Reviews

I will not go into the film as many already have said how it is a great work of art despite its "troubled" filming history.

This film is now advertised and available as a "restored" dvd of a "lost" Welles film. But DO NOT be deceived. Whereas the 1998 cut of Touch of Evil was "restored" using a Welles memo as guidelines, Othello was restored by presuming many things. First, dialogue was put in sync and unintelligible diaglogue was "voiced over." And second, the original score was redone, but not exactly as the original. You could almost say a new score was used in the "restored" film. The original cut was Welles' 1952 European version which has only ever been availible as a (OOP) 1995 Criterion LaserDisc. As Welles' daughter owns the rights to Othello, that's the 1992 "restored" version which she also helped on, it is the only one currently availible for purchase in the US (as she receives no money for the 1995 CR laserdisc, she forced Criterion to stop making it.)

While many casual fans will not notice or care about the little changes, don't be deceived into thinking this is "Orson's intended version." Also DO NOT be deceived into thinking this is a lost film. It was only lost in the sense that it had no distribution until the early 90's.

There is nothing more that I can say about this film than has already been said. It was a very good film for its time. But there is a reason I think it never caught on like many other classic films of the time: it is a lavish though dated production that is more lamented among film fans for its lost footage than it is for its cinematic greatness.

For those who have always wanted to know what was lost, the best source is The Magnificent Ambersons - A Reconstruction by James Carringer. It's an OOP book that contains the cutting continuity of Welles' original cut. It shows what was cut and where it was cut.

I have to say that the cuts aren't all bad. Of course the cuts from the ball hurt, the cut ending was more pessimistic but still better than the release version. But then there are little lines cut here and there that actually don't hurt the film. And frankly there are one or two whole scenes that were cut and actually help the film. But then I have other problems with the film. Agnes Moorehead should have been cast as Isabel as Fanny is an annoying character that isn't sympathetic. Delores Costello is wooden and her character shows no affection for Eugene. Tim Holt does an excellent job but how can you sympathize with his character at the end when he was such a total jerk up till that point. Overall, the film comes off to me as a grand soap opera.

And also don't believe that the studio blindsided Welles and destroyed this film without authority. In order to get it made, his contract was renegotiated and one of the things he gave up was final cut. Therefore, the studio could do anything they wanted.

I know many Welles fans consider this a masterpiece. Don't get me wrong, I think he was a master and I'd do anything to see all of his films released as they should have be. But I think he made a mistake choosing this film as his follow-up to Kane.

Enough has been said about Glory, that despite being made in the decade of excess and forgettable art, it is GREAT movie. I could go on and on, but what I say has already been said by others. Many others.

In an age when the only movies considered great are those that open number one, make a couple of hundred million, and the rest are failures, it's great to see a great director and one of the most popular stars in the world come together to make a film that appeals to those whose minds haven't been completely warped by MTV and Tom Green.

Vanilla Sky is a great film. In our post-9/11 world, I could see how a film about a rich, vain playboy could be overlooked, especially one that forces you to think. Perhaps this is a movie that should have been released in late '99 or 2000, before Wall Street crashed. But the facts remain that this is not a film you are likely to entirely get on one viewing. It is a thinking man's film. It forces you to follow the story to understand the characters. You know, the way movies used to be made before style replaced substance.

I'm not saying this is a perfect film. I understand certain things were going to have to be changed upon adapting this film from its Spanish origins. It's only my opinion, but I thought Jason Lee was miscast (compare Lee's best friend character with the best friend character in the original movie, Abre Los Ojos). And I think that Life Extension was spruced up a little too much, particularly "Tech Support."

This is one of those movies you can't really classify. It's different, but not "David Lynch-different." You have to go in open minded. But if you do, I think you'll have a great viewing experience. Rating - ***1/2