Reviews

SPOILERS! BEWARE!

It's no secret that "Stagecoach" has been a very influential film. What distinguishes it even more than that, however, is how simply GOOD it is. This is a must-see that is to be watched less out of artistic obligation and more 'cause it's damn good. It's the original Road Movie. You know the routine: A group of people (at least two are needed) undergoes a great journey from point A to point B and, on the way, everyone gets to be real good friends (well, in this case: almost everybody). The plot is as narrow as the path they take. You just heard it. Nevertheless, if the elements are just right (as they definitely are in "Stagecoach") these movies are a wonderful journey for the watcher as well.

"Stagecoach" is responsible for fostering or even inventing quite a few other trademarks too. The oft-used Stretcher scene near the end of your favorite movie. It's here. And so's the "redeemable prostitute". But this was back when it meant something, when wrong was wrong and forgiveness meant something. The relationship between Lucy and Dallas reminds me of the President's wife and the pilot's wife in "Independence Day". (Remember when the First Lady finds out that Jasmine is a stripper?) Only (like in Demi Moore's "version" of "The Scarlet Letter") no forgiveness was needed 'cause no wrong had been done. "Stagecoach" is "old-fashioned" enough to still think that selling your body to strangers was a sin. In this light, it's message of redemption is actually meaningful.

Furthermore, its action sequences (really there's only one) are still wonderful. Watching those Apache warhorses pitch their riders after being shot can't help but make you gasp. And the Ringo Kid's intrepid stunt with the stagecoach horses is probably the best known of all this movies scenes.

Finally, "Stagecoach" is filled (literally) with interesting characters. None of them are flat. All of the travelers get at least one chance to surprise us. John Wayne is still fresh and wide-eyed. His character, the Ringo Kid, is as guileless and doughty as they come. Nevertheless, even this early, he is a powerful presence on the screen. The Ringo Kid may have a heart of gold and seem even overly-naive but we aren't surprised when he walks away victorious from a shoot-out with three men.

"Stagecoach" is an exciting, endearing little journey that needs (for the uninitiated) to be taken as soon as possible.

MILD SPOILERS!

Though far from perfect, "Modern Times" is a quintessential movie. Chaplin knew that movies were called MOVE-ees because they were a celebration of kinesis, that is, movement. In fact, according to Chaplin, only fights and chases were "pure cinema". Fortunately, his actual practice was less adamant than his rhetoric. "Modern Times" is pure cinema to be sure but in a broader sense than Charlie would've defined it.

Though not always humorous (sometimes even when it's trying to be), "Modern Times" has some genuinely funny moments. I love The Tramp's morning swim in his new pond. Smartly outfitted, and spry of step, The Tramp skips out of the changing room, down the path, and to the end of the diving platform. Then, with prowess and aptitude, he dives...into about 2 inches of water! Of course, there are several delightful moments like this and, like so many of Chaplin's scenes, they are the stuff of legend.

In addition to humor, there are some dazzlingly tense moments. As The Tramp is pulled through the gears of the machine you catch yourself saying, "That can't be safe, can it?" And, of course, the blind-folded rollerskating scene is as good as anything in "The Matrix" (and no CGI either).

Finally, in my opinion, (don't know about Charlie's) my point of entry into the movie was due to its pathos. I liked the relationship between The Tramp and The Gamin (wharf-child). Paulette Goddard is a strikingly attractive woman (with an eerie resemblance to Molly Shannon) and their relationship is touching and innocent. As those first strains of "Smile" faded in, I knew that they had me. To me, this is just as much pure cinema as the rest.

A second definition of kinesis illuminates what could be considered the flat side of the movie. Kinesis is also defined as a movement that lacks directional orientation and depends upon the intensity of stimulation. This is a pretty accurate description of large sections of "Modern Times". Like many of the early Disney shorts, it suffers somewhat from a manic, unpredictable plot. Until the middle section, "Modern Times" is little more than a series of gags. Of course, this was probably quite intentional and Chaplin could've done whatever he wanted. Nevertheless, I do think it holds the film back from perfection. Finally, (and, for some reason, this almost completely stops at the half-way point) repetition of gags has a way of subduing some of the humor. There CAN be too much of a good thing.

Chaplin's Tramp, especially in "Modern Times" reminds me of two fictional creations, both on radically opposite ends of the spectrum. While I'm not the first to observe this, as an inveterate Disney fan, I couldn't help but notice the similarity between The Tramp and "The Mick", Micky Mouse. Like, Mickey, The Tramp is simple, uncomplicated, good (without being too good), resilient, and indomitable. It's clear that Chaplin had a large influence on this little mouse and (seen accordingly) Chaplin's influence on cinema (and the world) is immeasurable.

Finally, and I just thought of this, The Tramp is a modern version of the mythical Sisyphus (especially as portrayed by Camus in his essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus"). Sisyphus was the guy who (due to his impertinence) was forever cursed to push up a mountain a boulder which refused to stay put. Camus sees all of us as toiling in equally grueling and fruitless fashion and yet sees something admirable in Sisyphus. Though he never seems to get it right (like The Tramp), he refuses to quit. Camus says that he imagines Sisyphus happy. I have seen with my own eyes that The Tramp IS happy. In a final act of blind un-reasoning optimism, The Tramp and his girl-friend walk away into the sunset in search of new ventures (and adventures). Their chosen path is right down the middle of an empty highway (desolate and empty as well as a blank canvas of hope). Their faces are turned to the future and, therefore hidden to us, but we KNOW that they are smiling.

SPOILERS! BEWARE!

"Roman Holiday" was a delightful little movie. It has a warmth and sweetness that still hold power 50 years after it's creation. At the same time, it's not exactly "Pollyana" either. Key moments are when the "naive little princess" smokes her first cigarette, drinks wine, sleeps (in the same room) with a complete stranger, passes out in the street, and gets in a brawl. This is truly the stuff of exploration and is still convincing today.

Probably one of "Roman Holiday's" most significant aspects is its surprisingly narrow scope. Despite its grand, cosmopolitan locale, "Roman Holiday" encompasses about a day and a half and its plot is basically what would've constituted one chapter in Tom Sawyer. (Protagonist climbs out of room under the cover of darkness, sees the sights, meets some interesting people, and then goes back home). This myopic focus is an important part of "Roman Holiday's" charm but also probably keeps it from being a perfect film.

Obviously, Audrey Hepburn, is a delight to watch. She manages to simultaneously be feminine and boyish, elegant and common, and flighty but grounded. Of course, these are characteristics that not only perfectly represented Princess Ann but remain a key element in Hepburn's acting whatever her role. Gregory Peck was good too. Some criticize the lack of chemistry between the two. I agree that things are a bit wooden romantically but their initial spark of interest coupled with fundamental incompatibility is a key part of the story (as it is in "Random Hearts" with Harrison Ford and Kristin Scott Thomas).

Finally, I really admired the "walk away" ending. Sure, it stung a little but it made sense and it was beautifully done as Peck walked through that elegant, cavernous room. It was good to remember that serendipitous "love" doesn't need sex or even marriage to validate it. Like the fleeting friendships established in "The Breakfast Club" some things, however special, aren't meant to last. That's part of what makes them so special. (How easy this is to say, but how hard to remember!)

Lucky for us though, Ann and Joe's little fling, can be revisited time and again in "Roman Holiday".

MILD SPOILERS!

I must confess that my initial interest in "Adam's Rib" was because, as I came across it in the library, I mistakenly thought that I'd seen it on AFI's top 100 list. When I got it home I realized that, while some other Cukor movies (and "All about Eve") were there, "Adam's Rib" was not. Of course I did watch it and think maybe it should've been. I truly enjoyed it!

It was funny, warm, interesting, turbulent. The dialogue between Adam and Amanda was up there with Tarantino's stuff. And some of those fights are just downright explosive! The unique relationship between the two is believable and fun to be a part of. There is chemistry and, above all else, mutual respect. It's such a relief that they reconcile at the end of the movie. (Vive la difference!)

Adam Bonner is appropriately goofy but it's clear that there is depth and intelligence beneath his bumbling, stuttering, dispeptic exterior. Amanda Bonner's strength may not be bombastic (with a few exceptions) but her resolve is adamantine. Sure, she may not make much of a fuss about it, but she's going to do what she needs to do, whatever the cost. Of course, this deeply exasperates her husband (almost ending their marriage) but this must also be what he loves so much about her. There is a sweetness and warmth to their marriage that perseveres through all the obstacles thrown in its path. Some of my favorite scenes (though a little frivolous) are the under-the-table courtroom scenes when they drop their pencils and flirt with each other. Kisses are blown, funny faces are exchanged, and Kate even flips her dress up at one point. OUCH!

Though not without imperfections, "Adam's Rib" is a a good, solid movie and I'm glad I made the mistake of watching it.

SPOILERS WITHIN! BEWARE!

Alright, I finally saw it and now I'm a believer! I thought it was terrific! It was well-acted, very interesting, and hilarious! The dialogue was amazing. Lightning fast and very clever. Everybody was good (except that fake-looking little "Hey Seen-yor" Mexican boy) but Walter Huston stole the show! Garrulous, squinty-eyed, and stubbly, he was crotchety but lovable (and loving too). Probably his best scene is when he's taunting Dobbs and Curtin about being so dumb "there's nothing to compare" them to and then doing his little "Eureka-shuffle". I burst out laughing. And I think that little dance (without music) must've been an influence on David Lynch.

Though technically not really a "crime caper" this movie follows and creates alot of the conventions of the genre. As the seeds of dissension and greed are growing, we know that at some point this partnership will dissolve and the s*** will hit the proverbial fan. Also, you can't have a crime caper without the good old camp-fire, "What're you gonna do with your share?" conversation. This is most recently reprised in "O Brother, Where art Thou?" (Why is it that, at heart, the true motivation for every criminal is to get some land and start a farm or to open a restaurant where everyone will have to call him "Sir"?)

Finally, this old classic has CAUTIONARY TALE emblazoned over every line. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I think Huston makes his message clear without being too preachy. At its core, "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" is a good-hearted celebration of the real treasures in life: friendship, love, and helping people out.

True to the format, we see the bad guy (or more accurately: the good guy turned bad guy) Fred C. Dobbs get his just desserts. After he shoots Curtin and leaves him for dead we get his little soliloquy on the peskiness of a conscience. Then, as he lays his head down, we see the camp-fire flames rise (the flames of a hellishly tormented conscience). Finally, after stumbling around miserably (in a very "Twilight Zone" fashion), Fred C. Dobbs gets his at the hand of the despicable, (and really creepy) Banditos. He is beaten, clobbered with a dirt-clod, hacked with machetes, and (more importantly) plundered. He may die with his boots on but, alas, he doesn't get to keep 'em.

And the good guys get the goods, right? Well, not exactly. In a painful-to-watch scene Walter and Curtin track down the stolen bags of gold (fruit of their months of labor) only to find that they've been emptied and blown away by a violent windstorm. (This reminds me of the end of "The Killing" where the suitcase full of money is blown away). Of course, their rewards (though only implied) are still forthcoming and, while less financial than they'd initially hoped for, they're still pretty dreamy. Walter will go to be the patron saint of a little Indian village where he will be adored, fed, massaged, and probably end up fatter than Colonel Kurtz in "Apocalypse Now". Curtin is going to deliver the news of Cody's death and hopefully slip right in as his surrogate. (Apparently Cody's wife rejecting a good, sturdy man isn't even a possibility).

In spite of its many peccadilloes (and often because of them) "The Treasure of Sierra Madre" has become one of my favorite movies and I look forward to watching it again soon!

BEWARE! SPOILERS HEREIN!

Sidney Lumet, director of "Guilty as Sin" is no stranger to tense thrillers. In his repertoire are classics like: "Network", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Murder on the Orient Express", "Serpico", and "12 Angry Men". (For fun I have to add that he also did the "The Wiz"!) And its writer, Larry Cohen, well, he did write "Q:The Winged Serpent". Hm...

I thought "Guilty as Sin" was fairly interesting. Primarily because I'm a die-hard "Miami Vice" fan, I've been meaning to see this for awhile. And, basically, it was exactly what I'd expected.

Don Johnson is actually pretty good. Though not without weak spots, his role as David Greenhill is fun to watch. He's devilishly cute and he knows it. I speak, naturally, of both Greenhill and Johnson. And, in truth, Don's not a bad actor. There's one terribly rewind-able scene where (while making a sandwich) he loses it and goes off on his lawyer. It's great! He's funny, chilling, pitiful, and scary all within one scene. The tiny (easy to miss) touch that just about did me in was this second-long blank look that he gets in his eyes as he's talking to Haines. It's just a tiny look away into nothing but it works! For just one terrifying moment, the coy composure is dropped and we see the killer beneath. Dead-eyed and inexplicable (like Jaws or Kathy Bates' Annie Wilkes). And, of course, it's just nice to finally hear Johnson utter that favorite word of killer's the world over, "F***". Even if it's just because, like all TV stars who get a chance on the big screen, he can.

Unfortunately, DeMornay doesn't give us much. She's too hard looking to pass as pretty and isn't that great an actress. For obvious reasons, this isn't a problem in "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" but since her role in "Guilty as Sin" is primarily to look scared while Don does his thing, she doesn't quite pull it off.

Furthermore, after the half-way point, the movie kind of winds down. Other than some shrewd evidence-planting by Haines there really isn't much to see here. Don Johnson's demise is mildly interesting but not quite climactic.

In summation, "Guilty as Sin", despite some highpoints, was, well...OKAY.

SPOILERS! BEWARE!

For the first thirty minutes, "Willow" isn't half-bad. The score is rousing. The premise is interesting. Who doesn't get stirred up by a little infanticide? The characters look good too. Willow Ulfgood is suitably doughty. His kids are adorable! Queen Bavmorda is a good harridan in the tradition of Morgana and Maleficent and Boorman's influence is apparent in the design of her henchmen's costumes (as well as their horse's get-up). The evil dog/wolf/rat/boar creatures are appropriately terrifying. And I really like Val Kilmer's first scene as Madmartigan. He's hilarious! A true scoundrel that makes Han Solo look like an acolyte. The scenery is exceptional. One scene in particular (as they are crossing a very high bridge) elicited from me and audible, "Wow!" The movie is full of cascading waterfalls, blood-red mountain sunsets, and moss-covered rocks. Much of it is simply beautiful. But, folks, despite a promising start, Willow, in its entirety, is downright bad.

Coinciding with (but not entirely the fault of) the introduction of the Brownies, it takes a dizzying nose dive from which it never recovers. The focus quickly goes from the epic to the banal. As in farts, bird crap, spit-up, love potions, and the inane chatter of the Brownies (which is supposed to be funny just because it's sped up). Ha ha. I don't know how much a hand Lucas had in the Brownies but here we see a characteristic Lucas weakness that is nowhere more blatant than here in "Willow". As talented as he is, Lucas' dealings with actual characters are regularly (and often mechanically) formulaic. You can sense that much of his humor initially looks something like this:

FUNNY-LOOKING CREATURE SAYS SOMETHING FUNNY IN FUNNY-SOUNDING VOICE...ALL LAUGH BOISTEROUSLY! THEN, BEFORE LAUGHTER COMPLETELY DIES DOWN, SOMEONE ELSE ALSO SAYS SOMETHING EVEN FUNNIER...

The obvious problem is that knowing when and where to put humor does not necessarily make one funny. Jar Jar Binks is a good example of how this desire to be funny isn't enough.

The movie gets a little better as it progresses and there are a few memorable moments before its (long-overdue) end. The bridge trolls are great! (But the moat monster is ridiculous, a far cry from "Return of the Jedi"s Rancor). The burgeoning love affair between Mat and Sorsha could've been worse but it's only mildly interesting. I don't know how excited I'd be about entering into a committed relationship with someone who, until a few hours before, was my sworn enemy and out to destroy the world. I like conversions (such as Darth Vader's eleventh hour repentance) but this one is nowhere near as careful, convincing, or even interesting.

The ending, where Willow rescues the "Chosen Child" from the clutches of the Evil Queen and interrupts her devilish rite is mildly interesting. Fortunately for the good guys, the ceremony for killing baby princess' is quite lengthy and Willow is able to rescue her just in the nick of time. To do so, he relies on an old stand-by: the old disappearing piglet (or baby) trick. Whew, was I relieved. I now knew that this would all soon be over! Surely my feat of endurance was at least as commendable as Willow Ulfgood's.

In cosing, I want to list some of the interesting parallels between "Willow" and "Star Wars". In fairness, these parallels are pointed out more out of novelty than actual criticism. It was about the only thing that kept me keepin' on through the last half. Though most are pretty obvious, I still found them somewhat interesting...

QUEEN BAVMORDA = Darth Vader and the Emperor. One of her first lines is "I want them alive!". This is very similar to one of Vader's first lines in Episode IV. Also, as she dies, she is lit up with blue-ish lightning and we even see her skull as we do with the Emperor in his last moments.

FIN RAZEL = Yoda. She is Willow's mentor. She is trying to get him to realize the magic inside of him despite his lack of faith. Also, like Yoda she is initially not much to look at (being a muskrat and all) and has trouble convincing the others that she is, in fact, a great teacher. Finally, (when she is finally returned to her human self) she is white haired and feeble and dies as Yoda did.

MATMARTIGAN = Han Solo. He is handsome, roguish, develops a crush on the indomitable female lead and (through much cajoling) eventually gets her. One of the first things said to Matmartigan in the movie is, "You serve no one." This is clearly similar to Han's insistence that he takes orders from no one but himself. Finally, just as does Han, Matmartigan (due to a variety of motives) eventually sees the emptiness of his solipcistic existence and joins the cause.

ERIC = Lando. Eric is a former associate of Matmartigan who's relationship to him is tenuous at best. In their first encounter, he recognizes Matmartigan but wishes him dead. He is also incredulous at Matmartigan's involvement with the good guys. "Since when are you a crusader?" he asks. Finally, he and Matmartigan are reconciled and he joins the cause as well.

So there you have it. Willow is not good but...it was produced by a really famous guy who did do some stuff that was.

MILD SPOILERS!

I really like this movie! I'm proud to own it (as well as "Silence of the Lambs") and find in it much to enjoy. That having been clarified, I'll say this: I definitely think it needs to be redone. I'm really looking forward to a new treatment. There is so much that was left out of the novel that another version (more true to the feel of the other two) could be terribly interesting. I want to see more about Dollarhyde's past. I want to see more about his evolution into the "Red Dragon". And I really want to see the scene where he goes to New York and eats the classic Blake painting! "Manhunter" (as its name surreptitiously implies) is so "Michael Mann"-ed out that the same movie by another director would be radically different. Furthermore, while I actually like it better than I like "Silence of the Lambs", I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's far superior (as some declare). In some ways it is and it's always fun to root for the underdog but, as a whole, Demme's "Silence of the Lambs" is probably a better work.

Unlike Mann's "Last of the Mohicans", "Manhunter" is pure Michael Mann. In "Mohicans", Mann deliberately strips himself of ALL that makes him the distinctive director that he is and shows us that, even without his usual bag of tricks, he's still pretty good. In sharp contrast, however, he pulls out all the stops in "Manhunter" and I love him for it!

Somehow he uses a story that would've naturally looked like the other two Lector movies and takes it in a radically different direction and...it works! "Silence" and "Hannibal" have cops in them but they are horror/psycho killer movies. "Manhunter", on the other hand, has psychotic murderers, but is definitely a cop movie. Consequently, it is tied to the other two about as much as Leo and Claire's "R+J" is tied to the usual Shakespearean treatments. It has everything that Mann used to make "Miami Vice" such a work of brilliance. It's got quirky, driving 80's rock combined with a moody, ambient score. It's got a quirky, moody "cop on the edge" (complete with five o'clock shadow). It's even got a cameo by MV's Michael Talbot (Agent Switek) and Dennis Farina (who made an appearance in a few MV episodes). As in "Miami Vice", we see the shaky juxtaposition of domestic life and the cop world and the nearly impossible struggle to hold onto both. Moments of domestic bliss (bathed in unrealistic but beautifully blue moonlight) are contrasted with wonderfully mundane scenes. One of these that really works well is when Agent Graham and his step-son shop for groceries and discuss his first encounter with Lector. And, of course, the whole movie is full of Mann's shockingly beautiful colours: deep greens, reds, pinks, blues, and whites). Hell, just for good measure, Mann even throws in some "white sand and green turtles" beach scenes for those of us whose lives still bear that "Miami Vice" shaped vacuum.

I also like Mann's treatment of Lector. He has chosen to give him an important but far-from-central role in the film. The choice to veer from this is what kills "Hannibal". Personally I like Brian Cox's (Rob Roy) leering, creepy Lector. No arguing that Hopkin's is excellent but everything that was wrong with "Hannibal" was right with "Manhunter". In it, Lector may be remarkably perceptive and resourceful but he's still a disgusting, slimy, depraved old man. He may be intriguing to us but he's clearly not worthy of adulation. Cox's Lector is, in this respect, radically more believable than the cultured, enlightened creation of Anthony Hopkins.

Tom Noonan, as Francis "Toothfairy" Dollarhyde, is pretty good too. I definitely like him more than the antagonist, Jame "Buffalo Bill" Gumb, of "Silence". In his own eerie, pitiable way he was able to provide the adequate amount of antagonistic focus that Gumb could not. Gumb is good for gross-outs and over-all creepiness but he is never quite scary. I think Dollarhyde is. He may not be as formidable a foe as Lector but he still presents a clear antagonist. (Be sure to note the "wings" of blood under his arms after he has been shot and killed. This is, apparently, as close as he will get to becoming the "Red Dragon" he believed he was metamorphasizing into.)

Sure, "Manhunter" has weaknesses. Graham's acting is sporadic. The scenes where he is getting riled up at the as-yet-unknown killer are a bit weak. ("You son of a b****! You wanted them to watch, didn't you?") Also, as much as I enjoy Mann, it's probably too stylized for its own good. It will not be as timeless as "Silence". The year it was made (1986) is just as much a part of its identity as the original work by Harris was. But for those of us who really liked 1986, I guess "Manhunter" will always be a favorite.

MILD SPOILERS!

After having seen some of this in my youth, I finally broke down and watched the whole thing recently. I was very impressed! I thought it was entertaining and even moving at times. I could see (retrospectively) how this seminal movie has influenced many of my favorites. (Dead Man Walking, Stand By Me, Apocalypse Now, etc.)

Oddly, while "African Queen" had a strong beginning and ending, it was its incredible MIDDLE that made it such a classic. It is in its middle sections that "African Queen" wins our hearts. Here we see Rose lose her annoyingly prim composure during a vicious bug attack. We watch Rose and Charlie's first kiss and see their initially awkward love blossom into something comfortable and natural.

And of course my favorite: the leech scene! We see the now indomitable Charlie enter the water to drag the Queen through the mud. Then, before long, we see his utterly believable discomfiture as he and Rose discover that he is covered in leeches.

(SNAKES:INDIANA JONES::LEECHES:CHARLIE ALLNUT)

And then, once they've all been salted off...Charlie resigns himself to get back in the water. Why? For his new-found love of country, self, and (most significant) Rose. At least that's what his scared but determined face seems to say.

In such scenes, our love for these characters grows as does theirs for each other. In the face of terror and pain and even specific phobias, the initially annoying personas are stripped away and we see Rose and Charlie in their truest forms: afraid and hurting. Yet, in spite of their weaknesses, they struggle onward. In this, they are TRUE HEROES. They are terrified and discouraged (far from the imperturbable Superman-types) and still they do the impossible (or the unnavigable as the case may be). These are my kind of heroes!

And, while the eleventh hour ending may be a bit far-fetched, we don't mind. These two have earned a victorious ending, however it is delivered!

MILD SPOILERS!

Billed by several of my friends as one of the worst movies ever made, "Random Hearts" beguiled me! I can understand why many didn't "get it" and don't think I'm any better for doing so, but I did get it!

"Random Hearts" is film NOIR. And, if it isn't, then it's heavily steeped in it. It's got all the key noir themes: deceit, suspicion, obsession, heartache, disillusionment, infidelity...You know the routine. True the usual trappings were gone: fedoras, steaming manhole covers, darkness, etc. And I think that because it was such an original treatment of the genre (even more genre-stretching than Chinatown and L.A. Confidential) that the link wasn't made for most and their response was, (at worst) "That sucked" and (at best) "Huh?" I guess what clued me in was the soundtrack. It was absolutely drenched (almost comically so) with classic noir motifs: sultry saxophone, tinkling piano, and the jazzy moan of fretless bass. Not that I actually like that stuff but I, at least, recognized it.

In its response to "Random Hearts" the American public has made their message clear to Harrison Ford (whether or not he cares). "DO NOT EXPERIMENT!" they clamor. "Don't even think about doing anything even slightly outside our box for you. Or else..." What they miss, of course, is one damn good performance. Of course, this isn't the first time Ford has played this type of role. Rick Deckard in "Blade Runner" was very similar and Rusty Sabich in "Presumed Innocent" was nearly identical. Sure, I love Indy and Han but I gotta admit that it's a bit of a relief to see that classic Ford hubris significantly muted (okay, completely eradicated) for these roles. As 'Dutch', Ford looks old, tired, and crushed. He plods through each scene and mutters his lines and, in the process, he makes pain look very real. He embodies it not so much in its "sturm und drang" but in its inertia and banality. In the process, he helps heal those of us who know too well what it's like to feel this kind of pain.

Those paying attention can see how well he had become this broken man in the final scene at the airport. Ford shows us (by way of contrast) a man who, having been given a bit of time, has begun to mend, to heal. Though subdued, we can see his hope returning. Pay close attention to his face as he watches Kristin Scott Thomas' character walk away. Amazingly, without really DOING anything, he embodies perfectly this still fragile but sanguine stage of the healing process. Though he doesn't actually tear up, there is a subtle shift in his face (and especially his eyes) and we know that he may be "on the mend" but that doesn't mean it doesn't still hurt sometimes.

Finally, K.S. Thomas was very believable as the tough but human Kay Chandler. Her stormy love affair with 'Dutch' was appropriately surreal, fragile and yet still tender and special. I love the scene in the cabin where (lying in bed together) they banter over politics. It's one of few light moments in a very humorless movie and works well as do so many other scenes.

I thought "Random Hearts" was classy, electric, and bewitching. I guess I can understand why others didn't like it but I definitely did!

MILD SPOILERS!

I must confess that I've not traditionally been a big fan of westerns (esp. black and white ones) or John Wayne for that matter. But last year "The Searchers" was forced upon me by a friend and my eyes were opened. Like most genres (sci-fi, horror, romantic comedies, etc.), Westerns are largely crap with a core of really wonderful movies. I just re-discovered another. Yes, I know I'm a little slow on the draw but I am now a fan of "Red River".

Sure, "Red River" is full of the things that I'd come to negatively associate with Westerns.

The hardly rousing men's chorus soundtrack may have fit at the time but it is one of the few things that has been left behind over the years.

And, or course, it's got manly men who don't take no for an answer and shoot those who insist on giving it to them.

Finally, it wouldn't be a classic western without caricatured "Indians". Not that this is a huge point of contention. Kind of hypocritical to go back and judge the past from my "enlightened present day" mindset.

Nevertheless, I was really impressed with so many aspects of "Red River".

It didn't just stand out amongst Westerns but amongst good movies of any kind.

The pacing was fast and well-done.

The action sequences were exciting (including a flaming arrow that flys right at you like the bullets in "Apocalypse Now")!

The characters were multi-faceted and the acting was notably good (esp. Wayne as Dunson). Dunson's character begins with heroic resolve and grit but due to weariness, stubbornness, and pure paranoia turns into a tyrannical Captain Ahab. This is early enough in Wayne's career that he hasn't completely become a caricature of himself. This is John Wayne playing Thomas Dunson not John Wayne playing John Wayne playing Dunson. Montgomery Clift as Matthew Garth is pretty good too.

Finally, the humor kept "Red River" from not taking itself too seriously. It was surprising how many of the scenes have retained their charm and made the transition to the new millenium. Especially those containing Groot the cantankerous old cook who had no qualms about telling the dreaded Dunson (to his face) that he was wrong and he knew it.

The one thing that held "Red River" back from being, basically, perfect was the hastily resolved, corny "chuck-on-the-shoulder" ending. I buy the reconciliation between Matt and Dunson. As believable as their estrangement was given the events and their personalities, reconciliation was closer to their true relationship than anger. I don't agree with those that wanted a bloody ending. What I didn't like was how exactly they were reconciled. One poorly-acted, slightly unintelligible rant by a lass (however winsome and gun-toting) isn't quite enough to turn these men into chuckling little boys. Surely this could've been better done.

However, its few limitations are far from keeping this gem from being memorable and excellent. I'm proud to consider myself a fan! (GRADE: A)

BEWARE, SPOILERS HEREIN!

Not horrible but not good. "Jeepers Creepers" is significantly better than the other Generation Y teen horror movies ("I Know What You Did Last Summer" and the like) but that doesn't make it good. It was OK. It basically was one of the lesser X-Files episodes stretched to an hour and a half instead of 45 minutes (that includes ads).

What I didn't like: the use of the theme song. There are much better uses of ironically upbeat oldies to induce fear and trembling. (Little Red Riding Hood in "Striking Distance"...) Especially when you find out that the underly-clever ending is tied in too closely with the song. I thought the ending was pretty worthless and I don't think it's because I have to have happy endings. By naming the movie after the disappointing last scene you sense that without the dumb ending there would've been no movie. It was clearly written backwards. "Okay, I want to do a movie where the last scene is this kid with his eyes ripped out and the song playing..." Kind of a slim premise.

Also, the psychic (very similar to the old black lady in "The Stand") was pretty unnecessary. Basically an even more annoying version of Tess from "Touched by an Angel".

What I did like: the two main actors (especially the kid from "Ed"). Though not incredible, they had a little depth and were chosen for more than just their pretty faces. I also appreciated he lack of CGI. I think that some of the special effects that looked fake looked that way because the corpses were supposed to have been petrified in some way. The Karate-like flips that our antagonist manages when avoiding getting run over were cool. Finally, the show-down in the police station was pretty intense. (Especially the de-hearted police officer with light shining through him).

All in all, until the lame end, "Jeepers" kept my interest but I will probably never see it again.

SPOILER ALERT!

Okay, I kinda liked it. True, it was slow but it was interesting. Note, however, while interesting, it was not even remotely scary...at all. And believe me, I did what I could to talk myself into being scared but to no avail. I did, however, jump once when a door slammed. GEE! Had to admire the restraint that characterized the movie (in comparison with many of the other contemporary horror/thrillers) but might've hoped for a little more of "the good stuff."

Kinda liked the theme that life is a little more complex than we think and will continue to defy our little systems of thought with which we try to pin it down. I also liked the fact that the message was given gently. Grace's religion and parental stringency were shown sympathetically. Nevertheless, while useful and helpful we saw that they were inadequate to explain EVERYTHING.

Once again, this movie (like many others) was completely reliant on its "twist ending" to validate it. I really don't like that. A good twist should deepen things and give you that little "more than you bargained for" bonus. When it becomes the only point of the film, it ceases to function as it was intended. This is especially so with "The Others". The two twists: a) Omigosh, the cleaning crew are really ghosts! and b) Omigosh, the family is really ghosts! were pretty lame. Perhaps had they beaten "Sixth Sense" to the screen they might've worked but THEY DIDN'T. The only reason I hadn't already figured it all out as I watched was because I thought, "No, they wouldn't be that dumb." They were though.

Okay, finally, in order to end positively, I'll say this: The post-mortem photos were great. Having already read about these in Clive Barker's A-Zs of Horror I thought their film treatment was appropriately eerie. As Grace said, "How macabre."

So, in summation, I'm glad I saw it but I will probably never watch it again.

BEWARE! SPOILERS WITHIN! Also, some of this material (like the movie itself) is for adults only.

Rob Roy is a very good movie! The music, the acting, the dialogue, the cinematography are all suburb.

However, there is one reason that Rob Roy will not be a personal favorite. Simply put, the bad stuff outweighs the good stuff in terms of overall impact. Despite the victorious ending, the harsh stuff will stay with me long after the rest. Granted, I think this is intentional. (This is, after all, the man who brought us "This Boy's Life".) And, truth be told, the oppression of the powerless shouldn't be easy to stomach. Nevertheless, (and I have a pretty strong stomach for this stuff) "Rob Roy" is too harsh for me.

The rape scene, as you've probably heard, is one of the most disturbing scenes I've ever seen. Another scene that I found pretty gross was when Brian Cox felt up Cunningham's lover and held his visibly slimy fingers under Cunningham's sleeping nose. I really didn't need to see that.

Nevertheless, the movie is pretty brilliant. The love between Mary and Rob is very believable and very touching. The scene where the young man who was supposed to keep watch over the Roy family is crying and yelling after the retreating enemies is particularly poignant (especially when he realizes just how severe their attack was). His reaction to Mary's pain tears your heart out. As is the case throughout the film, you really don't feel like you're watching actors. This is all very real. And Tim Roth? Unbelievably convincing in his role as the degenerate but ruthless antagonist. His effeminate simpering and whimpering are nothing less than chilling. Quite an indictment of the aristocracy of the time (as well as of ours).

Also the action, though sparse, (esp. in comparison to "Braveheart") is pretty amazing! The scene when Rob loops his rope around Cunningham and jumps over the bridge is one that should go down in film history. Less breathtaking but equally memorable is the end of the final duel where Rob grabs Cunningham's sword in his bare hand to win.

It's hard to imagine Rob Roy any differently than it is. As I think, "I wish this was toned down or that was different" I am reminded of the scene in "Amadeus" where Tom Hulce asks how you expurgate a perfect work. Nevertheless, Rob Roy will be for me (like "Clockwork Orange") one of those movies that I think are incredibly memorable but will probably never make their way into my home video library.

SPOILER ALERT!

NOTE: After the first 30 minutes of the movie I was planning on titling this: I LIKED IT, SO SUE ME! Then I finished it. My zeal was misplaced.

Okay, yes it was crappy but I still thought it (until the end) was interesting. The mansion (Hill House) rivals The Hotel Overlook as one of the best horror movie set pieces ever used. It was absolutely beautiful (inside and out). Spiral staircases, grotesque carvings, hidden passageways, and clinging vines. It's got it all!

The premise (though not original) is interesting. I love haunted houses and this one's definitely haunted! However the whole `save-our-trapped-souls-the-mean-man-is-still-being-mean-to-us-beyond-the-gr ave' thing is pretty dumb theologically. I'm at least interested in the idea of trapped souls who aren't ready to move on (What Dreams May Come) or trapped souls who can't until they've righted their wrongs but souls that are trapped simply because they'd been abused? It's the kind of stuff that is only dreamed up so some doe-eyed heroine can free them from their never ending torture.

Liam was kinda wasted here. Someone with much less ability would've done just fine. Catherine ZG was her usual cute but annoying self. Owen Wilson was his usual adorably droll self (until his pointless beheading). Lili Taylor is her usual endearingly disturbed self (ala Household Saints).

While there were some genuinely scary parts (Nel's face distorting in the mirror) most of the movie was pretty eventless as far as thrills and chills. This fits more into the spooky category than actually scary.

Finally, for the most part, the CGI was dreadful. I do think that it can be used well but, frankly, I'm sick of it. We used to call something that looked fake, `wooden'. Then we said it looked `plastic'. Now CGI has taken fake to a new low. Most of it looks like it's dipped in mercury. The faces in the drapery were particularly annoying. And am I the only one that can spot CGI breath mist from a mile away? Perhaps actually freezing a room (Exorcist) is a little archaic but it definitely looked better. As is the case with many other new movies, you can tell that the makers were assuring each other, `Okay, I know it sounds dumb on paper but just wait'll the computer guys get to it.' Once again, their blind faith was misplaced.

In conclusion, I'm glad I saw it. (if only to see my beloved Owen Wilson). Visually it was pretty opulent. But I wouldn't recommend it.