though it was still a thin device. Bad plotting: Wayne Knight has lived on the island for months yet can't find his way to the dock because of a rain storm and a fallen sign?? And why bother with the "life will out" theme when it makes no difference? The creatures don't get off the island as they do in the book, so who cares if they can reproduce? If you want to leave room for a sequel, simply dump that and the "lysine contingency" and save some time. And finally we come to the biggest fraud of all: the ending, a classic dino ex machina. They're saved from raptors in the nickest of nicks by the T Rex! Who's announced his approach hitherto by making like Godzilla, but here apparently walks on tippy-toes. This was Steverino's inspiration, which shows he knew which side of the movie his box office was buttered on. To paraphrase Eric Clapton about a new rock group he'd just formed called Cream: "Forget the plot! Forget the characters! Just dinos!" My solution: after the Rex saves our hapless crew, he chases 'em all the way to the chopper, maybe even grabs a strut in his jaws as the whirlybird is lifting off, and Neill has to hang out and kick them free. Oh well, Spielberg proved with "Crystal Skulls" he doesn't know when to quit, so it may happen yet.

Designing Woman (1957)

Been There, Seen That--and Done Better

[6/10 · 18 June 2009]

A Tracy-Hepburn picture sans Spence and Kate. Of course, when it had those two it was called "Woman of the Year"--complete with the punch-drunk pug (Wm Bendix there, Mickey Shaughnessy here). This one tries to hide its origins by loading up on subplots, taking on in addition to romance sports writing, boxing, Broadway, fashion design, and Damon Runyon's world of gangsters. Toooooo much, it does none of them well and they stumble over one another. The gangster angle is especially clumsy and intrusive. The subplot that does work is the ex-partners subplot, which adds the single bright spot in the whole thing: Dolores Gray, who steals the flick without half trying. It doesn't help that Peck and Bacall appear to be 4th choices for their roles. Neither is a good fit--Peck plays the kind of liar and conman William Holden could get away with easily, but Peck is just too staunch and upright. You end up disliking him for being so dishonest. Bacall plays a rather ditzy flake, with the same problem--she's just too solid and down-to-earth to carry it off, and ends up mugging. It's just plain embarrassing to watch her fly off the handle. Chemistry? None. Must've been a terrible year for stories and screenplays if this manipulative junk won an Oscar.

The Ambassador's Daughter (1956)

Frivolous film unworthy of cast but deserves much better DVD

[1/10 · 2 March 2009]

The 1 star rating is for the DVD which may be the worst I've ever seen, and my first DVD was the original "Blade Runner" release. The print is sadly faded and filthy--scratched, blotched, lined. It jumps, it skips, it ripples, it does everything but the hokey-pokey. Even worse, this early Cinemascope release (2.55) is given a full screen presentation so every blemish is emphasized. Even panned and scanned would've been an improvement. Instead all we're given is the center of the ultra-widescreen image at all times. The result being that in most scenes part or all of the speakers are off screen and sometimes the featured action as well, while most of the image is left empty. Beware Education 2000, who released this abomination--they have no regard whatsoever for their product. If you want it, and it does have its charms however slight, get it off TCM. Their print is lbx'd and in good condition.

The Man Who Saved Christmas (2002 TV Movie)

A side of my childhood I knew nothing about

[9/10 · 22 December 2008]

Stumbled across this on WGN and stayed to be captivated, and not just by the discovery that Jason Alexander can play a character who isn't a schmuck. Most of my toys growing up seem to have been from the AC Gilbert Company--Erector sets, science kits and of course the ONLY electric train worth its salt, American Flyer. I mean, how many steam locomotives needed a third rail? Fie upon thee, Lionel, I'll take S over O any time. It's pretty factual in the big arena though one can niggle about details. Still, Gilly really did save Christmas during WWI, and except at the end it's remarkably light on holiday schmaltz and sentimentality. A welcome relief from the hammered-home messages of the rest of the Christmas pudding.

The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982 TV Movie)

Better than the book by a long shot

[9/10 · 21 April 2008]

GORGEOUS. That goes for the production, Anthony Andrews, and especially Jane Seymour, who by the evidence of this movie was the most beautiful woman in the world--or at least in the movies (still is, as far as I'm concerned). Andrews is letter perfect, handles the dual roles far better than Leslie Howard or Richard Grant, both of whom did the Blakeney fine but fell short as the Pimp. But the real star of the movie is Sir Ian as Chauvelin. Twitchy, repressed, jealous, outraged, and with absolutely no sense of humor, a perfect foil for both Sir Percy and the Pimp. And even attractive enough to justify Marguerite's prior interest in him (prior to meeting Sir P, that is). I'd give it a 10 except for the story, which requires acceptance of some serious stretches of the imagination. The script works like hell to justify Percy's keeping his secret identity from his new wife without appearing a bounder, but doesn't quite manage it. I mean, Clark would sure as heck tell Lois. This focuses in a scene that I can NOT accept period: where Percy stands directly behind Marguerite whispering to her, and she doesn't recognize him! Sorry, it just won't float, especially in a script as witty and fleet-footed as this one. One of the best bosh-swucklers of all time. Oh, and watch Julian Fellowes who plays the Prince of Whales--he wrote the screenplay for Altman's "Gosford Park."

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

A visual treat but woefully miscast--and plagiarized without credit

[7/10 · 15 April 2008]

A floridly stylized and overheated, even operatic (Italian opera of course, this being Coppola) take on the book, but one of the most faithful. Gorgeously designed and visualized, yet it barely survives its casting. Did FFC really think that Winona Ryder and Keanu Reeves were the best available?? On the one hand Ryder handles the complexities of Mina's character (far greater than in the book) well, while Reeves is as wooden and inarticulate as ever, but neither can do an English accent to save their lives. Coppola underlines this lack by pitting them against authentic Brits like Sadie Frost and Tony Hopkins' cheerfully demented Van Helsing. The other Yank, Tom Waits as Renfield, does much better. The real casting disaster is Gary Oldham's Drac. Coppola and Hart have re-imagined this monster into one of the great Romantic (in the Byronic sense) characters, a combination of Richard the Lionheart, Don Juan, Faust and the Flying Dutchman, yet he's played by a rather plain, short and strange character (in the definitely non-Byronic sense) actor who tries so hard to avoid imitating Lugosi that his accent is possibly the ugliest in movie history, and sillier than Kevin Costner's attempt at a Back Bay drawl in "13 Days." Where was Daniel Day Lewis? Anyone check with Patrick Bergin or Stephen Rea? Oldman is fine as Old Weird Drac in the castle but my girlfriend (a sucker for romance at all costs, see my review of "GWTW") began shaking her head the moment he started playing up to Mina in London, and by the end of the flick had developed a crick in her neck. Too bad, too--the forbidden romance, which BTW was ripped off from the protean Dick Matheson's version with Jack Palance (which he took from the Karloff "Mummy"), works well to unify a story that sprawls all over the place, and gives the ending real power. I'll close with a note on the DVD: the 5.1 is particularly effective in the castle, with creepy little scratchings and whispers and sounds all over the back channels. And the Coppola commentary is fine, he indulges in much less whining than in his "Godfather" apologia. ADDENDUM: According to his commentary, Ryder brought Coppola onto the picture, so she was a given. Too bad they couldn't get her a decent dialog coach to give her a Brit accent at least as good as Angelina Jolie's, if not the quality of Lisa Eichhorn in "Cutter's Way" whom I was amazed to find was a Yank, not a Brit.

Gone with the Wind (1939)

Can't separate content from context--and oh those ayksents!

[2/10 · 22 March 2008]

One of the ways I knew I really did love my wife was that I was able to sit with her all the way through this monstrous tripe. Had tried a couple of times before without success. Afterward we had a big argument about it of course--she was stuck on the hopeless romanticism of the thing which I saw as Grand Ole Soap Opry. Not to mention the simple fact that whether you like it or not, both book and movie glorify the most degrading and longest-lasting oppression visited by one people upon another since The Grandeur That Was Rome. Imagine this story in a more modern context, with Scahlett and her precious crew as Germans in the 1930s and Mammy and her folk as Jews. Somehow I doubt such a movie would've been made. I will allow that the movie unintentionally provides an accurate barometer of the pathetic state of race relations (non-relations?) in pre-WWII America.

And oh those AWFUL accents! A Georgian friend of mine thinks the movie was made as an insult to the Old South that no one gets.

King Kong (2005)

Count 'em: 3-T Rex's-3!!

[8/10 · 6 March 2008]

I really wanted to like this movie. Hell, after the way PJ blew me away with "LOTR" I wanted to LOVE the thing. And knowing his reverence for the original, I expected to.

Alas. I achieved "like" and went a bit farther, but "love"--nope. There's just too much movie here, and too much that's superfluous, even damaging. It's as if the Director's Cut off the DVD has been released into theaters.

First the good: a lot of the changes work well, one or two improving on the original. Making Jack Driscoll a less-than-heroic writer--initially anyway--gives him a character arc where none existed in the original. Making Anne Darrow the main character is good, tho it adds something the picture already has too much of: length. It does allow PJ to augment the connection between her and Kong, which brings about the best change--in the New York rampage when SHE goes to HIM. One thing the original never bothered to explain was how Kong finds Anne in all of those hotel rooms. The first remake had him sniff her out, which was ludicrous (as was the entire movie). And having Kong go ape (so to speak) because Denham substitutes a fake Anne for the real thing in the stage show is more convincing than flash bulbs.

I'll start the Not-So-Good with what the movie doesn't show: how they get Kong off the island and into a theater in the middle of Manhattan without alerting the civilized world. This was another detail the original could get away with, because of its brevity and condensed style. This version doesn't have those excuses, PJ shoulda showed it--IF he could figure it out. Another NSG is the self-conscious way PJ seems determined to outdo the original: not just one rampaging bronto, but a whole herd! Not just one T Rex but 3! And not just a battle, but one in mid-air, with Anne held in one hand the whole time! The miracle being, not that Kong beats the Rexes, but that Anne remains unreduced to a pulp fiction in his grasp. And not just one spider in the pit, but a zillion nasty bugs! After awhile one just has to sit back and say "Oh come AWNN now, Pete!" Topped off of course by one of the silliest shooting exhibitions in the history of movies, when a total novice blasts a bunch of the over-sized nasties off Jack with a tommy gun--without so much as scratching Our Hero.

The change that really doesn't work and makes you wonder who was in charge here is the simplest of all: Anne's kidnapping off the boat. PJ gives us a raging storm and a native whose pole-vaulting skills would make him a cinch at any Olympics and who magicks Anne off the boat from a cabin deep in its bowels and with all hands on deck! Didn't anyone stop and say "Wait a minute--this is not only impossible but stupid!" Finally there's the flick's most gratuitous flaw: its extraneous subplots and characters. The whole business with the first mate and the kleptomaniacal kid is SOO useless. WHO CARES if someone's read Joseph Conrad?? WHO CARES if there's a warrant for Denham's arrest back in New York? PJ goes to a lot of trouble to build up the captain's character, even has him rescue Denham and Co. TWICE, then, as in the original, forgets him in New York. Shorn of a useless half hour or so (and at least one T Rex), this coulda been one helluva picture.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

Shows that McT CAN do a remake

[9/10 · 1 March 2008]

Like Sting's rendition of "Windmills of Your Mind" compared to Noel Harrison's, this is SO much better than the original, which was all surface and style and flash, with the gloss and depth of floor polish (1 coat). Brosnan and Russo aren't as all-out glamorous as McQ and Faye, but much more apt to their roles and they do strike sparks with each other. The difficulties of these two closed-off people finding each other in the midst of a major theft investigation are clearly shown. The movie does exactly what great remakes should and damned few do because the phrase "great remake" is an oxymoron. It plays off the original, updates it and makes it fit into a different world, entertains equally those who've seen the original (by confounding their expectations at every turn) and those who haven't. The various facets of the plot fit more tightly together and all obey Poe's dictum about short stories--every word bends toward the finale. As an example: the gratuitous "other woman" in the original, seemingly there only for a cool gliding sequence and to make Faye's character jealous, becomes an integral part of the story. Russo's Katherine Banning is given more opportunities to be smart and perceptive than Dunaway's, while Brosnan's Crown is softer and more sympathetic. He actually has a character arc, which is more than can be said for McQ's one-note samba. Dennis Leary's cop is also given a character and an arc, instead of being merely a sounding board and moral finger-pointer like Paul Burke. The music is great, especially the use of "Sinner Man" which began turning up everywhere after this came out. And one more subtle concordance I didn't notice till the DVD came out: the autumn leaves really are turning to the color of Rene Russo's hair.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Well-camouflaged nonsense

[6/10 · 3 February 2008]

That Spielberg is still one helluva director, maybe even a great one, is evidenced by the effectiveness with which he disguises the fact that this movie is almost as nonsensical as "Independence Day." Tom Cruise helps by leaving his superstardom off camera and doing a fairly effective job of portraying Joe Average, and Dakota Fanning does an even better job of being (not playing) a real kid--not too smart, not too witty or brave and at times literally scared out of her wits. The main problem is that Spielberg wants to give a worms-eye view of this worldwide catastrophe, and whether he succeeds or fails in this (and he does both) it sinks the movie. There's so much that just doesn't make sense and begs for explanation, which we don't get. When were the machines buried, and why? Given the amount of digging under New York (subways, sewers, sub-basements) why has no one ever unearthed one of these contraptions? Since this burial had to have happened long before the area was inhabited, how did so many just happen to be buried under land that would one day be a major metropolis? Why does their ray leave clothing untouched, yet blasts buildings to flinders? Why is the military so helpless against these monsters? We only see one battle, and not nearly enough of that. As Cruise's son says, "I want to see more." We never even get any theories about where these things come from--it obviously isn't Mars from the way they prance around. There are some gorgeous moments--the clothes falling like snow from the sky, the burning train hurtling past--yet the whole doesn't hold together. No surprise since David Koepp wrote the screenplay and logic isn't his specialty either. But then what do you expect from a writer & director who send a T Rex strolling through a San Diego suburb at night without waking anyone up or meeting even one car?