M

Mad Max (1979) (**1/2, sci fi, action) (D.- George Miller; Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne, Steve Bisley, Tim Burns, Roger Ward) One of the top grossing foreign films that introduced Mel Gibson to Americans. Following the destruction of world order by an oil crisis, Gibson is a police officer driving a supercharged screaming hunk of metal to help keep the lid on the road gangs as Australia slowly sinks into anarchy. The plot isn't much, but Gibson makes a calmly lethal angel of death. His handling of the last biker is a truly nasty piece of work.

I don't think much of it overall. The plot is minimal and the acting is not very good. The villains, key to a good thriller, are weak. They are generally, low sniveling brutes who depend on numbers to terrorize the weak, but crumble in the face of a real threat. Not so in the sequel Road Warrior where the villains have strong codes of immorality and die for them.

Mad Max gets such high marks because someone had the genius to see those elements that could be extracted and forged into the superb Road Warrior. First and foremost, Mad Max has some of the most spectacular chases and crashes put on film.

Mad Max also gets good marks on adrenaline rushes; even though they are sporadic they deliver real bodyblows when they hit. As the whine of the super chargers and the scream of the V-8s drown out everything else, the dashed white line becomes continuous, and the telephone poles form picket fences, it was easy for my world to shrink to that stretch of black asphalt out the front window. (6-12-95) Beginning

Magic (1978) (**1/2, horror, thriller) (D.-Richard Attenborough, Anthony Hopkins, Ann-Margret, Burgess Meredith, David Ogden Stiers, Ed Lauter, E.J. Andre) At Willoughby. A barely recognizable Hopkins is Corky, an introverted Catskill entertainer who is successful only because of his raunchy, witty dummy. Don't go for the plot; it has been handled much better elsewhere. The same applies to the other actors as they are totally overshadowed by the electric Hopkins. I found Hopkins absolutely mesmerizing as both the ventriloquist and the voice of his altered ego, the dummy. The dialogue between the "two" set my teeth on edge, and never has a smiling piece of wood appeared so cognizant of its surroundings and so sinister. A must see for Hopkins' fans. Hopkins is a superb mimic, and people working with him have learned never to respond to someone talking to them until they see the speaker; Hopkins has a disturbing tendency to come up behind people and start a conversation using someone else's voice. (4-12-94) Beginning

The Manchurian Candidate (2004)(***, suspense) (9-9-04) (D- Jonathan Demme; Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, Liev Schreiber, Kimberly Elise, Vera Farmiga, Jon Voight) The original 1962 classic Manchurian Candidate was a masterful blend of cold war paranoia, suspense, and black humor. The updated remake replaces the communists with a much more timely evil empire, but the outlines are the same. Political infiltration by brain washing. Raymond Shaw is a decorated Gulf War veteran who single handedly saved most of his platoon from an Iraqi ambush. Or so everyone remembers, including Raymond and his commanding office Ben Marco (Washington). Only those nasty nightmares keep coming back to all the survivors (and their number is steadily decreasing).

Under the astute and ruthless manipulation of his senator-mother (Streep) and corporate handlers, Raymond is about to become a newly nominated vice president on a sure to win ticket. All of this will lead to the culmination of a multifaceted nightmare at the convention.

If you saw the original, I don’t need to give you further details, although there are enough twists to keep you guessing up to the end. If you didn’t, I don’t want to spoil your discovery.

The acting is excellent. Streep wisely reinterprets Landsbury’s mother, but is every bit as chilling in a more methodical matter of fact manner. Here is a woman who can and will do what needs to be done – Period! Schreiber and Washington do excellent jobs as the haunted survivors of the battle, torn between their memories and their nightmares. As with the original, the interpretation of Shaw is critical to the success of the film, and in both films you are genuinely sympathetic to him and yet repulsed. Washington’s Marco is not an overly likable character, but again you can sympathize with a man whose nightmares would drive all but the most stable to an insane asylum.

I do miss the garden party scene and the cards from the original. However, the current film’s culminating convention sequence verges on an orgiastic frenzy that left me stunned.

I think the film uses too many twists for its own good, and the end is too Hollywoodish. However, on the whole it succeeds well as a taut, well paced little paranoiac thriller. Beginning

Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The (1962) (**1/2, Western) (4-08-02) (D.-John Ford; James Stewart, John Wayne, Vera Miles, Lee Marvin, Edmond O'Brien, Andy Devine, Woody Strode, Jeanette Nolan, Ken Murray, John Qualen, Strother Martin, Lee Van Cleef, John Carradine) Solid, entertaining story of tenderfoot lawyer (Stewart) who goes west to make his fortune and runs afoul of brutal thug (to call him an outlaw would be a disservice to the term) Liberty Valance (Marvin). The story is told in flashbacks as the lawyer and wife return years later for the funeral of tough guy and friend Wayne. The story reminds us of why we can take something for granted too long in life and lose it and how things may not always be what we think they are. Marvin is superb as the sadist who controls others by fear and sheer force of will power. Nicely atmospheric of the rustic pioneer environment. The story strays a bit far from its roots with the political convention, but it is entertaining in that one can believe that it really was like that before law and order took control. Beginning

Man Who Wasn't There, The (2001) (***, film noir,crime) (12-17-01) (DW.-Joel and Ethan Coen; (R) Billy Bob Thornton, Frances McDormand, Michael Badalucco, James Gandolfini, Scarlett Johansson) The Coen Brothers never do anything that isn’t worth watching. Man is no exception. Elegantly crafted. Done in black and white with shadows and images so sharp you could shave with them. Classic noir about a man who, in a moment of weakness, succeeds in destroying everything. But not necessarily in the way or for the reasons you would expect. Ed (Thornton) is a barber in a small town. He exists—barely. He has the personality of a praying mantis. His customers don’t notice him. His wife Doris (McDormand) tolerates him. He makes one attempt to make his existence known, with catastophic consequences which, as he tries to correct them only digs the pit to hell deeper. However, he is so bland, so neutral, that the impact on him barely rises above a few facial or body movements. The acting is excellent with Thornton managing to project ever so much with so little. The cinematography stellar. Man is built on all the classic noir images, conventions, and story lines. Why only three stars? For me, the film was too cold, too sterile. I never developed any empathy or interest in the fates of any of the characters. Classic noir may have been done cheap and dirty, but it invariably left you with some feelings for the characters. For me, Man succeeds too well at its clinical antiseptic goal. I never warmed to anyone. I should say that my wife enjoyed the film more than I did. I stress that the film has many positive features, but it never rises to one of the Coen classics. Beginning

Man Who Would Be King, The (1975) (****, action, war) (1-3-00) (D.-John Huston; Sean Connery, Michael Caine, Christopher Plummer, Saeed Jaffrey, Shakira Caine) Based, apparently rather faithfully, on Rudyard Kipling's story of the same name. Top drawer entertainment in the grand old style. It is the age of empire. India is stabilized and two ex-soldiers who help stabilize it, Danny Dravot (Connery) and Peachy Carnahan (Caine), feel it is time that they get their share. They have swindled, conned, and robbed their way across Indian having a grand old time. But their big score will come when they manage to get to isolated Kafiristan. With their military experience and a little more, they plan to conquer the realm and set themselves up as the rulers. And they are more than willing to die trying. They are even willing to give up far more important things as their contract, signed by Kipling himself (well played by Plummer), attests.

The trek is magnificent, the conquest believable, and the outcome inevitable--we even know the end from the beginning, just not how and why. However, what makes this a great movie is the superb portrayal of the two and their camaraderie. These men have fought and nearly died together for years. They are so finely attuned to each other's thoughts and actions that they can complete the other's sentences or actions. The film abounds with great scenes by the two. One of my favorites is when they are called scum and Peachy recites a monologue on why they are actually great scum, and then they boldly march out. Another is as they lay dying in a snow field going over their less than stellar lives.

The film nearly wasn't made. Huston wanted Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable to play the leads, but when Bogart died, Huston shelved the project for about 25 years. Serendipity! While Gable could have managed the cheeky Peachy, but not with the flare of Caine, Bogart would have been terribly cast for the other pivitol role. I cannot image two better actors for the part, living or dead, who could have done such a suberb job. They are pure pleasure to watch.

As for insider details, the film was shot largely in Morocco with France for the great mountains. However, much to my surprise, Morocco has some pretty impressive snow covered mountains of its own. The beautiful Roxanne was Caine's wife. The high priest was a 100 year old (101 by the time the film was finished) night watchman from a local villa. He could barely drag himself through the shooting until someone realized he was doing the movie in the day and the night watchman's job at night. Now the most unbelievable point. That is actually Connery taking a 75 foot plunge at the end. The DVD shows the details.

This is a grand film, filled with action, pageantry, humor, and scenery. It is delightful story telling. It even has plenty of opportunity for post mortem discussion over what was done wrong, right, and the characters themselves. In short, great entertainment.

Review based on the letterboxed DVD. It is clear by comparing the unletterboxed trailers and other shots how much is missed by watching the film in the standard TV format. So my recommendation is to view the DVD. Beginning

M*A*S*H (1970) (***1/2, black humor, drama, war) (4-01-02) (D.-Robert Altman; W.- Richard Hooker (novel), Ring Lardner Jr.; Donald Sutherland, Elliott Gould, Tom Skerritt, Sally Kellerman, Robert Duvall, Rene Auberjonois, David Arkin, Gary Burghoff, Fred Williamson) Classic Altman film on the insanity of war and the psychological coping mechanism of a group of doctors and nurses in a Mobil Army Surgical Hospital (MASH) during the Korean War. The film episodically follows the escapades of Drs. Captain Benjamin Franklin 'Hawkeye' Pierce, Chief Surgeon Captain John Francis Xavier 'Trapper John' McIntyre, and Captain Augustus Bedford 'Duke' Forrest, chief Nurse Major Margaret 'Hot Lips' O'Houlihan (Kellerman), nurse Lieutenant Maria Schneider, 'Lieutenant Dish' (Pflug), nearly psychic aide Corporal Walter 'Radar' O'Reilly (Burghoff), Father John Patrick 'Dago Red' Mulcahy (Auberjonois), and Staff Sergeant Vollmer/P.A. Announcer (Arkin). How do you stay sane when you live continually seeing the youngest and best of your generation reduced to shredded meat and cannot save all of them?

One line sums up the film: “This isn’t a hospital, it is an insane asylum!” Unfortunately, the same phrase applies to war in general. The film is satirical, irreverent, and deeply black humored. The humor and practical jokes frequently have nasty edges, but I have no doubt that under the circumstances, this is normal. Altman and the cast vigorously considered the film anti-Vietnam, a war that was going full tilt at the time. In this regard, I do not feel that it succeeded. It was antiwar in that it recognized that war in general was degrading and highly destructive of our basic humanity, but not in terms of making a political statement about the morality of the Vietnam War specifically. I think this is an advantage because it makes the film more timeless and less strongly coupled to a specific incident in our history. In terms of trying to couple it to Vietnam, Altman had no references whatsoever to Korea, but the studio insisted on inserting an opening statement about the Korean War.

By 1970 standards, MASH was both bloody and very anti-establishment. Blood and gore everywhere with surgeons up to their elbows in bodies. By current standards, it would probably rate a hard PG-13. However, for the time the film was extraordinarily controversial. As Altman said MASH wasn’t released by the studios, it escaped. The studio was busy with two big ticket films (Patton and Tora! Tora! Tora!) and wasn’t paying attention to what was going on in the back lot—literally, since Altman was filming on the studios’ back lot where Westerns were traditionally made. Altman helped keep it that way by being very low profile and keeping everything under budget and ahead of schedule. When it came time to release the film, the studio was appalled at the blood in the operating scenes and wanted it all removed. Altman fought tooth and nail over this arguing that without the blood, the film was just another sterile war comedy with no coupling to reality; he ultimately won the argument. Also, the combination of the blood and the first use of the F word in a big studio release film earned the film an x-rating. Again arguing that this was a genuinely artistic film and this was essential to the story they were ultimately able to get an R rating.

The film had a surgeon as a consultant, and all of the operating scenes that you saw were realistic. Indeed, the doctor would insert various objects in the “patients” that the “surgeons” would discover during the operations. The cast was largely made up of actors from the San Francisco improv acting troupe. Since each of them wanted to have at least one line, Altman kept altering the film to include a line or two for each. In keeping with the acting troupe, most of the film is improv and virtually none of the writer’s dialogue survives intact in the film. Lardner was furious with Altman but not with the Oscar. However, Altman credits Lardner with the structure for the film and felt that he justly deserved the Oscar for best screen play; his brutal backdrop for the film made it in Altman’s eyes.

Kellerman was extremely nervous about her nude scene. In fact on the first take when the tarp came up she was already hugging the floor. To give her moral support, Burghoff was sitting beside the camera buck-naked when the tarp came up. Auberjonois patterned the priest after a man he knew who entered the priesthood. Sutherland and Gould were so frustrated with Altman’s direction of the film they tried to get him fired. Only when they realized where it was really going did they appreciate the bizarre logic. On the first screening Altman realized the film lacked a connective thread. So they added the P.A. announcements, which supply a superb thread of illogic throughout the film. And all the announcements are based on actual announcements. In the football game, those are really professionals on the opposing team. In reality John Schuck made a fabulously offensive remark to one of the opposing linemen; we get to see the result of this little insult. As Schuck says, he had never been hit so hard in his life.

Review based on the excellent DVD with tons of supplementary material including a director’s voice over. My recommendation is to skip the voice over. Altman makes only sporadic comments and virtually all of the information is included in a more accessible format in other supplementary material. This includes a commentary, a very fine documentary on MASH units with interviews with actual MASH doctors, and a making of.

M*A*S*H was later turned into a extremely successful TV show that ran 11 seasons or four times longer than the Korean War. The only actor who went to the TV show was Burghoff who continued his role as the psychic aide. The song from the movie was used for the show, but I don’t believe they used the words that are irreverent to say the least. Beginning

Mask of Dimitrios, The (1944) (***, crime, classic) (8-2-99) (D.-Jean Negulesco; Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Zachary Scott, Faye Emerson, Victor Francen, George Tobias, Steven Geray, Eduardo Ciannelli, Florence Bates) Offbeat little film about milquetoast mystery writer (Lorre--in a very uncharacteristic role) who sets out to learn more about the notorious spy, womanizer, and murderer Dimitrios, whose bloated body washed up on the Turkish shores. Lorre turns out not to be the only one interested in Dimitrios, and real life proves a bit more complex and dangerous than a mystery novel. The tale evolves as Lorre questions various people who were victimized by Dimitrios (Scott) as he cut a swath across much of Europe over a 20-year period. Scott is strikingly handsome with intense eyes, and one can easily see him charming others. He was also a film newcomer. It was very difficult to get a young leading man since most were serving in the armed forces. Lorre and Greenstreet, who were close friends in real life, play enjoyably off of each other. And you will get echoes of The Maltese Falcon in Greenstreet's performance. Beginning

Matchmaker, The (1998) (***1/2, humor) (4-26-99) (D.-Mark Joffe; Janeane Garofalo, David O'Hara, Jay O. Sanders, Denis Leary, Milo O'Shea) Charmingly little romantic comedy that delights with its humanism and has enough sense to neither take itself too seriously nor over stay its welcome. Marcy (Garofalo) is a senior aide to vacuous Senator McGlory (Sanders). His reelection compaign is not going well, and he sends Marcy to his ancestral home of Ballinagra, Ireland to learn of his family's august past and round up some great political shots for the election. For a serious type A, Big City person, this assignment is roughly equivalent to a stint in the Eighth Circle of Hell. And that is even before she discovers she has arrived in the middle of a matchmaker's festival. Housing is nonexistent and the old pros are working at matching every available man or woman. The search for history is not going well, but she does manage to attract the unwanted attention of two handsome brothers, Sean (O'Hara) and Nick which leads to the inevitable conflict and resolution.

Films like this succeed on the basis of chemistry and style. O'Hara and Garofalo are great and have perfect chemistry, which is beautifully illuminated by the clash of her brusque, business-like take-no-prisoners style and the laid back charming environment and character of the locals.

Dermot (O'Shea) is fabulous as a matchmaker and owner of a local tanning salon. Matchmaking is big business here and no one said it was completely ethical. His final scene is perfect.

Droll humor, some slapstick, magnificent locations and believable chemistry make this a delightful diversion. Beginning

Maltese Falcon aka Dangerous Female, The (1931) (***1/2, drama, crime) (12-26-03) (D.-Roy Del Ruth; Bebe Daniels, Ricardo Cortez, Dudley Digges, Robert Elliott, Thelma Todd, Una Merkel, Dwight Frye) The first of three film versions based on a Dashiell Hammett novel including the 1936 Satan Met a Lady and the definitive 1941 The Maltese Falcon. Sam Spade (Cortez) is a sleazy little private detective in the not so illustrious firm of Spade and Archer. A babe in distress named Miss Wonderley, a little larceny, a little adultery, a little murder, more double crosses than a tic-tac-toe game, everyone vying for the little bauble, the Maltese Falcon, stir well and you have this little gem. If it hadn’t been for John Huston’s 1941 version with Bogart as Sam Spade, Female would still be widely seen and admired. It is a faithful adaptation of the novel with as scurvy a crew of criminal, low lifes, and dregs as you will find anywhere in film. Sam Spade only marginally holds the high ground with his desire to get revenge for his partner as probably his one redeeming characteristic, although the reason is not especially admirable. This version is pre-code with more explicit sexual innuendos and skin than the later versions.

What makes the Huston version the classic is not that Huston’s characters are any more moral or likable. They aren’t. But they do slum with more style than in the ‘31 version.

For film aficionados, Frye, of Dracula and Frankenstein, plays the gunsel, Wilmer. Again we are treated to a study in deviant psychology.

The only real weakness of the ‘31 version is the tacked on, distressingly soap opera Hollywood ending. The three films make an interesting study in style and focus. The first two are unfortunately hard to get, but do show occasionally on Turner Classic Movies. Review based on an excellent copy shown recently on TCM. Beginning

Maltese Falcon, The (1941) (****, detective, mystery, noir) (D.- John Huston, Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Ward Bond, Gladys George) "The stuff of dreams." The quintessential hard boiled film noir detective film against which all others are judged. If you only saw this when you were young, go back and check it out. Nasty, richly black humoured story based on Dashiell Hammett's novel. Stunning visuals, crisp editing, snappy dialogue, unforgettable characters, and still fascinating storyline. San Francisco private eye Sam Spade (Bogart) searches for the priceless, jeweled Maltese Falcon. Spade is not so loosely based on Hammett himself and many of the principals had counterparts in real life. A stunning cast of self serving, rapacious, opportunitistic dregs of society stand between Bogie and the treasure. If asked if they would sell their mother, they'd haggle over the price and who pays delivery charges. Spade, with the morals of an alley cat, only marginally holds the high ground. On learning of the death of his partner, his first official act is to order all signs changed from Spade and Archer to Samuel Spade while trying now to avoid the amorous grieving widow. Greenstreet in his first movie is priceless as the Fat Man. His characteristic "by gads" was a replacement for the original "by God' to placate the censors.

The one unsatisfying and completely unbelievable element (which deviates from the book) is the introduction of the "love" word at the end. However, this softening of Spade's character has been credited with giving Spade much more appeal and making for a box office success that would not otherwise have been realized had his despicable character been maintained. I think that modern audiences would find the book's harder-edged character more acceptable.

Scripted by Huston who had been a studio writer, this was his first directoral effort. The ever tight Jack Warner gave Huston only 6 weeks and no more than $300,000 for the movie--or discover the joys of unemployment. For good luck Huston's father had an unbilled (and unpaid at Warner's insistence) part as Captain Jacobi. Planning to make the most of his opportunity, Huston left nothing to chance. Every scene was immaculately laid out beforehand by Huston himself. The effort paid off and the movie came in early. Falcon was Bogart's first major role and established him as a major talent. This is the third version after the 1931 The Maltese Falcon and the 1936 Satan Met a Lady . As an aside the alleged outtake of Bogart with the Falcon in Microsoft's Cinemania isn't in the movie and must be a press release or marquee poster. (3-27-94)

The action is supposed to takes place in San Francisco. Too bad the ship fire seems to be in Los Angeles. (10-25-93) Beginning

Man Bites Dog (1992): (**1/2, drama) (Directors: Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel, and Benoit Poelvoorde. Cast: Jacqueline Poelvoorde Pappaert, Benoit Poelvoorde, Nelly Pappaert, Hector Pappaert, Jenny Drye) In French with subtitles. Available at Sneak Reviews. A strange, highly controversial movie of a film crew making a first-hand documentary about a serial killer. Shot in cinéma vérité (an up close and personal documentary style where the cinema team typically has only a camera man, a sound man, and an interviewer). What we see on the screen is simultaneously the making of the film and the final film itself. Belvaux and Bonzel are their own interviewer and camera man. They don't even bother to use theatrical names. The other codirector Poelvoorde plays the ruthless robber who doesn't like to leave witnesses, and loves to recite poetry and expound on philosophy. The film team and killer feed on each other like blood-crazed sharks, and the division between observer and active participant narrows. With each killing the bond between the killer and the crew grows, and they eventually become as inseparable as Siamese twins joined at the heart and the brain. Who is instigator? Who is follower? Deeply black humoured and a scathing indictment of the sick trend in interview TV and make-it-yourself videos that increasingly pollute prime and daytime TV. It takes little imagination to see Man Bites Dog as tomorrow's TV movie or Geraldo. I thought about the first two-thirds was very good, but then it lost focus. Finally, the VERY end had a suitably nasty believable edge. Judging from the list of characters, this was probably very much a family operation, and some of the interviews and other scenes were probably real and not staged. (6-20-94) Beginning

Manchurian Candidate The (1962) (****, spy, thriller) (D.-John Frankenheimer, Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, Janet Leigh, Angela Lansbury, Henry Silva, James Gregory, John McGiver, Leslie Parrish, Khigh Deigh) B/W Black humored with enough paranoia to keep you looking over your shoulder for weeks. Based on Richard Condon's novel. As jarring and discordant as a Dali painting with abrupt switches between realism, symbolism, and surrealism that constantly keeps you off balance. Soldiers captured during the Korean war are brain washed to prepare one of their group as an assassin who can be triggered at appropriate times by his control in the US. Harvey is truly believable as the killer who has no recollection of his actions but is nevertheless being haunted, and overwhelmed, by what his subconscious is doing. Sinatra, another member of the captured squad, begins to have shattering nightmares that start to break his programming and he slowly realizes what is going on. Can he figure out what Harvey is about to do and can he stop it? Lansbury is Harvey's megalomaniacal mother who will stop at nothing to further her son's and her McCarthy-like husband's careers; I personally found her performance too over the top, but others really like it. The ending is dated, but the getting there is as unpredictable as a canoe plunging through Class V rapids. To whet your appetite: I will NEVER again be able to look at a woman's garden party without feeling like both laughing and cringing. Candidate was released at the wrong time and turned out to strike much too close to home; it was pulled after the Kennedy assassination and was only released again in 1987. Unsettling with a nasty edge of politcal commentary. (7-11-94) Beginning

Man From Laramie, The (1955) (***, Western) (3-20-00) (D.-Anthony Mann; James Stewart, Arthur Kennedy, Donald Crisp, Cathy O'Donnell, Alex Nicol, Aline MacMahon, Wallace Ford) This is one of the parts used to give a much harder edge to Stewart’s persona. A classic Western built around Will Lockhart (Stewart) seeking revenge for the death of his brother. His welcome to the town is not warm. The town and everything around is owned by the Waggoman patriarch Alec (Crisp) who rules with an iron hand, but cannot control his own son. Vic (Kennedy) is his second in command and has an understanding with Barbara (O’Donnell). This precariously balanced rock is sent crashing by Stewart’s appearance. Little is as it seems as alliances shift and the nature of the situation is slowly revealed.

The acting is good. Stewart is driven, edgy, but not super hard edged. Nicol is good as the weak, self-centered son. Crisp is fine as the man who has conquered all obstacles in his rise to power, but sees the future of all that he has worked for in jeopardy. Ultimately, he may get what he deserves, although whether he will ever appreciate this is unclear. However, the real kudos go to Kennedy who gives a superb and complex performance. Vic clawed his way up and has had every reason to believe all is in his reach, and we get to watch his frantic actions to salvage all that he has worked for. The Western cinematography and staging is superb, as you would expect from Anthony Mann.

When I watched the film, I didn’t see how they could have substituted a double for Stewart when he was pulled through the campfire. I was right. Stewart insisted that he do it over the objections of Mann. Fortunately, only one take was required. Review based on fine letter boxed copy shown on TCM. Beginning

Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993) (**1/2, comedy, crime) (D.-Woody Allen; Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Alan Alda, Anjelica Huston, Jerry Adler, Lynn Cohen, Joy Behar) Featherweight, but entertaining throwback to Allen's funnier days. Allen and Keaton are a married couple who meet their charming elderly neighbors. Within hours the neighbor's wife dies from a "heart attack" even though she had seemed at the pinnacle of health. Keaton, with a well honed sense of paranoia and egged on by good friend (Alda), suspects a more sinister demise. Allen is his traditional "Let's not get involved. Someone might get hurt. Us!" persona. The two bounce off of each of other like a pair of demented super balls. Keaton and, ultimately, Allen are drawn deeper into the quagmire as they try to follow up on why the charming widower shows so little sadness at the unexpected demise of his loving partner. The film plays with any number of classic films about the dangers of curiosity and excessive meddling that set the stage for increasing deeper and more threatening involvement. Many classic Allen lines such as "There's nothing wrong with you that a little Prozac and a big polo mallet wouldn't cure". The frenetic pace and neurosis-inducing environment reminds me yet again of why I like small town living. The ending is a beautiful take off and tribute to the spectacular hall of mirrors scene in The Lady From Shanghai.

Continuity error: From the first meeting we know that Keaton cannot see either the neighbor's apartment or the elevator from her apartment yet, later she manages to see both. (12-11-95) Beginning

Manhunter (1986) (****, crime, psycho thriller) (D.- Michael Mann; William L. Petersen, Kim Greist, Joan Allen, Brian Cox, Dennis Farina, Stephen Lang, Tom Noonan) This is the outstanding prequel to Silence of the Lambs (1991). It is classic Mann with breathtaking integration of music and visual imagery. The FBI agent-hunter is one truly disturbed individual. No explicit violence except for about 15 seconds in the middle and at the very end--nevertheless, absolutely electrifying suspense. The original Lector (Brian Cox) is every bit the personification of evil that Anthony Hopkins portrays in "Silence..". We rarely buy movie sound tracks, but we went out and got Manhunter's the next day. Subsequently, we could not hear the music without the strongest visual images from the movie flooding our minds. For example, the climactic final confrontation is orchestrated to Iron Butterfly's "In Goddadavida"--even for the Motley Crue generation this piece still sounds great. If you accidentally saw the butchered, absolutely incomprehensible TV version Red Dragon, go rent the REAL thing. Also, read Thomas Harris' book Red Dragon for a real roller coaster ride; it will not affect your movie enjoyment. [Footnote: An appropriate reference is from Nietszche "Whoever fights the monster should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you." "Whoever Fights the Monster" (St. Martin Press) by Robert Ressler who coined the term serial killers, cofounder of FBI psychological profiling program--made famous in Silence.] Beginning

Manhunter DVD. (9-30-02) The deluxe DVD has two disks. One contains the original theatrical release and the second the director’s cut, interviews with the actors, and an interview with the cinematographer. We have a copy of Manhunter that we took off the cable from The Movie Channel shortly after its release. Even by then the broadcast version was the director’s cut.

The comparison of the theatrical release and the director’s cut is fascinating. The changes are largely in fleshing out of some scenes, which increases the richness of the film. They are sufficiently subtle that you should watch the two films back to back and switch disks to make a good comparison. However, there is one major change at the very end. One scene is deleted and another added. Mann doesn’t do anything arbitrarily, but if our interpretation of the change is correct, we are not sure that we like it. But the rest of the Director’s cut is superior.

The interviews with the actors are excellent. Noonan, who is in reality a charming and totally nonviolent person, was able to get into his role in an absolutely frightening fashion. Since Mann is such a visual-aural stylist it also came as no surprise that the commentary with the cinematographer Dante Spinotti was fascinating.

The title Red Dragon comes from a pivotal painting by William Blake. As with many Blake paintings, we discovered on researching it that there is frequently more than one version of his many pictures. The critical painting in Manhunter is one version while the new Red Dragon appears to use Blake’s awesome dragon that is the same as the tattoo tried but discarded by Mann in the original.

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1934) (**1/2, suspense) (D.-Alfred Hitchcock; Leslie Banks, Edna Best, Peter Lorre, Nova Pilbeam, Frank Vosper, Pierre Fresnay) The first of two versions by Hitchcock. In my opinion, neither is great. There are much better earlier and later Hitchcock films. Of course, there are some exceedingly nice touches throughout showing the master's style, but overall the story doesn't hold together very well and the suspense isn't sustained or realistic.The basic plot is that a man learns about an assassination plot, and his daughter is kidnapped to buy his silence until after the event. Typical Hitchcock with Everyman being placed in an untenable position. Noteworthy for being Peter Lorre's first English speaking film. He is really creepy. Many feel this is much better than the remake. (5-18-98) Beginning

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1956) (**1/2, suspense) (D.-Alfred Hitchcock; James Stewart, Doris Day, Brenda de Banzie, Bernard Miles, Ralph Truman, Daniel Gélin, Alan Mowbray, Carolyn Jones, Hillary Brooke) In spite of nice color cinematography and occasional flashes of wit, not a worthy Hitchcock. The hapless couple, played by Stewart and Day, are believably frenetic and the killer cooly icy, but the plot holes and lack of sustained suspense does it in. The singing by Day of "Que Sera, Sera" won Jay Livingston and Ray Evans the Best Song Oscar. That actually is composer Bernard Herrmann conducting the orchestra at the climax. (5-18-98) Beginning

Mark of Zorro, The (1920) (****, action, swashbuckler, silent, classic) (2-07-00) (D.-Fred Niblo; Douglas Fairbanks , Marguerite De La Motte, Robert McKim, Noah Beery, Sidney De Gray, Charles Hill Mailes, George Periolat, Claire McDowell) A fun film. The granddaddy of swashbucklers. This is pretty much where it started, and even today is a model for how to do it. The story is well known. Young aristocrat Don Diego Vega (Fairbanks) returns from Spain to find California in the grip of a ruthless despot. "Oppression by its very nature, creates the power that will crush it." There is no better hand of vengeance than Diego as he assumes the role of the masked avenger, Zorro, to right the wrongs and bring down the despot. As a disguise, he plays a foppish empty-headed dandy who would bring any father to tears.

Zorro has it all. Humor--droll and slapstick. Intrigue. Romance. Mistaken identities. And ACTION. Douglas Fairbanks Sr. was a great athlete, and Zorro revels in his awesome skills. Jackie Chan's films pay homage to Fairbanks. The pursuit in the village is one of the most fantastic chases ever put on film and was one of the showcase pieces in The Great Chase. You will find yourself marveling that this was all done without benefit of special effects. Plus the story still manages to strike a responsive chord deep in our souls.

Fairbanks is great as the dandy and in the action sequences. As Zorro, he does tend to use the over-the-top exaggerated acting style of some silents; this is especially noticeable since the other actors behave more normally. However, I quibble over details. So if you want a fun evening, check out this Zorro to which the 1940 and the most recent 1998 versions pay reverent homage. Review based on recent TMC showing with the original theatrical tinting.

As an aside, Fairbanks did his own stunts. Several films later, he broke a bone, and, being a producer and director, he recognized the possible repercussions. Subsequently, he was replaced by a stunt man in the more dangerous stunts--one of the most closely guarded film secrets of the time. Beginning

Mark of Zorro, The (1940) (***1/2, action, classic) (1-17-00) (D.-Rouben Mamoulian; Tyrone Power, Linda Darnell, Basil Rathbone, Gale Sondergaard, Eugene Pallette, J. Edward Bromberg, Montagu Love) The type of movie for which the the term swashbuckling was made. One of the fine predecessors of the recent The Mask of Zorro (which died unjustly at the box office). The story is well known. Power is son of a deposed leader of California. The power is now in the hands of the evil (with a capital E) Rathbone, who crushes the peasants under an iron yoke of taxation, torture and murder. While pretending to be an effeminate dandy, Power rides as the masked avenger. Droll humor, good acting, lavish sets, rousing music, and great action make for an enjoyable evening. The climactic battle between Power and Rathbone is a classic. These men clearly knew what they were doing and were very good at it. Beginning

Mark of the Vampire (1935) (**1/2, horror) (D.-Tod Browning; Lionel Barrymore, Elizabeth Allan, Bela Lugosi, Lionel Atwill, Carol Borland, Jean Hersholt, Donald Meek) On cable recently. A distinctly offbeat vampire flic where vampires terrorize a small village from a spooky old castle. The sets are magnificent as vampire hunter Barrymore and detective Atwill try to track down the monster. The plot seems highly disjointed, but I think that this was deliberate. Ultimately, I think the director did not play completely fairly with the audience. A remake of Browning's lost silent London After Midnight. See Vampires. (5-26-97) Beginning

Mars Attacks! (1996) (Bomb, humor, Sci Fi) (D.-Tim Burton; Jack Nicholson, Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Pierce Brosnan, Sylvia Sidney, Jim Brown, Sarah Jessica Parker, Michael J. Fox, Rod Steiger, Tom Jones, Natalie Portman) $80M and from the talented Tim Burton. One would have expected more. It is slick, the special effects are good--all the Martians are computer generated. The actors do as well as they can with the content. However, virtually nothing works. I got as many laughs out of Naked Space, which was one of the worst films that I can remember seeing--and Space probably cost about $5 to make. So, by the laughs per dollar, Space is a Rembrandt in comparison. Mars has take offs on many different films including Alien, Invasion of the Flying Saucers, I Come in Peace, Jurrasic Park, The Day the Earth Stood Still, ID4, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and A Star is Born. Why doesn't it work and why did it cost so much? My guess is that the director became so enamoured with the technology and trying to shoehorn every imaginable star into the film that he forgot that you have to have either a story or some real humor to hang the clothing on. The film fails on both counts. The stars get thrown at us so fast and furiously that nothing is ever made of many of their parts other than a walk on. Natalie Portman comes to mind. For cost, I assume that the computer graphics and the salaries for the mega star power are responsible--give me a few more unknowns and a better writer. Compare the $80M for Mars with the somewhat greater than $30M for The English Patient. Beginning

Mars Needs Women (1968) (*1/2, 50s sci fi) (D.-Larry Buchanan; Tommy Kirk, Yvonne Craig, Byron Lord, Roger Ready, Warren Hammack, Anthony Houston, "Bubbles") Available at Beyond Video at Willoughby for $1.50. Considered one of the classic bad sci fi films. However, in spite of some inspired bad scenes and dialogue, it misses a coveted "turkey" rating. A 50s sci fi in 1968 is a bit much; one has reason to expect a little more style. Also, it can in no way approximate the insanity and inanity of such masterpieces as Plan 9 from Outer Space , Robot Monster, or The Beginning of the End. Mars is having a bad gene day; 99 out of every hundred births are male. So five Martians arrive on Earth with the intention of gathering up a few women, either as volunteers or conscription as required. For lovers of 50s style sci fi, Mars does generate some chuckles with borrowed military footage, wooden dialogue, a pie tin flying saucer, and bad acting (the general, in particular, is great). So for lovers of the genre, worth a look.

The bad news is that as advanced as the Martian civilization is, they only recognized the idiocy of ties 50 years ago. Fortunately, I don't have to wait. I wear bolo (string) ties (the official neck ware of New Mexico--no joke). Beginning

Mary Reilly (1996) (**, drama) (D.-Stephen Frears; Julia Roberts, John Malkovich, George Cole, Kathy Staff, Michael Gambon, Glenn Close) A fascinating concept based on the Jekyll and Hyde story that never works. Suppose Dr. Jekyll (Malkovich) had a sexually repressed young Victorian maid (Roberts) in his home. How would she react when confronted by the dichotomy of the benevolent doctor and the evil, unrestrained pleasure-seeking Hyde? The choice between good and evil--similar to that presented to Dr. Jekyll himself. While treated with respect, nothing really works. The story line is unfocused and never has a coherent development with dramatic pay off. You never develop empathy with any of the principles. Roberts is totally miscast. She is emotionally flat and never looks more than vague or somewhat alarmed. Although given the story line, it is not clear that even a powerful actress could have done much. Malkovich, who is one of a very short list of actors that I would think suitable for the parts of Jekyll and Hyde, gives hints at what each of the two should be, but never maintains a consistent level to which you can relate. During filming they had a lot of trouble trying to decide how to end it, but that is the least of its problems. They even throw in a totally unnecessary and inappropriate physical transformation. I haven't read Valerie Martin's book, so I don't know whether the problems are inherent in the source. The dank London atmosphere and the music are the best parts. In my opinion, forget Reilly and check out an early Jekyll and Hyde film, especially the 1932 classic. Beginning

Marx Brothers: The Marx Brothers, especially in their early films have some of the most anarchistic humor ever put on film. These men reveled in the non sequitar and the absurd. They could take a semi-reasonable premise and, by small and seemingly logical steps, reduce it to a screamingly illogical conclusion. Their humor was very vaudeville in style and was a superb mixture of mime, slapstick, and verbal humor. I review several of their films below. Incidentally, you don't judge Marx Brothers movies by plot; plot generally requires some logical progression of ideas. You judge them by how weak from laughter you are afterwards. As with Chaplin, Groucho's mustache is glued on tape or paper. (3-21-95) Beginning

Marx Brothers (Beginning)

* Day at the Races, A (1937) (***1/2, comedy, musical) (D-Sam Wood, Groucho Marx, Harpo Marx, Chico Marx, Allan Jones, Maureen O'Sullivan, Margaret Dumont, Douglass Dumbrille, Sig Ruman) Groucho, an erstwhile veternarian, becomes head of a failing sanitorium that he, Harpo and Chico try to save. Dumont is awesomely plump and pompous as the rich hypochondriac whom Groucho needs to woo. Several nearly lethally funny sequences include Chico fleecing the keenly observing Groucho at the race track and the seduction. Fortunately, we have the fast forward to get through the musical numbers. (3-21-95) Beginning

* Duck Soup (1933) (****, comedy) (D.-Leo McCarey; Groucho Marx, Harpo Marx, Chico Marx, Zeppo Marx, Margaret Dumont, Louis Calhern, Raquel Torres, Edgar Kennedy, Leonid Kinskey, Charles Middleton) Insane! Nearly lethally funny in countless places. For openers, the closest we come to anything related to the title is during the opening credits: several ducks are happily swimming around in a soup pot. Having now set the tone for the movie, it degenerates. Also, a savagely satirical antiwar movie. Groucho is appointed Prime Minister Rufus T. Firefly of Freedonia by the intervention of the wealthy Dumont. The only difference between men and boys is the size of the weapons they bring to bear on each other over imagined insults. Actually, I guess, in Duck Soup not all of the insults are imagined. The mirror or the peanut stand sequences alone are worth the price of admission. Even the musical sequences are done with such flair and humor that I never seriously thought about using the fast forward. (3-21-95) Beginning

* Monkey Business (1931) (***, classic comedy, slapstick) (D.-Norman Z. McLeod; Groucho Marx, Harpo Marx, Chico Marx, Zeppo Marx, Thelma Todd, Ruth Hall, Harry Woods) Uneven and not one of their best, but you can certainly see the elements of their comic genius that came together in Duck Soup. The four brothers are stowaways in the hold of an ocean liner. The second mate cannot find them but knows there are four of them since they are singing Sweet Adeleine in four-part harmony. Groucho falls for Todd in spite of her gangster husband. Todd is a fine straight man for Groucho's insanity. Puns and sight gags galore, although many seem dated now. Just remember that these guys were the pioneers. If you don't enjoy it, DO stay around for Harpo's encounter with the Punch and Judy show; slapstick doesn't get any funnier. As with the other Marx Brothers movies, I frequently fast forwarded through the musical numbers. (9-4-95) Beginning

* Night at the Opera, A (1935) (***1/2, romantic musical comedy) (D.-Sam Wood; Groucho Marx, Chico Marx, Harpo Marx, Kitty Carlisle, Allan Jones, Walter Woolf King, Margaret Dumont, Siegfried Rumann) Considered by some to be arguably the Marx brother's best film. I guess I am too much of a curmudgeon. Too much music and romance for my taste. While it has some superbly riotous scenes, the tempo of side splitting laughter just does not put it in the same league as Day at the Races or Duck Soup. Groucho is the lovable conniving huckster Otis P. Driftwood, who tries to separate, not overly successfully, a rich social climbing matron (Dumont's superb characterization) from her money. He gets her to contribute to the opera as a way of entering high society. There is a plot with a male singer and his girlfriend (the female lead) and their interactions with the arrogant male lead. Groucho, Chico and Harpo try to reunite the love birds and give the second his place in the sun. Throw in stowaways, and, finally, a totally mauled opera and you have a Night at the Opera. As with any Marx brothers' film, plot is incidental, perhaps even disruptive, to their anarchistic style. I nearly died during the "stateroom" and the hotel room scenes. Also, contract law will never be the same after Groucho and Chico cut a deal. The final fracturing of the opera as the brothers try to elude the security guards, the head of the opera, and the police is classic vaudeville slapstick of the highest order. I did find myself using that marvelous invention, the fast forward, during the musical numberswhen I want music I play music, and when I want comedy I watch comedy. Nevertheless, if you like classic old style slapstick, Night is not to missed. (3-21-95) Beginning

* Night in Casablanca, A (1946) (***, comedy) (D.- Archie Mayo; Groucho Marx, Harpo Marx, Chico Marx, Lisette Verea, Charles Drake, Lois Collier, Dan Seymour, Sig Ruman) Satirical takeoff of Casablanca. Warner Brothers, the producers of Casablanca, (having no sense of humor) tried to stop its production. Groucho (Kornblow) is the new manager of the Casablanca Hotel; he is the latest in a long list of managers (all now untimely deceased) and accepts the job only because he is not a local and doesn't know about the poor health benefits. Chico runs the Yellow Camel Taxi service. Harpo is... Well, Harpo is Harpo. Not one of the best Marx brothers, but a few fine examples of their anarchistic style. The attempted bedding/murder is a fine example, and so is Harpo as a man servant-pray you never get help like that. However, the packing scene is superbly choreographed mayhem worthy of the best silent screen slapstick. If you like anarchistic humour, give it a look. You will enjoy this more if have seen Casablanca. (3-21-95) Beginning

Marx Brothers End

M*A*S*H was later turned into a extremely successful TV show that ran 11 seasons or four times longer than the Korean War. The only actor who went to the TV show was Burghoff who continued his role as the psychic aide. The song from the movie was used for the show, but I don’t believe they used the words that are irreverent to say the least. Beginning

Mask, The(1994) (***1/2, comedy) (D.- Charles Russell; Jim Carrey, Amy Vasbeck) After seeing the reviews, I went to Mask with very guarded expectations. I was very pleasantly surprised. Think of it as a fractured, inverted ground breaking Roger Rabbit. It goes beyond Roger Rabbit with classical cartoon characters integrated into live action characters rather than having the cartoons play around the live character. The movie has flaws, but is ground breaking in concept (*** for the movie, but the 1/2 for innovation). I believe that we are looking at the Road Runner Coyote cartoons of the 90s and twenty-first century. A really nice guy milquetoast bank official (Carrey) is not going any where in his life or his job. Then he discovers a wooden mask that transforms him into the hip, suave, acid tongued action packed figure of his dreams. True, his idols are Tex Avery's and other's cartoons. So his altered ego ends up bald, green, and with a set of smiling ivories that would be the envy of a dentist's convention (the makeup took four hours to apply). Also, in keeping with his idols, he can move like a cartoon character including facial and body changes, and draw on a repertoire of objects and sight gags that Wilee Coyote and the Road Runner would enjoy. You'll recognize Avery's howling love sick wolf instantly. Also, he can pull a mallet the size of a Volkswagen out of a pant's pocket. Many of the effects are computer generated by ILM and are flawlessly integrated into the visuals. Unlike some movies that revel in effects at the expense of the movie, Mask uses them to push the story line over the top. However, what makes the movie is Carrey, whom I had never seen perform before. He was excellent. The transformations are stellar. His wisecracking green man is perfect. The voice, the body English, the expressions on his face are a true delight. Further, his growth as the banker is enjoyable to watch as he discovers that the green man really draws much of his power from the banker's inner core, and all he has to do is reach in and exploit these inner resources himself. The story line is a little uneven, but I found a great deal of the humor delightful. In particular, the exchange between the green man with his storm trooper landlady set the tone for the rest of the movie. It was pure Bugs Bunny. If you enjoy classical cartoons and off the wall humor, check it out. (9-5-94) Beginning

Mask Of Zorro, The (1998) (****, action) (D.-Martin Campbell; Antonio Banderas, Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Stuart Wilson, Matthew Letscher, L. Q. Jones) In our opinion, Zorro is one of the top action films of the summer. In fact, my family and my brother's family put it in The Raiders of the Lost Ark category. Unfortunately, the public didn't respond well, and it will barely recoup its costs. However, it will be around shortly at the second run theaters. In film, the Zorro legend dates back to the marvelous 1920 Mark of Zorro starring Douglas Fairbanks followed by several films, innumerable cliff hangers, and TV shows. This modern remake respects the material and suitably updates it. Many scenes pay homage to the 20's version. The film opens with Don Diego (Hopkins), the original Zorro, coming in a serious second place to the evil Don Rafael Montero (Wilson). Spring forward several years and add Elena (played by the knock-you-dead gorgeous Zeta-Jones) and Alejandro (Banderas), who is taken under the wing of Hopkins as the new Zorro-in-training.

This training is a delight. To say that the former street urchin Alejandro is unpolished does him a disservice. He is the clay before the water is even added. When asked if he knows how to use a sword, his cocky response is that it is easy. You take the point and stick it in your opponent. If you had any doubts as to the stupidity of this view, the magnificently choreographed sword fights will cure them. The chemistry between the suave Diego and the rough, impulsive Alejandro is perfect in its comedic and dramatic elements.

Obviously, with Banderas and Zeta-Jones, a love interest will develop--and the chemistry here is good. However, since Elena-believes herself to be the beloved daughter of Don Rafael, this is not a linear relationship, although at times it is a sharply pointed one.

The acting is good throughout, the action marvelous, the humor ranges from droll to slapstick (you will long remember "young" Zorro's first outing), and the interactions among the principals is excellent. Hopkins is perfect as usual. Banderas shows skill both at the dramatic level and for comedic twists; he clearly has a bright future. Zeta-Jones is worthy of Alejandro's interest--intelligent, articulate, and very physical. In short, Zorro is swashbuckling great fun. In my opinion for a film like to this to work, the villains have to be good. No bumbling idiots, but truly dangerous individuals with a deep sense of their own self worth and a willingness to die (if necessary) for what they want. The villains here are worthy. Rafael is ruthless, a superb swordsman, and he genuinely loves Elena. Rafael's main henchman, Captain Harrison Love, (Letscher) is a handsome, charming sociopath.

What really sets this film apart in the action area is the sword work. Magnificent! And all the principals did their own sword work after months of training. But then Hopkins, Banderas, and Zeta-Jones were trained by the best, Bob Anderson. Oh yes. Anderson is 75. He trained, fought and doubled for Errol Flynn in the 1952 The Master of Ballantrae. He was British fencing coach for six Olympics and competed in the 1952 Games. He was Darth Vader's double for the light saber duels in the last two Starwars films. He has trained actors and choreographed sword fights in over 100 films. His trademark is flipping the sword off the ground with his foot, a technique he introduced 30 years ago. Besides being a master of the old, he uses a computer to lay out fights from one-on-one to those with 17 participants. While he is impressed with the dedication and skills of Hopkins and Zeta-Jones, he considers Banderas a natural, the best he has ever trained, better than Flynn. [Premiere, August, 1998, 38.]

Zorro is definitely a big screen film. So when it comes to the second run theaters, don't miss it. Trust me on this one.

Film Facts: http://us.imdb.com/Title?Mask+of+Zorro,+The+(1998) (8-24-98) Beginning

Master & Commander: The Far Side Of The World (2003) (****, action, historical) (02-06-04) (D.-Peter Weir; Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, Max Pirkis, Billy Boyd, James D'Arcy) An intelligent swashbuckler. Based on the novel by Patrick O’Brian. O’Brian in turn based his Captain Jack Aubrey on the real life Thomas Cochrane who was every bit as daring, every bit as cunning, and every bit as outspoken and antiauthoritarian as Aubrey. For example, in 1801 Cochrane’s outspokenness had led to his being relegated to a tiny brig, Speedy, a misnomer. Having only 44 men and 14 4 pounder cannon, he encountered the massive Gamo with 319 men and 44 12 pounder guns. Rather than trying to flee, he successfully disabled the Gamo and captured it. [Smithsonian, Dec. 2003, pg 72].

Master details a running battle spanning the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans between Aubrey (Crowe) and the French privateer Acheron. Taut action sequences, intelligent repartee between Aubrey (Crowe) and his intellectual friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Bettany), and a beautiful portrayal of life and death on a warship of the Napoleonic era make for a fascinating 139 minutes.

The action is taut, breathtaking in its realism. The day-to-day routine and the coping mechanisms for living in the cramped quarters of a sailing warship are portrayed in a way that is both insightful and interesting. The crew, their age distribution, their duties, and the interactions are fascinatingly portrayed. This alone makes the film worthy of watching.

The acting is top rate. The characters are portrayed in enough depth that you can relate to them. The centerpiece is the interplay between the intelligent man of action, Lucky Jack, and the quiet man of introspection and study, Maturin. Point-counterpoint with a mutual respect, even admiration of the other. In summary, if you are looking for an intelligent swashbuckler check out Master.

The above review reflects my opinion of the movie without knowing anything about the period, the methods of warfare, or Cochrane’s books. However, after having read The Making of the Master and Commander:The Far Side of the World by Tom McGregor (W.W Norton, 2003), the film takes on much greater depth. The film covers many of the historical details of the period, the creation of the world, and comments by principals. It is filled with magnificent photos and insights. A must-have for lovers of the film. Below I give some information from the book.

The attention to detail was excruciatingly good as was the historical accuracy, all very carefully researched and as accurate as possible. Indeed, one might say obsessive, since most of the points will go by the average viewer. Cochrane was a stickler for accuracy and the film extends this novel’s level of written perfection to a visual world. Aubrey’s Surprise is as accurate a rendition of the book’s ship as modern technology and special effects can achieve. The Rose was the sailing training ship purchased and substantially overhauled to make it match Cochrane’s Surprise. However, even with the finest tuning, the rigging wasn’t quite right. Where the view is expansive enough, special effects were used to add masting and rigging. When the Rose was sailed to California, it was caught in storms and sustained major damage showing why one does not do any more filming at sea than necessary. The storms you see were done with models in tanks, full size replicas in tanks, and special effects. The illusion is perfect and electrifying in its immediacy.

To give you some idea of the attention to detail “a live filming event using authentic materials … to produce the sound of the passage of ball, chainshot, grapeshot and barshot being fired. … ‘no one alive knows what they sounded like, so we have to find out for ourselves…’” The gun deck was just over 5 feet high, which is actually higher than a real warship of the period would have been. This was a concession to filming. Head banging was common and many of the film crew wore bicycle helmets. The twelve nine-pounders on each side were 6 feet apart. Each gun had a 7 man crew, and loading, firing, and cleaning was like a ballet. The gun crews in the film actually managed to get the process down to 50 seconds. Each cannon had a name, which was standard for the period. Only one side was used in battle unless a ship happened to be in the unenviable position of being sandwiched between two enemy ships. In which case the crews would divide between the two sides or alternate salvos would be fired from each side. All of the jockeying for position before combat was designed to bring the one set of guns primed for battle to bear. This also accounts for the strategies in some movies for whipping the ship onto the unprepared side of the enemy.

The hammocks were spaced the regulation 14 inches apart; the tight packing saved space and kept the crew from being banged together in rough seas. The clothing and hammocks are made of real hemp, which is not a readily available item. The uniforms and sailors’ clothing are all authentic designs as were the shoes. The woolen caps were knitted by a woman in Wales, whose family has been spinning and weaving wool for 200 years. The different way of wearing the captain’s style of cap, front to back or side ways was a matter of personal taste and you see both in the films. Beard and mustaches were not allowed, so facial hair was limited to sideburns, sometimes quite bushy. All haircuts for the film were done with razors, the technique in 1805, to avoid a modern haircut appearance. Tattoos were made as accurate as possible for the period. Since tar would have been everywhere on the Surprise, everyone would have it on their skin and under the nails; this was taken care of with a special cosmetic powder. The ships lanterns were all custom handmade to an actual design of the period.

The crew age distribution was realistic down to children even younger than the 10 year old shown on the ship. Many of them were orphans or children of friends of the captain. In contrast to the society, the navy had little hierarchy other than what you earned so this was a good way to rise above your class. As shown in the film, the children played, but in battle they were powder monkeys racing to bring up fresh powder during battles or even fighting hand to hand.

The weapons and fighting techniques were all authentic and masterfully choreographed for safety. Swordsmanship and choreographing were done by Dan and his wife, Jan Bryant. Jan doubled for Zeta Jones in Zorro and “dies” several times in sword battles during Master, although you would never recognize her as a woman or as the same French privateer.

The Acheron was modeled after the USS Constitution. Old Ironsides. It was no wonder Lucky Jack had such a hard time with her. Beginning

Masque of the Red Death, The (1964) (**1/2, horror) (D.-Roger Corman; Vincent Price, Hazel Court, Jane Asher, David Weston, Patrick Magee) At Film Festival at Home (Los Alamos). Stylish, lushly photographed by Nicolas Roeg (The Man Who Fell to Earth) adaptation of Poe's tale. Evil Prince Prospero (Price) retreats into his castle to leave his oppressed peasants to the ravages of the plague while he and his guests live in lavish debauchery. Allegorical and stylistically very reminiscent of Fellini and Bergman. Eerie and disturbing atmosphere where David Lynch could move in and feel right at home. One superb scene was the interchange between the dwarf and the nobleman. Oh, so much more was being said and was going on than just the words. Beginning

Matchstick Men (2003) (***1/2, comedy, crime, drama) (6-8-04) (D.-Ridley Scott; Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell, Alison Lohman, Bruce Altman) Totally offbeat caper film. Roy (Cage) and his partner Frank (Rockwell) are very successful con men in spite of the fact that Roy is an obsessive compulsive. They are setting up to do the con of their life, and Roy will retire to happy bliss. Surprise, surprise. A little complication arises by the name of Angela (Lohman), a 14 year-old daughter that Roy didn’t know he had. Ever try to manage a major con while trying to get to know your 14 year-old daughter for the first time? And raise her correctly? Roy is about to find out that a typical teenager is far more trouble than even the most elaborate con.

Cage is excellent as a compulsive obsessive phobic put under even more than the usual stresses. His interactions with Frank, a colleague of long standing, has the feel of two long time friends who know what the other is thinking and can act without words. Lohman is fabulous as the daughter. A bright, over inquisitive, independent spirit who would try even a well accustomed parent. The film rises or falls on the chemistry between Lohman and Cage, and it definitely rises. Truly delightful. Parents who have or have had teenagers will be especially appreciative of the interactions.

Yes, I have been deliberately sparse about plot. This is a caper film, and the less said the better. So if you like interesting characters, a convoluted plot, and good chemistry, check out Matchstick Men. And the end is perfect. If you like slam bang action, give it a pass. Beginning

Matinee (1993) (**1/2, humor) (D.-Joe Dante; John Goodman, Cathy Moriarty, Simon Fenton, Omri Katz, Lisa Jakub, Kellie Martin, Jesse Lee, Lucinda Jenney, James Villemaire, Robert Picardo, Jesse White, Dick Miller, John Sayles, David Clennon, Luke Halpin) Homage to the old days of film when a huckster with a clever idea, a few bucks, and a J. T. Barnum sense of showmanship could make a buck in films, especially in the horror genre. Matinee is a tribute to this simpler time and especially to recognized master William Castle. Castle had such masterpieces as Emergo, where a skeleton would fly out of its coffin and over the audience (House on Haunted Hill). He provided an insurance policy that protected your loved ones with $1000 in the event of your death by fright. Nurses and ambulances were on hand for some films. In Tingler he placed vibrating buzzers under seats to signal that one of the creatures was about to get you--actually, Disney World in Orlando uses the same trick in their Honey We Shrunk Ourselves show.

The industry term for this style of merchandising was Ballyhoo. It really wasn't as bad as it sounds. Everyone was in on the joke. No one felt they were being defrauded. It was just a great opportunity to cut loose and have fun.

In Matinee, the time is 1962, an end of innocence for the nation and the film industry as big budgets and real marketing hype increasingly squeeze out the entrepreneurial independents. The film occurs over a few days as horror master Lawrence Woolsey (Goodman) sets up to showcase his latest film in Key West just as the fleet sets sail for the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The film is MANT ("Half Man, Half Ant, All Terror!"), in Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama--yes they really did use marketing names like this. The preparations for the film are seen by teenage Gene Loomis (Fenton) whose father is at sea in the blockade; he has a crush on an off-the-wall girl (Jakub). His friend Stan (Katz) has problems with a possessive local tough (Villemaire) over his ex-girl friend (Martin). All of these disparate elements come to a head in the showing of the film, which is riotous funny slap stick.

Dante clearly loves the 50s horror films (a number of unbilled stars from the period have parts) and Matinee is homage to the films and their masters. The story line of MANT is a delightfully fractured version of the standard plots--although it doesn't have to be very different, to be very funny. The marketing ploys used are realistic and were widely used. The director throws in some sly references to modern developments as he goes along.

Ultimately, the film will be most enjoyed by fans of early horror, but newcomers will enjoy the background. If only Dante had been able to make the whole film as funny as the last 20 minutes or so, he would have had a real comedic masterpiece. (5-19-97) Beginning

Matrix, The (1999) (***1/2, sci fi) (4-19-99) (D.-Larry and Andy Wachowski; Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Hugo Weaving, Joe Pantoliano, Gloria Foster) Awesome visual tour de force. The opening sequence leaves you with little doubt that reality in Matrix is a very tenuous commodity indeed. This leads us to Neo (Reeves), a hacker, who suspects something big is going on, but cannot find out what. Morpheus (Fishburne) gives Neo the chance to find out and plenty of opportunity to back out. But human curiosity is like that of cats. "Why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"

In case you haven't heard many details, I won't be too specific. A classic battle between Good and Evil, although who is Good and who is Evil depends on which side you are on. The setup is good. Edgy, uncertain, surrealistic. Accept the premise and the behavior of the principals is eminently rational in an irrational world. I really liked the touches with the turncoat--believable. Unfortunately, as with Dark City, Matrix has to end with a shoot 'em up--albeit a magnificent one. This dilutes much of the metaphysical structure that precedes. The ending also glosses over the consequences of their actions.

Did I like it? Parts of it were very good. And the visuals were truly impressive. Even some of the effects that just seemed arresting at the time were actually part of the plot. For example, the hesitation of the cell phone before it plunged to earth actually fit into the plot. The fights were extraordinary. And we are now getting to where the impressive computer and other modern FX are used as just tools in the editing toolbox to create the film in the director's image rather than an as ends in themselves.

The plot is so off the wall, that one cannot talk about acting in the normal sense. In the framework of this film, it works.

The martial arts were all done by the actors who were selected for their athletic ability. They trained for 4 solid months under Yuen Wo Ping, the Hong Kong martial arts stunt master. He was apparently appalled when Reeves showed up at the first session in a neck brace, the result of surgery from an old motorcycle accident. Ping could see his reputation going down the proverbial tube. I think you will agree, his reputation was not only not damaged but, in my opinion, was raised by the results. However, the villain (Weaving) and Reeves sustained a lot of bruises from their fights. Although Reeves wasn't a trained martial artist beforehand, he is obviously a gifted athlete and looks beautifully fluid and graceful. [Details from Premier, May 1999. pp 50-51 by Nisha Gopalan]

Don't get too excited about the enslavement premise. Thermodynamics still applies and you aren't going to get more energy out of humans than you put in. The laughable statement "25,000 BTUs of body heat" from humans makes no sense unless you say in what time frame, and even then how much energy did you put in to get it back out?

So if you like impressive visuals, are into cyber punk, or just want a roller coaster ride, check out The Matrix. Beginning

Maverick (1994) (***, comedy adventure) (D.-Richard Donner, Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster, James Garner) As a devoted James Garner-TV Maverick fan, I enjoyed it, but don't expect a great movie. Light-hearted tribute to the old tongue in cheek low budget TV Maverick series, which starred James Garner as one of the nattily dressed, suave, witty, hard-gambling Maverick brothers Brett and Bart. Gibson is Bart (I mean Brett) who is trying to get the up-front money to enter a very high stakes poker game ($500,000 prize). Foster is a "Southern Belle" with a very artificial Southern accent doing the same. Garner is an ex-law man going to the contest for other reasons. The three of them are repeatedly thrown together to provide much of the situation humor and opportunities for one liners. With considerable insight Gibson notes that he has the feeling that all of his friends are playing dirty with him. His enemies, of course, are trying to do worse. Maverick is at best when these three gifted and charming actors are hamming it up. Some of the humor will be even better if you are familiar with the original and the many droll references to it. Unfortunately, the director went for a big budget Western. The plot and much of the action has been done better before, and the movie tends to drag in a number of places. Much of the original charm of Maverick was the easy going, low budget, low paced feel, and in this regard Donner and Goldman deviate from their source. For those who have never been there, southeastern Utah is even more beautiful than the awesome images captured by Vilmos Zsigmond. (5-13-94) Beginning

McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) (****, western) (D.- Robert Altman; Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, René Auberjonois, Hugh Millais, Michael Murphy, William Devane, Keith Carradine, Shelley Duvall) My initial reaction was reservedly positive. However, my wife and I have now spent more time analyzing it than we did watching it--an unmistakable mark of a fine film. McCabe was one of a long stream of revisionist Westerns. Life at the turn of the century in small mining towns in the Pacific Northwest was brutish and frequently short. The town of Presbyterian Church is competitive with one of Dante's upper circles of Hell and is a tribute to humanity's overwhelming survival instincts in spite of all travails. On a good day, it is merely raining and the mud is only ankle deep. If the sun ever shines, we are never privy to such pleasantry.

McCabe is about real people. Not necessarily very bright people, but ones who are a cut in intellect or cunning above their neighbors--which in Presbyterian Church doesn't necessarily say much. McCabe and Miller want more than life has dealt them. They are willing to do what needs to be done to get it and make their grab for the brass ring.

At the beginning, McCabe (Beatty) rides in and sets up a card game. As any good entrepreneur he knows what the town needs and supplies it in the form of a whorehouse--if three tents can be given such a stately name. Enter Mrs. Miller (Christie), a madam with considerable experience and very astute business sense who knows that a hot bath and a House Of Ill Repute will do much better. Success, avarice, envy, and an offer that shouldn't be refused soon complicate the situation. The events leading to the collapse of the negotiations are a real comedy of human misunderstandings and bad luck--which would be funny if it didn't have such tragic consequences.

McCabe is full of people making wrong decisions for right reasons. McCabe projects his own business sense on the Company. His enemies similarly err. Butler (Millais) is a brutally good judge of character and a sadistic exploiter of his psychological edge. However, in McCabe he misjudges. Miller has understood things from the beginning, is a true realist, and probably loves McCabe, even though as a good business woman she charges him $5 for her favors. Ultimately she does the one thing that for her can minimize the damage of reality.

The climactic confrontation was shot under conditions other than originally planned (tidbit thanks to Halsey at Beyond Video). It was supposed to be in a rainstorm, but the equipment wasn't working. Altman got snow blowers from a nearby ski resort. As they began filming, a major storm moved in. Altman, as any good director, adapted. In retrospect, the end would just not have looked the same with rain. The snow is so much better in covering human suffering.

This is not an easy movie to watch, both because of the subject matter and Altman's style. Altman never hand feeds you. Indeed, we found the beginning slow because the director has to set his stage and introduce the characters his way. You do have to pay real attention to try to sort out all the people and their relationships. Like an anthropologist you must watch, accumulate information, and analyze. And even then, we still have a lot of unanswered questions. Things that didn't seem important at the time. Conversations that were hard to follow. Altman treats us like an eaves dropper and, as outsiders, we don't always hear well, especially given his propensity to run overlapping dialogue as in real life. In fact there are so many things that we need answers to that we're going to rent it again.

Beautifully photographed by Vilmos Zsigmond. The cinematography and the town are as much a part of the film as the story itself. Most of the daylight scenes are underexposed to create the dingy feel. Even pure white snow is made to seem dull. The film has minimal music and what we do have is largely appropriate ballads by Leonard Cohen. (12-25-95) Beginning

Mechanic, The (1972) (**1/2, action) (D.- Michael Winner; Charles Bronson, Keenan Wynn, Jan-Michael Vincent, Jill Ireland) Crisp, violent actioner. Good solid escapism if you like this type of movie. Bronson is an efficient assassin who takes on an apprentice (Vincent). Good action and an absolutely blow you away ending. (2-14-95) Beginning

Medicine Man (1992) (** and turkey, drama) (D.-John McTiernan, Sean Connery, Lorraine Bracco) A unique rating on this one. It deserves ** as a movie. As a chemist and scientist, however, I would be remiss in not pointing out the distressingly bad misrepresentation of science, which gives it a turkey. For plot, a reclusive scientist in the Amazon rain forest is checked up on by his superior. Surprise, surprise. He has the cure for cancer, but cannot quite figure out where he put it. So he spends the rest of the movie convincing her that they should figure out what went wrong before the bulldozers level this tiny piece of Eden, which is the only place on earth that has it.

Preachy, predictable, poorly developed and only saved, somewhat, by Connery's charming performance as the curmudgeon scientist tamed by the initially antagonistic Bracco (with good reason by the way). Some absolutely delightful scientific faux pas, which include having electrical power to run lights and a gas chromatograph (gc) in the far reaches of the Amazon so remote that the natives haven't seen a non-Indian in years. For non-chemists, a gc analyzes gas mixtures and, if you have standards of the authentic material, you can even tell what it is by matching them. He points to a complex mess of peaks on the computer screen and asks her what the sample is. After some chiding about her superb training, she says a "plant extract". Correct and not a bad guess knowing what he does, but certainly not based on knowledge; no one could know by looking at a mess of peaks where it came from. He then asks her to tell him more about it. After running the software, she says most of the 49 peaks are known. He says what about that one when he points at one peak among many. He then explains that it is THE CURE for cancer. The computer then pops up the structure of this extremely complex and previously totally unknown organic molecule---THE DRUG. No way. Remember a gc tells you nothing about structure; only if you have a known sample will it tell you whether the two are the same or different. He asks if it can be synthesized and within 3 seconds she brings the entire brunt of synthetic organic chemistry to bear and says no way! My organic colleagues would probably take considerable exception to that statement; saying that they cannot synthesize a known molecule is worse than waving a red flag in front of a bull. Watch out! As another colleague said, "If I had known that gc's could do that I would have gotten one years ago. Which button do I push to have it write the paper?" The computer also lists the chemicals responsible for the other peaks to show that this peak must be THE DRUG. Oh, I forgot to mention that some of the other identified components shown by the gc software included SiO2 (sand), Na3PO4 (fertilizer), and NaCl2. Yes, NaCl2. A gc analyzes gases or things that can be evaporated. Sand, solid phosphate fertilizer, and salt cannot be vaporized in a gc. The scene was so inept that I had to rerun it twice to get the dialog I was laughing so hard. Another amusing point is that this drug is so great that it completely eliminates massive tumors within hours without surgerynot a trace left.

Quite frankly every one of our organic undergraduates would have caught these errors, and most of our first year students would pick up on the NaCl2, at least if they passed CHEM 141. Indeed, I am sure many of our premeds would have been delighted to supply a little scientific consulting in exchange for a medical school fellowship. By the way it is not uncommon for a natural product isolation and identification to take years. It may take years to isolate the active component (sometimes a milligram or less from tons of starting material) and sometimes more years to get the structure.

In summary, if you are going to make an environmental-political statement get your science right. Too many agendas stress only the emotional impact with facts be damned. (5-10-93)

NOTE: One of my ex-students related a story, which is believable but that I have not confirmed. A biochemist from a major university was their technical consultant. He apparently industriously corrected their science. They did not like it and and told him to shut up or be fired. He didn't. They did. Given some of the incredibly funny errors, it seems conceivable to me that he may have left a few landmines that exploded during screening. (6-7-94) Beginning

Mediterraneo (1991), (**1/2, humor, drama) (3-1-99) (D.- Gabriele Salvatores; Claudio Bigagli, Giuseppe Cederna, Vanna Barba, Gigio Alberti, Irene Grazioli, Claudio Bisio, Ugo Conti, Diego) Mediterraneo was the winner of the 1991 Best Foreign Picture Oscar. It is funny, touching, entertaining, but for me it isn't a great film. Others strongly disagree. A small contingent of Italian soldiers are stationed on an out of the way Greek island during WWII and forgotten. As it turns out, the Greek men are all off at war. We have a delightful assortment of misfits and interactions and ultimately nothing much happens in this little corner of paradise. But it is fun getting there. Mediterraneo is a soft gentle story with antiwar sentiment, but it never forces its views.

Now the story. Ebert and Siskel were screening the film to review it. Part way through they looked at each other, rose in unison, and walked out without saying a word. By 1991, they were that closely attuned. This is the only film screening that either walked out of for their show. Beginning

Meet the Parents (2000) (comedy, ***1/2) (11-20-00) (D.-Jay Roach; W.-Greg Glienna (1992 screenplay), Mary Ruth Clarke;.Robert De Niro, Ben Stiller, Teri Polo, Blythe Danner, Nicole DeHuff, Jon Abrahams, Thomas McCarthy, James Rebhorn, Owen Wilson, Kali Rocha) Quirky. Funny. You have found the girl of your dreams, Pam Byrnes (Polo). Everything is going swimmingly. You are about to pop the question. And she asks you to go home with her and meet the parents. What a better opportunity to impress her and her parents by asking then. As male nurse Greg Focker (Stiller) is about to find out, don’t count on it. Parents does to the first meeting with the parents what Something About Mary does for that first date—although not so crudely. The major obstacle here is the ferociously intimidating father Jack (DeNiro). Jack is a type-A control freak who feels that no one is good enough for his daughter. And he will grill, intimidate and ride roughshod over any male until he discovers what makes them unsuitable. Oh, yes. He also has a shadowy past and an assortment of household accessories that would please the KGB. Besides that what else can go wrong? Throw Pam’s sister’s wedding, her sister’s awesomely successful groom, a cat (yes, a cat), and a water volley ball game to name only a few possibilities. Things might still work, except that Greg is one of those people who has an enormous desire to please. This leads to a continued series of half-truths, bent facts, and attempts to look good that lead to cascading disastrous consequences. Comedic noir where a small initial moral error leads to an inescapable quagmire.

DeNiro is perfect. He played the savage prizefighter Jake Lamotta in Raging Bull and is every bit as intimidating at an intellectual level. Here is a man who would strike fear into a pit bull, much less a normal, love struck, insecure young man. Stiller is perfect as the lovable schmuck who wants nothing more than to be accepted so that he can marry the girl of his dreams and go on with his life. Fat chance! Polo has a relatively small role, but certainly projects the image of the type of woman who would make even Stiller stand up to Jack. The rest of the cast works well with the subject matter.

Parents has a number of delightfully funny scenes, but it is uneven. DeNiro and Stiller are always a delight to watch. For those who would like a similar film, check out the delightful Inlaws, where Allen Arkin, an uptight dentist, gets to meet his daughter’s prospective father-in-law (Peter Falk) who is every bit as quirky and clandestine as DeNiro.

Greg is not the only one savaged. The end scene at the airport didn’t do American Airlines any favors. We can all relate to Greg’s reactions to these final indignities. As I understand it, you need permission to use a name like this, but the name holder doesn’t have creative control over its use. Don’t expect to see an American Airlines’ logo in any film by this director in the near future. Beginning

Megalodon(2004) (**, horror) (10-22-04) (D.-Pat Corbitt; W.- Gary J. Tunnicliffe , Stanley Isaacs; Robin Sachs, Al Sapienza, Leighanne Littrell, Mark Sheppard, Jennifer Sommerfield, Evan Mirand) The tagline reads “A deep-sea drilling operation goes horribly wrong, releasing the deadliest ocean predator that has ever roamed the seas since prehistoric times-Carcharodon Megalodon...sixty feet of prehistoric terror.” Megalodon unleashes 96 minutes of 50s style big bug sci fi/ horror movie. Actually, the character setup isn’t bad. The discovery of the undersea cavity is reasonably impressive, and the shark is not only antediluvian in time, but also antediluvian in cgi. My aquarium screen saver has more compelling looking fish. But if you need your grade Z sci fi, there are certainly worse available. Review based on tape from Charlottesville Video (formerly Beyond Video).

Melies Project, The (1999) (**1/2, silent, instrumental) (10-25-99) (D. and W.- Phillip Johnston) This was a tribute to Georges Melies, the early pioneer of films and special effects. It was a collection of his shorts and film pieces with a live accompaniment by Phillip Johnston and The Transparent Quartet. Melies was one of the first special effects experts. His A Trip to the Moon (1902) can arguably be considered the first science fiction film, although it falls more accurately under the fantasy category. Melies was a noble experiment, which in my opinion failed. The early films by Melies are entertaining for a bit, but I cannot take them in extended doses. Even with the varied musical accompaniment to liven them up, they just don't hold the attention of any but the most dedicated film buffs. The live accompaniment to Charlie Chaplin last year was much more successful, largely due to the more varied nature of the films and their intrinsic greater "watchability." Beginning

Memento (2001) (****, noir, crime, drama) (5-9-01) (DW.- Christopher Nolan; based on the short story by his brother Jonathan Nolan; Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano, Mark Boone Junior, Stephen Tobolowsky) Destined to be one of the best, most cerebral films of the year. Imaginative, stunningly unbalancing, disturbing.

The film starts at the end with what appears to be a murder photographed by Leonard (Pearce) and runs backwards in time. Leonard is hunting the man who raped and murdered his wife; however, he lacks any short term memory due to a head injury during the attack. He remembers everything up to the attack but cannot store new information for more than a few minutes. This leads to a rather unexpected twist in one chase sequence. Everyone around him may be helping him or using him for their own means. This includes the oily Teddy (Pantoliano), the mysterious Natalie (Moss), and even the hotel clerk.

Leonard’s current life is built around scraps of information on notes, annotated photos, and tattoos for the most critical information. And his desire to avenge his wife. Even something as seemingly simple as his car must be stored on a photo so that he can remember what he is driving.

The story works backwards as a series of flashbacks with each scenario seen from Leonard’s perspective. Until we finally (possibly) get the whole story. Like a jigsaw puzzle, each scenario adds another piece to the picture, although sometimes the wrong piece fits in the right hole. As with Leonard, our information stream is not always complete or even accurate. This reverse structure is fascinating because it forces us to view each scenario as Leonard does; that is with no prior knowledge and aided only by our crib sheets. Unlike Lenny, of course, we are able to build up multiple images and use everything later.

One of the recurrent themes is the unreliability of eye witnesses, the vagaries of memory, and our very human tendency to interpret things in our own way. Before the assault, Leonard was an insurance investigator and he is well aware of the weakness of memory. There is a pivotal conversation between Leonard and Teddy about facts and what is set down on paper versus memory. One of Leonard’s most significant tattoos is about Sammy, and is a pre-assault story that we get in bits and pieces. This is not a movie that you can take your eyes off the screen for even a few seconds. You will miss critical information. Memento is classic film noir. The world is chaotic. Unexpected danger lurks at every turn. No one or no thing can be trusted. Every move our protagonist makes seems to drag him deeper into the pit.

Memento does have a few graphic bits of violence, but mainly this is a very cerebral film. It is beautifully scripted and immensely disturbing. Pearce is stellar as a man who, through no fault of his own, is thrown into a horrific, untenable situation and tries to make the most of it. He also has his own internal code of logic and his own self interest. When asked the very reasonable question of why he is interested in revenge since even if he gets it, he won’t remember it, his answer is "My wife deserves revenge whether or not I remember it."

Short term memory loss is a real affliction. These people have lost the ability to shift new information into long term storage. However, they are frequently painfully aware of their affliction. The one thing that I am not sure of is whether people with this problem could be as functional as Leonard even with all his aids. But this doesn’t distract from the film.
As an interesting aside, I will put Memento into my list of top films under the category Reality Bent. Another film in this class is Proof starring Russell Crowe. Both Crowe and Pearce are Australian and both got their big recognition in this country starring in L.A. Confidential. If you are interested in our other top films (by category), check out

http://www.people.Virginia.EDU/~jnd/filmtop.htm

DVD Review. The DVD contains an Independent Film Channel interview with the director Christopher Nolan by Elvis Mitchell. As the director said “Memory is much more interpretative than we think.” The film only took 25 and ½ days to film. Guy Pierce, who played Leonard with the short term memory problem, was very concerned about his own ability to remember things—in spite of the fact that he had a stellar memory for details. This proved invaluable to the filming because of the low budget and the number of things that had to be reproduced exactly between different scenes. Also, as the director points out, in spite of the convoluted style of the film, it is in fact very linear. Just run in reverse. He considers Angel Heart very influential on Memento. If you haven’t seen Angel Heart, it is a truly disturbing journey into darkness; I believe it is now on DVD. Memento was based on an idea for a short story by Jonathan Nolan, the director’s brother. The chronology was that they were on a long car trip together and Jonathan mentioned the idea for the story. His brother asked if he would object to it being developed into a film and he agreed. The film actually appeared before Jonathan finished and published the short story. The complete short story Memento Mori is provided on the DVD. It is very different from the movie, albeit just as disturbing in its own right.

The DVD also includes biographical info on the director and actors and close ups of the tattoos. It also has an interactive news article from after the ending that allows you to sort out some of the details of what happened before and after the film. This material plus more is available on the official web pages otnemem.com. Do NOT look at this before watching the film.

The DVD (available at Beyond Video or Sneak Reviews) has an excellent 2.35:1 wide screen transfer. The only disadvantage is that even with DVD, there a few critical details that I think were clear in the theater that don’t show up clearly enough on the DVD. Memento is supposed to be coming to the Jefferson Theater, and I plan to rush out and watch it on the big screen there when it comes through.

Beginning

Memphis Belle (1944) (***1/2, documentary) (D.-Billy Widler) Available at Clemons or on video tape from video suppliers such as Films Unlimited. The legendary Billy Wilder was a colonel in WWII and shot documentary war footage. I believe I saw that he lost an eye while directing a camera during a Japanese Zero attack. His best known film was the 40 minute documentary on the last flight of the B-17 Super Fortress bomber Memphis Belle on which the 1990 film Memphis Belle was based. Wilder's film may be a documentary. It may be propaganda--and it is good propaganda. However, it is also a fascinating and artistic piece of work. Belle also looks pretty accurate and didn't gloss over the ugly aspects of war--the dead, the dying, the carnage. The film starts with a view of the enormous bomber squadrons in England and follows a massive raid through the briefing, the preparation, the strategy, the assault, and the aftermath. All of the aerial combat footage is real, and you will notice some of the fighter maneuvers that were so commonplace in war films and more recently in Star Wars. You can also see why it was so hard to either hit or film the fighters. Remember, you aren't being paranoid if they are trying to kill you. (5-4-98) Beginning

Men In Black (1997) (***, sci fi, humor) (D.-Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Linda Fiorentino, Vincent D'Onofrio, Rip Torn) Not as good as the hype, but enjoyable. Men In Black (MiB) revels in its absurdity. The world is full of aliens including lots of very recognizable pop figures (e.g., Dennis Rodman, but what's new?). The only thing keeping the lid on is a super secret Division 6--sort of a deep cover INS. K (Jones) is a crack veteran agent who recruits Smith (J) as his new partner. The chemistry between Smith and Jones is perfect. Smith's frenetic over-exuberance and stunned reactions to all of the new discoveries are bounced off Jones' deadpan, efficient demeanor--the perfect bureaucrat. Throw in the world's sexiest coroner Laurel (Fiorentino) to round out the critical human characters. The threat to the universe comes from an alien "bug" in a human container, Edgar (Vincent D'Onofrio). D'Onofrio clearly has a ball as he "tries" to make a human body behave in a semihuman fashion. I was continually reminded of Michael Keaton in Beetlejuice. I loved the arrival scene. The humor ranges from slapstick to subtle jabs at most of the sci fi films ever made. The effects are good and the different creatures are highly imaginative. I did think Fiorentino was much under utilized. Everyone looks like they are having a good time and this carries over to the audience. (7-28-97) Beginning

Men in Black II (2002) (***, sci fi, humor) (9-2-02) (D.-Barry Sonnenfeld; Tommy Lee Jones, Will Smith, Rosario Dawson, Lara Flynn Boyle, Johnny Knoxville, Rip Torn, Tony Shalhoub) Hamlet you were expecting? If you go into MIB II expecting anything more than a mindless romp you weren’t paying attention. MIB II delivers humor, neat effects, some good belly laughs, and another opportunity to see the stellar team of Smith and Jones bounce off of each other. Of course, we need to have a reason to reinstate Jones’ memory from MIB I. A suitable villain, of course. How about an alien bent on world destruction who looks like a Victoria’s Secret model (Boyle)? Quirky aliens of all kinds and a dog secret agent who want to make it to the big time. In summary, not great but entertaining and worth regular theater fare (my criteria for ***). If I have nothing better to do, I could easily sit through it again. Beginning

Metropolis (1926) (****, classic, silent, Sci-Fi) (D.-Fritz Lang, Brigitte Helm, Alfred Abel, Rudolf Klein-Rogge, Fritz Rasp) An epic silent classic. A bleak futuristic society with elements of 1984 and The Time Machine where automaton-like workers slave in cavernous underground sweatshops to provide a life of opulent decadence for a pampered few. The system is brought down by the leader's naive son who becomes aware of the worker's plight, a nonviolence-spouting underground feminist leader, and a female robot with a taste for hedonistic and nihilistic lust that would make Nero blush. The acting is classic, overdone silent style and the plot not believable, especially the reason for the destruction. The end is too soft to be realistic; Lang thought that was a weak point of the film. Nevertheless, an inspiring and insightful view of the future. Helm is stellar as both the evangelical Maria and the smoldering, destructive robot. What a plum role. On the other hand Freder (Froelich) is such a ham that he could be served on bread. Many scenes have true, raw elemental power even today. For the time, some awesome special effects, and in places a delightfully disorienting surrealism. The manipulated mobs are completely, frighteningly believable and reflect even now on our vulnerability to mind control in mob situations. Many modern films clearly show the mark of Lang; we kept thinking of Blade Runner. Pay attention and you'll notice that the workers do 10 hour shifts, but the day is only 20 hours long. The movie is badly dated, but gets **** for its historical significance and watchability even by modern audiences. However, be warned, it isn't Star Wars or The Terminator. Apparently available in 139 and 120 minute forms (depending on your authority) and a 1984 reissued, color tinted, 87 minute version with a score by Giorgio Moroder. Review based on an uncolorized, unscored, about 90 minute video version from Goodtime Home Video; the 120 minute running time on the box is a lie. The term robot is Czech and comes from the 1921 play R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) by Karel Capek. (6-21-93)

Note Added on the Giorgio Moroder version (1984). Moroder (Flashdance) claims to have restored as much of the original 139 minutes as is still available and to have reconstructed the film as well as possible using the original script and novel. In a few places, he appears to use stills where film is missing. The rest of what he did is VERY controversial. He strongly tinted the film and added a contemporary rock track with artists such as Pat Benetar and Adam Ant. However, except for a few scenes with multiple colors, tinting for mood was actually quite common in silents, and in many cases we don't actually know what the colorization was in the theatrical releases. So, I think objections to the tinting are unreasonable.

The rock score is another issue. Initially, I was rather shocked, even offended, to have such modern sound with a classical film. However, the more I watched, the more it grew on me. Finally, for me, it really works. Music that was played with all silents was intended as mood setting and manipulation. Moroder just has a broader musical canvas to manipulate us with, and I think he uses it most effectively. Ultimately, the enormous visual power of the film sublimated even a rock score and makes it work in the way the original director wanted--support for the visuals.

The critics are highly divided on Moroder's version, so my recommendation would be to watch both and decide for yourself. However, don't condemn Moroder too quickly. I found that it took a while for me to adjust to it and get into the rhythm where I wasn't constantly aware of it. (4-14-97) Beginning

Metropolis (2001) (***1/2, anime, sci fi) (5-6-02) (D.- Rintaro; W.- Katsuhiro Otomo; Jamieson Price, Toshio Furukawa, Dave Mallow, Scott Weinger) This may be anime, but it isn’t a children’s movie, Toto. Based on Osamu Tezuka’s late forties comic books, which in turn were built from Fritz Lang’s visionary 1926 movie “Metropolis”. The story is apparently reasonably true to the original down to the visual style of the characters. The comic reflected the ambivalence towards technology of a post-nuclear society. The original film was concerned with the interactions between an upper and a subservient class, the ruthlessness to keep power, and robotics. The current film deals with many of these issues but dwells more on the elements of what makes a human being (e.g. Blade Runner).

The film is a sweeping visual masterpiece unfettered by the constraints of physical models and reality. The characters are classic cel animation imposed on a largely digitally created world. The city itself becomes a character in its own right.

The plot is anything but simple. Detective Shunsaku Ban and his nephew Kenichi arrive in Metropolis to track down a mad scientist. The power hungry Duke Red (Price) is in the process of finishing his masterpiece, Ziggurat, a towering building of positively Ozymandian proportions. The city is segregated in layers both physically and socially. Robots represent the cheap labor force and there is continual conflict with the have nots over the use of sentient robot labor. Duke plans to seize power by playing the different factions against each other. His ultimate goal is a perfect world run without emotions by a powerful robot. However, his “son”, Rock, upsets parts of this well planned takeover by having his own vision of who should be in control, and it isn’t a waif like android-robot Tima.

Philosophically, Metropolis is true to Lange’s vision of a world brought down by its too strong dependence on technology coupled with human greed and ambition. The intellectual level of the arguments never reaches very high, but the film works better at a base visual-aural level than at an intellectual level. The sound track adds a unique flavor to the film and the director does the bass clarinet.

Review based on the two disk (if it can be called a two disk set) DVD where the supplementary disk is physically unique. The interviews with the cast, the director, and the writer make for an interesting experience. The director explains why if Osamu Tezuka were alive, the film would not have been made. Incidentally, if you want your anime with more intellectual content, I really enjoyed Ghost in the Machine.

Mexican, The (2001) (**1/2, comedy) (3-26-01) (D.- Gore Verbinski; Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, James Gandolfini, Bob Balaban) Quirky amusing tale. Uneven, but with many delightful moments. Well worth good neighbor hour. Jerry (Pitt) and Samantha (Roberts) are in a dysfunctional relationship. Jerry owes a mobster. His final out is simple. Go to Mexico and come back with a priceless antique gun, The Mexican. However, nothing is simple in our boy’s life. His girl dumps him because he will not take her to Vegas—now. Even though if he doesn’t get the gun—now, the mobster will kill him. Actually, the job turns out to be less than simple, even for someone who is less intellectually, common sense and good luck challenged than Jerry. As it turns out, it seems that at least half the North American continent wants that gun (which is bad luck anyway) and aren’t too ethical about how they acquire it. His girl friend is kidnapped, the body count mounts. Alliances are either uncertain or shifting.

The relationship between Jerry and Samantha gives dysfunctional a bad name. Bickering is the least of their problems. Fortunately, the plot involves only minimal interaction between the two as this would have grown tiresome. As it stands it works well.

Two primary plot threads are Jerry’s interactions with the gun and those standing between him and it and Samantha’s interactions with her kidnapper Leroy (Gandolfi), a hit man with his own hang ups and personality quirks. Both plots are quite entertaining with the chemistry between Gandolfi and Roberts working well, although they add some unnecessary plot thread that drag this element out excessively.

As the story unfolds, we also get the story of the antique pistol. With each telling, more details and complexity emerge. The alleged curse associated with it certainly seems plausible. Both my wife and I liked this element.

A complaint about the film has been that Roberts and Pitt don’t spend enough time together. I think the director did it perfectly. There is just enough interaction to truly entertain, but not so much as to wear thin. Beginning

Miami Blues (1990) (**, crime, drama) (D.- George Armitage, Fred Ward, Alec Baldwin, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Nora Dunn) Blues gets mixed reviews. Some really really like it. Other don't think much of it. Obviously, I belong to the latter. Fred Frenger (Baldwin) is a psychopath who can be quite charming, but ultimately he is a thief and a murderer who can never really understand why he shouldn't be allowed to do whatever he wants, when he wants. In short, a typical criminal mentality. Frenger, an ex con, arrives in Miami to start a new life. Unfortunately, his new life starts badly; he accidentally kills a Hare Krishna panhandler in the airport. Sgt. Hoke Moseley (Ward) is a cynical cop who is willing to cut him some slack until Frenger beats and robs him of his gun, ID, and false teeth, which he then uses (except the teeth) in a one man crime wave that would make Bonnie and Clyde proud. Susie Waggoner (Leigh) is his live in girlfriend working her way through school doing tricks. She is rather dense and, worse, a poor judge of character who cannot see Frenger's dark side. My guess is that the director's intent was black comedy via an assortment of misfits, malcontents, and off-the-wall situations. For me, it just didn't work. I didn't find it funny, and the characters and crime drama failed also. Part of it was that the characters were too extreme, and the plot too heavy handed. Humor is hard; black humor is exceptionally difficult. (6-12-95) Beginning

Michael Clayton (2007) (***1/2, drama) (2-25-08)(DW.-Tony Gilroy; George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack) Taut, beautifully crafted drama. Michael Clayton (Clooney) is a “fixer” for one of New York’s top law firms. More accurately, he describes himself as a janitor who cleans up other people’s messes, such as indiscreet or criminal behavior. Discretion with little regard for legal and ethical niceties is his operational method, and he is very good at what he does. He comes from a law enforcement family and was a prosecutor before he sold his soul for this much more lucrative career. He is looked down on as a necessity, and scorned or feared in his firm. After 17 years he is a burned out and emotionally and morally hollow. His life is a disaster with him being in serious debt to people who don’t take kindly to nonpayment.

His life is about to be shaken to its core. His firm’s top negotiator and friend Arthur Edens (Wilkinson) has been handling an enormous class action suit for agrochemical company U/North, which appears to be on the verge of a successful conclusion. However, Arthur who has been working on this for 6 years undergoes a mental meltdown during a deposition, strips, and runs naked through the snow. Michael gets called in to clean it up. From the U/North camp comes their Chief Council Karen Crowder (Swinton), a super ambitious, enormously able executive whose future depends on the fruitful resolution of this case. The fates of these two become intimately intertwined as the plot races headlong towards its conclusion.

I won’t say anymore about plot as the less known the more your enjoyment. However, in the first 5 minutes, you realize this probably isn’t quite what you were expecting in a legal drama. The plot is as tight as a snare drum, the cinematography excellent. Once again Clooney demonstrates both his superb acting skill and his ability to select parts that fit him like a well- worn suit. Swinton has only limited screen time, but her presentation is electrifying. Wilkinson’s performance as the unstable genius is perfect. The film graphically presents dilemmas as people with fluid views of morality are presented with levels of moral (or immoral if you wish) choices.

The DVD has deleted scenes, which my wife and I both agreed were better left out even though they were interesting. It also has the director’s voice over commentary, which we didn’t watch. [Note added in proof. Swinton won the Academy Award for best supporting actress.] Beginning

Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil (1997) (***, drama) (D.-Clint Eastwood; Kevin Spacey, John Cusack, Jack Thompson, The Lady Chablis, Alison Eastwood, Irma P. Hall) We have not read the best selling book by John Berendt, so this review is based solely on the film. My family has widely different views on the film and the rating is a family average. I'll explain why later. What a marvelous title, and it even has significance in the story. The book is a factual account of the author's experiences in Georgia. Midnight is like a gothic Faulkner story set in the present. John Kelso (Cusack), a New York author, is visiting Savannah to report on the great social event of the year given by Jim Williams (Spacey). In this inbred society, even the most normal are terminally weird and include a man who keeps flies on leashes, a man who walks an invisible dog, a drag queen, and a voodoo priestess. Kelso senses a great story and stays on referring it to his publisher as like "Gone with the Wind on mescaline". Actually, he probably understates it. However, ultimately things really take a strange turn when Williams shoots and kills a young hustler. The remainder of the story is about the unraveling of the mystery and the repercussions.

The most interesting part of the film is the characters. In particular, The Lady Chablis is a hoot. Where the name came from will impress you. Hall was over the top as the priestess. Spacey is excellent as Williams, who has a bemused detachment from the insanity that swirls around him. But I never really warmed up to Kelso. In my opinion, the fictional character Mandy Nichols (Eastwood who is Clint Eastwood's daughter) was inappropriate and unnecessary as Kelso's love interest. Fortunately, we were spared the love scene between the two that was filmed but cut.

I did enjoy parts of the movie. My biggest problem with the film is philosophical. As I understand it, the book is factual. Clint Eastwood took considerable liberties with this, adding new characters and ghostly scenes that apparently were not in the book. Also, I felt that it went on too long (154 minutes). On the other hand my wife liked the director's spin. She felt that it was a study in the loss of innocence of Kelso as he discovered the real complexity of the characters and the situations along with his own ambivalent views. So I guess this is one that everyone has to sort out themselves. (2-2-98) Beginning

Miller's Crossing (**1/2 drama, crime) (D.-Joel Coen; Gabriel Byrne, Albert Finney, Marcia Gay Harden, John Turturro, Jon Polito, J.E. Freeman, Mike Starr, Al Mancini) The Coen brothers give us an interesting little Irish gangster movie. I think that the primary characterization is flawed, but it is an interesting story. Turturro does a superb job. He has gotten rave reviews for Coen's Barton Fink, but I haven't seen that yet. However, if you haven't seen the Coen's Blood Simple , rent it--an outstanding little thriller, especially for a first film. Also, I heard since I saw it that there are only seven actors in the entire movie. Beginning

Ministry of Fear (1944) (**1/2, war, drama, suspense) (D.- Fritz Lang; Ray Milland, Marjorie Reynolds, Carl Esmond, Dan Duryea, Hillary Brooke, Alan Napier) Hitchcock style thriller. Very nice set up and beautifully atmospheric, although I thought the second half was weak. The beginning, in particular, is very rich (in many ways). You have that overwhelming feeling that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye. Trust it. In England, Milland is released from an asylum years after killing his wife. The war is going full tilt and .... To say any more would be a disservice. (9-25-95) Beginning

Miracle Mile (1989) (**, sci fi, drama) (D.-Steve DeJarnatt; Anthony Edwards, Mare Winningham, John Agar, Lou Hancock, Mykel T. Williamson, Kelly Minter) Intriguing concept that doesn't work. Boy meets girl of his dreams. Boy arranges to pick her up when she gets off work at midnight diner. Boy oversleeps and arrives after she has gone home, and he lack her address or phone number. Boy rushes to pick up ringing pay phone hoping it is her. Wrong number. But the caller, thinking he has his family, passes on the chilling news that doomsday is an hour away. Is it real or a crude joke? How the boy and others at the diner react to this news forms the remainder of the film. Much of the behavior, I suspect, is realistic. But Mile just doesn't pull together in a coherent believable whole as either a thriller, a romance, or a black comedy. (6-12-95) Beginning

Misery (1990) (***, horror) (D.-Rob Reiner; James Caan, Kathy Bates, Richard Farnsworth, Frances Sternhagen, Lauren Bacall, Graham Jarvis) Most of King's novels translate poorly to the screen. Misery is an exception as it is a psychological study rather than a supernatural thriller. After a snowy car crash, romance pulp writer Paul Sheldon (Caan) is rescued by his "number one fan", Annie Wilkes. Caan's current plot with his main character Misery is unacceptable to Bates, who then effectively imprisons him and forces him with increasingly draconian measures to write the book her way. Caan is the sort of low key guy no one thinks much of until they push him past his "line in the sand" (only he doesn't advertise it, so you don't know where it is, much less that it is there). Only then does a resourceful, unbendable steel core emerge. An excellent physical and psychological battle where Bates has all of the physical advantages. Caan, who can be limited, is well cast and believable as the writer. Bates is excellent (Academy Award for Best Actress) as the fan, and demonstrates the obsessive psychopathology of the modern stalker, which has now become such a familiar part of our landscape. Her outstandingly mercurial performance alone justifies seeing the movie. (4-24-95) Beginning

Mission Impossible (1996) (***, action) (D.-Brian de Palma; Tom Cruise, Jon Voight, Emmanuelle Beart, Ving Rhames, Jean Reno, H. Azerny, Kristin Scott Thomas, Vanesa Redgraves) Its good to see the talented de Palma with a hit. Solid actioner that builds on the Bruce Geller created classic TV series of the same name. "Mr. Phelps (Voight) should you accept this assignment ... This tape will self destruct in 5 seconds." The plot manages the convoluted, frequently incomprehensible (until you look back) format of the original updated to the nineties with more violence and more spectacular action. There seem to be two views on Impossible. Those that really like it and those that consider it a dog. I suspect that some of the latter are original viewers who don't like the plot twist and, possibly, the higher violence level.

Of course, every actioner must try to outdo the others in effects, and the Chunnel sequence at the end is a real corker in spite of its total unbelievability. More modest, but in my opinion better, is the restaurant scene--classic de Palma. Cruise is Ethan Hunt, head of a select IMF team. I won't spoil any of the fun by giving away plot (the previews have already given too much) other than to say it involves crosses, double crosses, miraculously good disguises, as well as wild and totally Bondsian action gadgets. As an aside, the physically delicate balancing act that Cruise had to perform at one point wasn't working, so Cruise solved the problem by putting coins in his shoes as additional weight. A warning, the plot is convoluted, but it does hold together if you accept the genre--I know at least one person who missed a key plot point the first time. In Hunt's coolly efficient team you will recognize Rhames as the violent gang lord in Pulp Fiction and Reno as the killer in the Professional. Emilio Estevez in a cameo role is all but unrecognizable behind his beard, but can be picked out by his distinctive voice. At least for original fans, the theme music / burning fuse sequence is still a real adrenaline pumper. (6-10-96) Beginning

Mission to Mars (2000) (*1/2, sci fi) (12-10-01) (D.-Brian De Palma; Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell, Peter Outerbridge, Kavan Smith, Jill Teed, Elise Neal) The first mission to Mars meets with a catastrophic end, but sends back indications that there is something unique on Mars. A rescue mission is sent up to see whether they can salvage anyone or anything. However, everything that can go wrong does. Given the budget, the cast, and the director the movie is a major disappointment. De Palma is a good director of action films. Here he sets out with a message. The film has elements of 2001, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Five Million Years to Earth, all of which do a far superior job. The result is lethargic, pretentious, and just plain boring. The action sequences, which should be the heart of the film, go on to the point of boredom to make their message point. Even the cast sleepwalks through it. Visually it does have some impressive elements. Mars is stark, believable. The sand storm is impressive. The making of the effects is highly informative and entertaining both for the cg and the creation of a zero gravity world. If you must rent the film, get the DVD, fast forward to the sand storm and watch the making of short. You were warned.Beginning

Mister Frost (1989) (**1/2, horror) (D.-Philip Setbon; Jeff Goldblum, Alan Bates, Kathy Baker, Jean-Pierre Cassel, Daniel Gélin, Francois Negret) An intriguing but not completely successful attempt to make a literate atmospheric horror movie with minimal blood and gore. Mister Frost (Goldblum) is an eccentric, good natured fellow who loves cooking and likes to keep souvenirs (photos) of his culinary masterpieces even though he rarely eats them because of his small appetite. He also turns out to be one of England's worst serial killers. His "discovery" by a police detective (Bates) is a masterpiece of understatement and sets the tone for the rest of Goldblum's performance, which is simultaneously the nice little guy next door, the poor put upon individual, and the very personification of evil. The detective becomes convinced that while there is no official record anywhere of Mister Frost's past, he does in fact have a long list of other names including Scratch, Satan, Beelzebub, etc. However, the serial murder is not Frost's goal but his means. The plot revolves around his interactions with the psychiatrists who are trying to figure out why he ticks. In particular, Baker is the only one he will speak with and it is the interaction with her and her dawning acceptance of what he really is and what he wants that forms the backbone of the movie. Frost, of course, is the master deceiver and there are multiple interpretations of what happens and how others interpret what happened. Do be sure to hear clearly the psychologist's final remark. You may need to turn up the volume and replay it to pick up everything.

Frost is lovingly photographed in a frequently surrealistic style. Most scenes are successfully designed to distort and disturb your equilibrium. Even the attendant who never says a word is part of this surrealistic tapestry, and you are never clear for whom he actually works. Unfortunately, the whole never gels, and I ended intrigued but emotionally uninvolved. What does work for me and made the movie more than worth watching, however, is Goldblum's performance. He is one of a short list of actors who could pull this complex role off, which he does beautifully. He can exude menace in all his body English, the cant of his head, or the hint of a smile. Just standing there, you know that he is someone that you would walk across the street to avoid. So particularly if you are a Goldblum fan, Mister Frost is not to be missed. (12-12-94) Beginning

Moby Dick (1956) (**1/2, drama, adventure) (D.-John Huston, Gregory Peck, Richard Basehart, Leo Genn, Orson Welles) Based amazingly closely on Herman Melville's novel. An allegorical tale of vengeance as Captain Ahab of the Pequod obsessively seeks payment from the white whale responsible for his lost leg. Who would have thought that a successful modern movie could be built around Melville's ponderous English. But it works due to Peck's charismatic performance and some awesomely effective whaling footage. You feel as if your life is on the line in these scenes; perhaps because (I suspect) they are real and not special effects. Even our son, who was relatively young when we saw it, was quite taken by the movie and more than willing to wade through the prose because of the story's basic power. (4-12-93) Beginning

Modern Times (1936) (****, humor, satire) (D.-Charles Chaplin, Charles Chaplin, Paulette Goddard, Henry Bergman, Stanley J. Sanford, Chester Conklin, Allan Garcia) At Sneak Review Video. Chaplin's first talkie, although really a silent movie with a few words. One of the most savage political satires ever seen on film. This was not a good time for workers in automated factories, and Chaplin with his communistic leanings and savage wit gave big business, The Business. Any doubts about his intent are demolished in the first few seconds where the scene of sheep racing though stocks is replaced by mobs of scurrying workers. Modern Times has two of the most memorable sight gags. You have all seen photos of Chaplin entangled in the giant gear set; the action film is priceless, especially a later part where his supervisor gets stuck in these gears and lunch shuts down the line. Fewer have seen the assembly line sequence. As the day progesses, the boss keeps cranking up the conveyer belt speed forcing Chaplin to race further and further down the line to finish his task. By the end, he is bowling over everyone else on the line to complete his task. The automated feeding machine and man's subjugation to run away technology is also priceless. Unfortunately, Chaplin had a propensity for starring his current love interests with a plot to accommodate her. Rather than playing to Chaplin's comedic genius, the result tends to be dismal. This movie is no exception. The comedy is ****, but the plot reduces it overall to ***. This devastating satire still has bite and relevance today in terms of worker alienation and lay offs. (5-3-93) Beginning

Money Pit, The (1986) (**1/2, humor) (D.-Richard Benjamin, Tom Hanks, Shelley Long, Alexander Godunov, Maureen Stapleton, Joe Mantegna, Philip Bosco) For anyone who has ever bought a car or some other expensive used item that does not quite live up to your expectations, Money Pit is your worst nightmare. Hanks and Long get a "great" deal on their dream house. It turns out to be like having one foot caught in the garbage disposal and being unable to reach the off switch. The humor unfolds as their house, life, and marriage collapse around them--sometimes quite literally. The humor is erratic, and the plot predictable. However, there are a few truly memorable scenes that alone raise it to **1/2. If houses had personalities, this one would be an escaped homicidal maniac. The humor is at its best when the house is trying to drive the couple crazy. The bathtub and the carpet scenes come to mind and will stick with you long after the plot. Godunov does an amusing cameo as a good natured, self centered ex-lover of Long. Compare this behavior with his very self-assured role in Witness and the murderous terrorist in Die Hard. (3-22-93) Beginning

Monsoon Wedding (2002) (***1/2, comedy drama) (4-23-02) (D.-Mira Nair; W.-Sabrina Dhawan; Naseeruddin Shah, Lillete Dubey, Shefali Shetty, Vasundhara Das, Parvin Dabas, Vijay Raaz, Tilotama Shome) India has the largest film industry in the world, and it goes by the name Bollywood. Monsoon Wedding is a classic Bollywood production. It revolves around a complex upcoming arranged wedding. We get the interactions between the couple (Das and Dabas), the family, the bride-to-be and her lover, the somewhat less than reputable wedding planner (Raaz) and the parents (Shah and Dubey), and a nasty little subplot involving a close friend of the family. While it may be an arranged wedding, the couple is not young but experienced adults. So the wedding is not exactly being forced down their throats; they are willing participants who meet each other shortly before the wedding and do have to come terms with each other. We have issues of family, loyalty, lust, love, trust, and acceptance. Since different people come from different areas, castes, and cultures including American, we get a complex interrelationship of issues. The film is done with high energy, an extraordinary array of colors and complex sets. In keeping with Bollywood traditions, it has dancing and singing. I am being deliberately vague about plot since much of the pleasure comes from watching the different elements arise and develop.

In my opinion, many of the plot lines would be considered trite and recycled if presented in an American film. Here it works because it contains the cross cultural elements where we view another culture’s way of approaching timeless issues. Even though the approach is different, we fully recognize the parent’s problems and methods of trying to deal with them. The young couples’ various courtings and adaptation to different problems strikes very responsive chords even when filtered through different cultural attitudes. Ultimately, we are all human beings and culture and upbringing can only alter our basic nature so much.

The film is in English, Hindi, and Punjabi with English subtitles where the principles fluidly switch between languages sometimes in the same sentence. Just like in real life. The acting is good with the different young couples’ interactions being particularly believable.

If you want a high energy evening that celebrates the human spirit and a cross cultural view of courtship, love, and marriage, check out Monsoon Wedding. Do remember that if you aren’t eating the marigolds, you must be sick. Beginning

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (*** for adults, animation, comedy, fantasy) (12-03-01) (D.- Peter Docter, David Silverman; John Goodman, Billy Crystal, Mary Gibbs, Steve Buscemi, James Coburn, Jennifer Tilly, Bob Peterson, John Ratzenberger, Frank Oz) There really are monsters in children’s closets and under their beds. The reason they are there is that the fears of the children are used to generate power for their city Monstropolis. The very best scarer is blue furred James P. 'Sulley' Sullivan (Goodman) supported by yellow, giant one-eyed, round friend Michael 'Mike' Wazowski (Crystal). Their nemesis an oily lizard Randall (Buscemi). The twist is that the monsters are deathly afraid of humans. They believe their very touch is lethal. The story revolves around a little girl Boo (Gibbs) who accidentally gets loose in Monstropolis, and Sulley and Mike end up trying to correct the situation. Monsters is from the same people who brought you the Toy Story pair. The production values, the voice over, and the animation are all stellar. The children in the audience seemed to be enjoying it immensely. My *** rating is for adults. While Monsters has a significant amount of humor that adults will enjoy and the plot doesn’t insult their intelligence, it isn’t up to the adult standards of the Toy Story films. Nevertheless, adults will not find the time spent taking younger ones to the film a waste.

The interplay between the actors is excellent with Sulley and Mike successfully and believably carrying the bulk of the film. The supporting cast works beautifully. Boo is as cute as a bug’s ear.

I did learn something from the film. I’m just not sure what. On the basis of rave reviews from the parents of two different 3-year-old boys who loved the film, I took my four and a half year old granddaughter. Ultimately, she found the story line too intense and threatening and we had to leave near the end. I’m not sure whether this is a difference in gender, in age, or in just personality. I can envisage a somewhat older child having a better mental grasp of the situation. Regardless, I will be more cautious in the future about the films I take her to see. Beginning

Monster That Challenged the World, The (1957) (**1/2, 50s sci fi, horror) (D.- Arnold Laven; Tim Holt, Audrey Dalton, Hans Conried, Casey Adams) With this ghastly title and the fact that the monsters are giant crustaeceans (big snails), I thought this would be a surefire turkey rating. In fact, it is a well done low-budget horror flic that does a good job on the set up and delivery. Jaws doesn't have to worry, but a pleasant diversion for followers of the genre. (7-5-95) Beginning

Mortal Thoughts (1991) (**1/2 suspense) (D-Alan Rudolph; Demi Moore, Glenne Headly, Bruce Willis, John Pankow, Harvey Keitel) Two police detectives interview and video tape a woman relating the incidents leading up to, and the subsequent cover up of, her best friends almost justifiable murder of her abusive husband. As in first hand accounts of any serious incident, what is really interesting is not what is said, but what the interviewee isn't telling you or is casting in a biased light. An interesting story with some good camera work and flashbacks from the video taped interview, but it just doesn't deliver what it could have. Incidentally, if movies were subject to the "look and feel" lawsuits of computer screens (e.g. Apple's against Microsoft's Windows), the producer of Siesta (reviewed earlier) could have a field day. From an image and music standpoint Mortal Thoughts bears an uncanny resemblance to Siesta even when the transfer was inappropriate (e.g. the trumpet background). Beginning

Moulin Rouge! (2001) (6-17-02) (unrated, musical, fantasy, comedy, drama) (D.- Baz Luhrmann; Nicole Kidman, Ewan McGregor, Jim Broadbent, John Leguizamo, Richard Roxburgh) The tragic love story of a poet’s pursuit of courtesan Satine ('The Sparkling Diamond')( Kidman) with complications from a jealous Duke. I watched enough of Moulin to see that it is beautifully filmed, choreographed, and acted. I also learned that it fell into the Fellini school of extravagant gaudy excess. While I do admire the way it takes no prisoners and is totally over the top, it is not my type of film. It is unrated because I didn’t watch the entire film, but if you like Fellini, you may well like Moulin Rouge! Beginning

Most Dangerous Game, The (1932) (***, classic, action, thriller) (D.-Ernest B. Schoedsack, Irving Pichel; Joel McCrea, Fay Wray, Leslie Banks, Robert Armstrong, Noble Johnson) A classic, frequently filmed Richard Connell story. Mad Count Zaroff (Banks) wrecks ships and then hunts the survivors for sport on his remote island. Big game hunter McCrea and suitably heaving damsel-in-distress Ray are next on the most wanted list. Game may be old and overacted in the classic silent style, but these boys knew how to put together an action sequence. Once the chase begins, the armrests have to fend for themselves as you try to rip them off. The camera work and editing are top drawer. I was especially impressed by some of the shots of the dogs and the swamp where you practically had to duck. The sets in the castle are magnificent. (4-14-97) Beginning

Mouse That Roared, The(1959) (**1/2, comedy, war, satire) (D.-Jack Arnold; Peter Sellers, Jean Seberg, David Kossoff, William Hartnell, Monty Landis, Leo McKern) Very highly rated when it first appeared. I guess that I was a curmudgeon even then as I thought less highly of it. However, it has aged better than a lot of movies of the period, and I still rate it today as I would in '59. The kingdom of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, bypassed by the Middle Ages and so small it could be covered by a postage stamp, is going down the tubes financially. They have a brilliant plan to solve all of their problems. They will be insulted by the United States, declare war on it, invade it, and lose after a glorious battle. Then the United States, in keeping with post WWII policies, will completely reconstruct Grand Fenwick! Considering that their army is less than a score, their volunteers don't know one end of a spear from the other, and their idea of heavy armament is a crossbow, this plan seems foolproof. The buildup is probably the best part. Things don't alway work out like we plan. Easy going, low key 50s style comedy with Sellers playing three parts, including a Grande Dame, in his inimitable style. (6-26-95) Beginning

Movie Begins, The; Volume 1 (1994) (***, documentary) From Kino Video. There are 5 volumes to this series on the history of early films, and Sneak Reviews in Charlottesville has them all. Volume 1 is fascinating. In short, if you are interested in the history of film and Volume 1 is representative, I can highly recommend The Movie Begins. There is a little pamplet that goes with the tape that gives some background on each film or short. However, it would be more useful if the information were in even greater depth and were included on the film itself as the pamphlets are sure to get lost.

This volume contains, among other things, a series of sequential photos by Eadweard Muybridge, each taken with several cameras and spliced together to give the appearance of motion; the scenes that should be jerky are actually put together with each frame being held for an extended period to give a very pleasing effect. The work was originally displayed on a Zoopraxiscope and had to be redrawn to correct perspective. Also shown is the famous, and probably first, kiss in motion pictures by May Irwin Kis and John C. Rice. Trust me, you'll recognize it. Serpentine dances from the 1890's show a mastery of film making that amazed me; the print quality and the fluidity of the motion is superb. Some of August and Louis Lumiere's work showing regular life are included along with the complete A Trip to the Moon by George Melies. An excellent print of the classic The Great Train Robbery (1903) is provided with selective hand coloring in a few critical scenes. The film ends with the surrealistic colored in The Golden Beetle (1907), which may have been done by Stencil Printing techniques that were coming into vogue at that time.

One sees evolution in the films. They begin by just showing off the effect, to actually showing people, to slices of life including interesting things such as the coke kiln (an early documentary), to telling complete stories. (1-3-95) Beginning

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005) (**1/2, action, romance) (7-19-05) (D.-Doug Liman; Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Vince Baughn, Kerry Washington, Keith David, Chris Weitz, Rachael Huntley, Adam Brody) What do you get when you have a handsome but very bored, unhappily married couple, John (Pitt) and Jane Smith (Jolie), who just happen to be two of the top assassins in the world but have managed to hide their occupation from the other? Well, you certainly get one of the most interesting twists on how to save a failing marriage. There are some genuinely charming and delightful scenes as the two discover each other’s jobs and then proceed to try to kill each other. The beginning is a little slow on the setup, the middle has some fabulous set pieces, and the end goes on too long. The chemistry between the two principals does work well, as they discover each other’s true identities, try to sort out their conflicting emotions, and struggle to survive. My favorite was the dinner party scene where he comes home early. The culmination with the cop and neighbors at the door is a delightful non sequitur. The writer and director did borrow somewhat shamelessly (and enjoyably) from other films including Prizzi’s Honor, the Lethal Weapons, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. This is a mindless amusing romp that could have been improved had they not tried to give you a full two hours for your money. Also, I thought the body count excessive. Definitely works best on the big screen.

Mr. Hulot's Holiday (AKA Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot) (1953) (****, Comedy) (D.-Jacques Tati; Jacques Tati, Nathalie Pascaud, Michelle Rolla, Valentine Camax, Louis Perrault) Won the Golden Palm at Cannes. At Film Festival (Los Alamos) and I believe at Sneak Reviews (Charlottesville). A black and white classic that is nearly lethally funny. Tati introduces the delightful Monsieur Hulot. Hulot is an almost clueless, easy going fellow. Confusion and havoc shed from his passage like fleas from a dog, frequently with him being totally unaware of it. Holiday is a combination of slapstick and mime comedy (I can think of no better phrase for it). The movie really isn't about much. A variety of different people go to vacation at the French beach. Tati makes faltering attempts to court one of the women. Nothing much happens, but by the end you do know quite a bit about them, and most of them know a lot (too much) about Hulot. The period is early 1950, but everyone and everything that you see is totally recognizable in any modern vacation spot. Tati is a master who hearkens back to the silent greats such as Keaton and Chaplin, but without the dead stretches of Keaton or Chaplin's depressingly savage view of humanity. Tati softly chides our foibles but with the greatest respect for our humanity. Tati also brings out delightful performances from a largely amateur cast who must also carry their own weight.

The film is in French and English without subtitles. It doesn't matter! His unique brand of humor is independent of speech, although Tati makes devastating use of sound. You have an indication of this in the opening scene where hapless travellers are totally demoralized by the inhumanity of a train station. You don't have to speak French to know exactly what is happening.

Favorites from the film are the man-eating kayak, the firework display, the attempted horse ride, and the auto breakdown at the funeral. Throughout you are treated to the most delightful behavior of Hulot's delapidated 1924 Amilcar.

There are apparently both an 86 minute video version and the 114 minute original French release. I'm not sure which one I watched. If it was the short one, I doubt if I would survive the full one. (1-10-95) Beginning

Mr. Bean. In case you haven't seen Mr. Bean (Rowan Atkinson) on PBS, I suggest you give him a look (the latter part of the Green Bean Hour on Adelphia's PBS 11, Saturday night at 10:00). In my opinion, the English Atkinson is a comic genius with deep roots in the silent greats such as Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd. Mr. Bean is Everyman confronted with the travails of the modern world--someone in the parking spot that you want, a boring sermon, no changing booth on the beach, an automatic car ticket gate that fails to let you out after you drop in your last quarter. Only Bean doesn't take these lying down. Using the approach of a demented child with adult resources, Bean attacks the world head on. A plastic face that shows his every thought, bumbling body English, a capacity to misjudge every situation and to arrive at the most awesomely ridiculous solutions to problems conspire to make even the most familiar of activities into riotous nightmares. Bean is sometimes very low, and his style may take a little getting used to, so don't rush to the off knob. Bean is not enjoyed by everyone, but those who do enjoy him find him side-splittingly funny. He is currently working on a movie that has the British very upset because the word is that the humor is being Americanized. Let's hope not. (9-22-97) Beginning

Mr. Bean The Movie (1997) (**1/2, humor) (D.-Mel Smith; Rowan Atkinson, John Mills, Peter Capaldi, June Brown, Peter Egan) Let me first say that I did get some good belly laughs ouf of Bean. I consider Rowan Atkinson one of our current comedic greats; but, as with much humor, not everyone agrees with me. Not all of Atkinson's half hour shows are great. The film, in my opinion, falls in the low end of his shows. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Bean, he is like a seven year child. He is totally self-centered and cares little about the consequences of his actions on others. At the very least, he never bothers to think through the consequences of his action. However, when he gets caught, he reacts like the 7 year old who is fully aware of his transgression. Self-gratification is the primary goal, and his every thought is revealed by his facial expressions and marvelous body English. Unfortunately for those around him, Mr. Bean has the freedom and tools of an adult.

I think some humorists work best in short formats. Chaplin was one. I found many of his shorts riotously funny, but when he was burdened with making a coherent plot in a longer film, the plots flagged and the laugh rate dropped enormously. I feared, and I think I was correct in worrying, that Bean would suffer the same fate. In Bean, they did try to blend him into a broader plot with other supporting characters with their own humorous elements, but none of these worked particularly well. Even Atkinson's humor never reached the manic level of his best half hour shows. In the film they also softened his character, which I think diluted his humor.

One skit which was funny in the film was the turkey scene, but this was, in fact, lifted from the TV show Mr. Bean's Christmas. It just so happened that I watched Christmas for the first time right after seeing the film. For me, the turkey scene in Christmas was so much better than the film even though the effect should have been diluted by seeing the film first.

My wife has coined a very apt term for Bean's style of humor: comic noir. In noir, the protagonist frequently is progressively dragged down by a cascade of events triggered by one bad choice. It is like quicksand; the harder they struggle, the deeper they sink. Comedy noir is the same except that the consequences are comedic rather than tragic. Bean's preparation of the Christmas turkey or his being in the Queen's receiving line are two examples.

I'll conclude by saying that if you have never seen Bean before and like the film, you should definitely catch him on PBS. If you dislike Atkinson's style in the film, you'll probably not like his stronger shorts. If you are a Bean fan, I suggest you wait for it to come to one of the cut rate theaters. You will get some good laughs. (12-1-97) Beginning

Mr. Nice Guy (1998) (***1/2, action, humor) (D.-Samo Hung; Jackie Chan, Richard Norton, Gabrielle Fitzpatrick, Miki Lee, Karen McLymont) Let me begin by saying that this is the first Chan film that I have seen. This is not your traditional martial arts film; it is a comedy. Jackie plays a charming famous TV chef who accidentally gets between two warring mobs of gangsters trying to recover an incriminating video from a beautiful reporter (Fitzpatrick). Nice he may be, but he is not someone to rile. Nice Guy is not about story or even acting. It is about having enough connective tissue to provide, however weakly, linkage between absolutely incredible physical comedy. Chan is a throwback to the silent screen greats. He has the mild mannered, self-effacing appearances of Langdon, the athleticism and timing of Chaplin and Keaton, and the same ability to reduce a house to a pile-of rubble in minutes as Laurel and Hardy. If you like the old silent greats, you will like Nice Guy. Nice Guy is part gangster film, part high budget actioner, part romance, and almost pure Keystone Cops. The bad guys should be twirling their mustaches over the fair maiden on the rail track. Plot is of such little consequence, I won't mention it further other than to say that Miki's antagonism to Jackie's assistant Lakeisha (McLymont) is completely credible and totally wrong.

Chan appears to defy gravity; but, except for speeding up the fight sequences and adding sound effects to conform to the standards of martial arts films, I don't think there was any real trickery. Plain and simple, you will not believe your eyes. Some of the set pieces involve a horse chase down a busy thoroughfare, chases in a shopping center, and a construction site complete with circular saw and doors to nowhere. There is one scene involving a series of interconnecting doors that is up with the best of the Marx Brothers. The boards on the table remind me of the rail tie scene in Keaton's The General.

Jackie is so innocent looking, so human in his desire to avoid trouble, and so genial that you cannot help but like him. However, when his loved ones are threatened he outwits, outmaneuvers, and outfights much larger forces.

If you had any doubt about him doing his own stunts, do stick around for the final credits where you get bloopers from the film--a signature of his films. He must be made of iron and rubber. Iron to prevent breaking (anymore often than he does) and rubber so he can bounce better.

My major complaint about the film is that it is just too fast paced. You cannot keep up with everything that is happening. I think watching it a second time would help a lot where you could savor the anticipation of the next prat fall.

There is a continuity error (if such can exist in a film like this) where the video shows things that could not have been photographed from the position of the camera man. Courtesy of David Demas. (3-23-98) Beginning

Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) (**1/2, humor) (D:??, Robin Williams, Sally Fields, Pierce Brosnan) High spirited throw away that depends primarily on Robin Williams' off the wall style of humor. In case you haven't heard the plot, it is about totally disorganized, good natured Williams who is divorced by uptight business woman Fields. Two dissimilar personalities you would rarely meet, and the surprise is that the differences that brought them together originally, didn't drive them apart sooner. Williams, who dearly loves his children, is given only very limited visitation rights. His ex, with her demanding business and disgruntled children, has trouble keeping everything at home on an even keel and advertises for a nanny. Robin appears in drag as the English nanny, Mrs. Doubtfire. The makeup and his characterization are breathtakingly good. The makeup was nominated for an Academy Award. Robins is fabulous and the supporting cast is solid, especially the children. Ultimately, however, it is a one joke film that while it wears pretty well, never makes much of a point. Nevertheless, if you are Williams fan, a must see. (3-22-94) Beginning

Mr. & Mrs. Smith(1941) (**, comedy) (02-06-04) (D.- Alfred Hitchcock; Carole Lombard, Robert Montgomery, Gene Raymond, Jack Carson) Didn’t know that Hitchcock did a pure comedy? Most people don’t. Well, here it is. The reason you probably didn’t know about it is that it is bad. His The Trouble with Harry is nominally a thriller comedy and is pretty funny. Given Hitchcock’s black sense of humor, there are generally far more laughs in his thrillers than in Smith. The marriage of the Smiths (Lombard and Montgomery) is unconventional to say the least. She is as offbeat as they come and he tolerates it because they really love each other. Due to a technical error, their marriage turns out to be invalid which sets up the misunderstandings, the conflicts, and the ultimate resolution. One can safely say that he will never be bored married to her. A few amusing moments, but in general dull. Likely to be of interest only to students of Hitchcock. Review based on a fine print shown on Turner Classic Movies. Beginning

Much Ado About Nothing (1993) (***1/2, comedy) (D.-Kenneth Branagh; Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Denzell Washington, Keanu Reeves, Kate Beckinsale, Robert Sean Leonard, Michael Keaton) Shakespeare for the masses! What is frequently overlooked is that 400 years ago William Shakespeare wrote not for the literati but mainly for the masses, the groundlings. And the Elizabethans were a bawdy bunch. They enjoyed nothing more than a public hanging, a randy joke, or a head being carried in on a pike. And old Bill could carry a bloody head in with the best of them. So now why do many people so dread Shakespeare? Of course the English does require some effort--much less, however, in my opinion than trying to translate some modern English dialects. However, I think that a lot has to do with the reverential treatment his work gets along with the "Like liver, it's good for you, so eat it!" attitude in schools. Now much of his dialogue is delivered and treated as if Moses himself were saying it. In reality of course, it was frequently crisp, witty, and profound 400 years ago, but it was also the normal every day speech of the masses delivered first and foremost by human beings. Branagh has a knack for capturing the essence of the plays, preserving the original English, and reveling in the underlying humanity of his characters. When Branagh's actors and actresses spout Elizabethan English, they do so with a naturalness that makes you forget the odd words and constructions. They are real human beings with passions, aspirations, fears, and loves. Much Ado is a high energy romp and a delight to the ears and the eyes. Adults will love it, and it should be required viewing for children (who shouldn't be told beforehand that it is Shakespeare). It is a tale of a dual romance between two young love birds Claudio (Leonard) and Hero (Beckinsale), obviously smitten with each other from afar, and the more jaded relationship of two professed marriage haters, Beatrice and Benedick. Whenever in each others sight, Beatrice (Thompson) and Benedick (Branagh) wittily savage each other along with love and marriage. They "doth protest too much, methinks." Throw in the matchmaking Don Pedro (Washington) and the snake in the Garden, his bastard brother Don Juan (Reeves), who tries to destroy anything that Don Pedro loves. For very low brow comic relief we have the clown part Dogberry (Keaton) as captain of the watch. If a slow person might be three bricks shy of a full load, Dogberry is lucky to have three bricks in his entire load. Keaton plays him masterfully like a dull, cunning Beetlejuice. However, what truly makes the movie is the chemistry between Branagh and Academy Award winning Thompson. It is electric, acerbic, touching, and believable. But then it should ring true; they were married after meeting during Branagh's Henry V. The rest of the cast is excellent, although the young lovers tend to lack to depth of the seasoned Branagh and Thompson. My only complaint is that Branagh gets too carried away with visual-aural images in places to the detriment of story flow. Nevertheless, enjoy. As an aside, Branagh must pay homage to earlier filmmakers who successfully popularized Shakespeare. For comedy, Franco Zeffirelli's 1967 Taming of the Shrew is a nearly lethally funny faithful adaptation where the chemistry between the battling Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton rings very true; they were married off and on in real life. (7-19-93) Beginning

Mulan (1998) (***1/2, animation, musical, humor) (D.-Tony Bancroft, Barry Cook; Ming-Na Wen, Lea Salonga, Eddie Murphy, B.D. Wong, Donny Osmond, Harvey Fierstein, Pat Morita) Long before the public had ever heard of Mulan, my group had an honored place for her. Several years ago I got a new top of the line computer that needed a nickname. I have a senior Chinese scientist in my laboratory and I asked her to give us the name of a famous Chinese hero, preferably a woman since my group only had women at that time. After some research, Mulan came up as the obvious and superb choice. There are several variations on the folktale, of course, but the prevalent one is that Mulan, a Chinese girl, disguised herself as a man to get into the army to save her father's life. Against the Huns, she proved to be a mighty warrior and leader who rose to the rank of general. The film hits the high points of the story with the fidelity you would expect from an animated film, adds humorous elements, a romance, and some songs. While not in the same league with Aladin, Mulan is great family entertainment and adults won't be disappointed or insulted. We went to see it as a group, and I believe that everyone enjoyed it.

The animation is excellent and good use is made of computer graphics. In particular, the battle on the snow field makes extensive use of CG. Although I couldn't catch it, I assume the crowd scenes made heavy use of CG as has become standard now-a-days.

Comic relief is provided by a half pint dragon (voice by Murphy) with an attitude, who is Mulan's guardian, and a three stooges assortment of soldiers. From someone who doesn't like musicals, the songs are kept to a reasonable level and aren't bad.

The attitudes, especially of the emperor (Morato), seem very modern, but obviously for a modern audience compensations were made.

Film facts: http://us.imdb.com/Title?Mulan+(1998) (8-31-98) Beginning

Mulholland Drive (2001) (****, ??) (2-25-02) (DW.- David Lynch; Naomi Watts, Laura Elena Harring, Justin Theroux, Ann Miller, Dan Hedaya, Michael J. Anderson) The ?? description for type is no accident. This has got to rate as one of the most bizarre films of the year—actually most years. It is satire, noir, mystery, suspense and in spite of the initially apparently realistic façade 100% weird. Fans of the TV series Twin Peaks will feel like they have stepped into a time warp and will be right at home. Classic Lynch. As Bogart said of the Maltese Falcon, “The stuff that dreams are made of.” Mulholland, based in Hollywood, is closer to the stuff that nightmares are made of. I will be brief on plot for two reasons. First much of the pleasure is watching the story unfold. Second, ultimately the plot defies description. Betty (Watts) arrives in Hollywood. Your typical perky, naïve “star to be”. She is staying in her aunt’s vacant apartment only to find it already populated with voluptuous Rita (Harring); her name may have special significance, especially considering where she gets it. How she got there make up a primary plot thread. It involves a director, gangland connections, and a body. Plus lots of other things that I am still trying to sort out.

In some ways, watching Mulholland is like watching Memento. You are trying to put it all together. In Memento, however, you could. In Mulholland I’m not at all sure you can, although we have arrived at a scenario that fits many of the facts. Ultimately, I think everything in this film is significant, although I’m not sure what much of it means. My wife and I are still discussing what we saw, how it connects, and what it means.

From the opening credits, Mulholland is a visual auditory feast. Lynch at his best. The film is dark, noirish with a seductive sound track from long time Lynch collaborator Angelo Badalamenti. I don’t buy many sound tracks. We’re going out for this right away.

At 146 minutes, my wife found it too long and ultimately too weird to be completely likeable. The length didn’t bother me. However, like Lynch’s TV series Twin Peaks, Mulholland would benefit from the ability to stop the film, discuss what you have seen and where it might be going, and even rerun a section that you sense is critical. As with Twin Peaks, Mulholland is a social activity, not a solitary experience. You need to talk about it, digest it. For these reasons, we plan to see it again in the theater, and very likely get the DVD when it comes out.

If you are a Twin Peaks freak, a Twipea, Mulholland will give you your fix. Don’t miss it in the theater where you can get the full visual-auditory impact. If you never saw Twin Peaks and like Mulholland, the Twin Peaks TV series is available on video. The first season is far and away the best. The impending cancellation in the second resulted in a rushed and unsatisfactory conclusion.

Warning: Mulholland has very strong sexual content and nudity, but little explicit violence. Beginning

Mulholland Falls (1996) (**1/2, crime, drama) (D.-Lee Tamahori; Nick Nolte, Melanie Griffith, Chazz Palminteri, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Treat Williams, Jennifer Connelley, Daniel Baldwin, Andrew McCarthy, John Malkovich) The open credits run over what is clearly a compromising bedroom scene shot from a clandestine B&W camera. Its the early 50s and a group of police detectives help keep L.A. clean of mob influence by techniques that would be familiar to modern death squads.

A young woman turns up brutally and oddly murdered and the case ultimately leads to a Nevada nuclear test site headed by Williams and Malkovich. A skirmish turns into brutal war. Williams makes a grave tactical error in his judgement of Nolte's behavior, and Nolte fails to grasp the magnitude of his meddling.

Nolte is a great bear who is completely and frighteningly believable when he is being physical, but he just doesn't pull off the dramatic portion of the role. Griffith's role and behavior as his wife is well played and believable. Palminteri is the clown and, ultimately, the conscience of the unit. Williams' part is convincing, and Malkovich is quirkily believable. "The cornerstone of civilization is human sacrifice." There is more than enough sacrifice in Falls.

Falls is atmospherically dark even in the brightness of day, moody, and has a fine nervous edginess about it. In my opinion, the story doesn't gel, isn't believable and is finally unsatisfying. It is, however, interesting to watch it unfold and try to predict what will happen next. Falls is ultimately a morality play about the dangers of righteous abuse of power and the retribution that befalls transgressors. In our moral outrage, do we become no better than that which we strive to destroy?

There is one very nice touch that younger viewers may miss: the water bag on the front of the car when they are driving on the desert base. In those days, the distances between filling stations was further than now (although not so long as the signs right outside Albuquerque going west that said "Last gas and water for 200 miles"--one mile before the next station with a similar sign) and automobiles were less reliable. Every car crossing the desert had one or more canvas water bags that kept water cool by evaporation and would give your radiator, or you, a break in the event of a break down.

The nuclear crater is one of the impressive images of the film. It is claimed to be the result of a ground burst. It isn't. Those craters in Nevada, which go on mile after mile, row after row are from underground tests that produce a cavity, which then collapses like a sink hole. The first nuclear shot in New Mexico was on a 90 foot tower, and I know people who had bolts from the concrete slab at the base. As an aside, when we were growing up in Albuquerque in the 50s, the nightly weather forecast included the temperature, the humidity and the radiation count, which depended on the latest tests in Nevada or the Pacific and the prevailing winds. In my opinion, Kennedy's open air nuclear test ban treaty was one of the great political and moral accomplishments of the last half of this century. Also, as indicated in the film, they did make troops march over ground zero immediately after nuclear shots to test their reactions in nuclear combat; my father-in-law was one of them. (5-13-96) Beginning

Multiplicity (1996) (**1/2, comedy) (D.-Harold Ramis; Michael Keaton, Andie MacDowell, Harris Yulin, Richard Masur) At the Jefferson until Thursday. A promising premise based on a short story by Chris Miller. Keaton works as a contractor for a type A slave-driver boss. He is lucky to see his kids before they go to bed every evening, and his wife MacDowell is wondering where their life has gone. Along comes a "miracle" while he is doing some work at The Gemini Insititute, which can Xerox people--exact copies. This is an offer that he cannot refuse--two of him to handle his job and his family. But the clones (yes, ultimately plural) begin to develop their own personalities immediately. There are the usual cases of mistaken identity, mis-scheduling conflicts, disagreements over who should do what, etc. Thanks to computer graphics, many scenes have more than one Keaton on the screen interacting. There are some really funny scenes (the slapstick restaurant fiasco and the confusion during the thunderstorm comes to mind) along with some entertaining ones. Keaton's performances are fabulous. As they evolve, each Keaton develops a unique speech pattern, attitude, and physical persona. Indeed, you can frequently tell the clones apart just from their body English. His multiple personalities and interactions with the others is one of the pleasures of the film. Apparently, this style of acting is extremely difficult. The actor has to get fully into each character and then play each role against air since there is no one else there. Unfortunately, Multiplicity never provides the comedic script to deliver on this promise, and one is left with only an amusing diversion. Beginning

Mummy, The (1932) (***1/2, horror, classic) (3-12-01) (D.-Karl Freund; Boris Karloff, Zita Johann, David Manners, Arthur Byron, Edward Van Sloan, Bramwell Fletcher, Noble Johnson) This is both a stylish horror film and a love story. German cinematographer-turned-director Freund created one of the most magnificent horror classics. An archeologist inadvertently reanimates the 3000 year old mummified Im-Ho-Tep (Karloff); he then stalks beautiful Johann, who is the incarnation of his ancient love. Magnificently atmospheric using exceptional German expressionistic lighting. While silly in principle, accept the premise and it works. Karloff is simultaneously frightening, powerful, and yet vulnerable in his love. The recent The Mummy pays homage to the original.

The make up is well ahead of its time and took painful hours to apply and remove. Review based on the beautiful DVD production at Sneak Reviews. The DVD also has an excellent running commentary on the film by a film historian as well as a number of stunning still outtakes. Not to be missed by lovers of classic horror films. Beginning

Mummy, The (1959) (**, horror) (D.-Terence Fisher; Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Yvonne Furneaux, Eddie Byrne, Felix Aylmer, Raymond Huntley) Adequate 50's style remake of The Mummy. Opening of Princess Ananka's tomb turns loose an ancient, powerful curse in the form of the Mummy who is sent to destroy all of those involved in the original desecration. Some interesting night visuals, but otherwise nothing particularly noteworthy. Beginning

Mummy, The (1999) (***1/2, horror, action) (6-7-99) (D.-Stephen Sommers; Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz,John Hannah, Kevin J. O'Connor, Arnold Vosloo, Jonathan Hyde, Oded Fehr) After my rating on Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, I know this rating will get me lynched. Bear with me. Mummy bears little resemblance to the 1932 classic of the same name other than having a resurrected mummy who goes on a tear. Mummy is much closer to the Indiana Jones actioner in style, setting, humor, and action pieces. From the sound of what is coming down the pike, Mummy is likely to be the most fun film of this summer. In the 1920s, a young soldier, Rick O'Connell, (Fraser) is the sole survivor of a detachment that locates Hamunaptra, the Egyptian City of the Dead. Oh yes, there are a few bad vibes about a curse. Rick is saved from the noose by the young, bright, and distressingly clumsy, librarian Evelyn (Weisz) and her drone brother Jonathan (Hannah). This leads to a race of two competing parties to Hamunaptra, attempts to terminate their efforts by the guardians, and ultimately the release of the mummy, Imhotep (Vosloo) who will unleash the 10 proverbial plagues before he ultimately destroys all life. Raider of the Lost Ark, it isn't. But my family and I really enjoyed it. It has snappy (and corny, but that is part of its charm) dialogue, droll humor, good chemistry between the principals, nice action sequences, and fine and appropriate state-of-the-art special effects. Fraser isn't Harrison Ford, but he has a fine self deprecating wit and exploits it well.

So if you want respectable mindless action and don't mind a few creatures and flesh eating bugs running around, give Mummy serious consideration. Beginning

DVD review based on the original and the recent Collector’s Edition (6/19/01). The DVD has a highly entertaining and informative Feature Commentary by the director and Bob Ducsay, an impressive visual and special effects short, deleted scenes, notes on the cast, an Egyptology primer, production notes, and a trailer. As the original Mummy was a family favorite, I bought the DVD when it first came out. Bummer! It was pan and scan with no letterboxed version. This made for interesting viewing during the Director’s Commentary when they were describing something that was out of the scene. The Deleted Scenes were letterboxed, which further emphasized this egregious omission. Nevertheless, a good collection and the current release of the Collectors Edition is wide screen. A must see for lovers of the film. Incidently, one of the driving forces for the movie was so that the director could duplicate the awesome Ray Harryhausen’s three man battle with the skeleton army in Jason and the Argonauts (1963). As soon as the director said that I knew why the ghost soldiers looked so familiar. Outstanding homage to one of the greats. The origin of the makeup on Evelyn after the boat accident is a hoot. Beginning

Mummy Returns, The (2001) (**, action) (6-18-01) (DW.- Stephen Sommers; Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, Arnold Vosloo, The Rock, Oded Fehr, Freddie Boath, Patricia Velazquez) Never confuse motion with action. Mummy Returns is virtually all motion and no action. Little plot, negligible character development, and retreaded plot lines and action. Even the matte overlays aren’t as good as in the original. The plot, such as it is, takes place 9 years after the original and Rick (Fraser) and Evylyn (Wiesz) are married and have a precocious son, Alex (Boath).It involves the reincarnation of Imhotep (Vosloo) and the Scorpion King (Rock). Sommer’s original Mummy for me was great escapist film making. Will this charming family get into trouble? Will they get out? Will they save the world? By the end who cares? The best things going in the current outing are some of the magnificent creature effects, an occasional adrenaline rush, and flashes of the chemistry between Weisz and Fraser that helped make the original such a treat. The boy is good. And the credits by Imaginary Forces get your attention. I really did like the computer generated Anubis army. Superbly realistic and frightening in appearance. Also some of the best scenes were from the original to pull the little plot together.

The Rock’s inclusion is minimal but they are planning on making a movie based on his Scorpion King. Hopefully, he has more acting ability than shown here. My recommendation is go back and watch the original The Mummy. Below I include my original The Mummy review and an addendum on the DVD. Beginning

Murder (1930) (***, suspense) (D.-Alfred Hitchcock, Herbert Marshall, Norah Baring, Phyllis Konstam) At Sneak Reviews. Dated but still fascinating vintage Hitchcock. Even in 1930, he clearly had developed so many of the masterful visual, character, and plot strokes that became trade-marks of his subsequent films, athough he was clearly still figuring out how much and how long to do them. The opening sequence is precipitated by a murder and is essentially a continous flow down the second floor windows of a rowhouse as the sleeping occupants are roused and stick their heads out to see what is going on, then on to the murder house, into it through the front door, and eventually via the murder weapon to the victim. Gorgeous! Oh yes, Hitchcock did break the flow with comic relief by jumping into the bedrooms to view more closely the occupants. Another neat piece of humor is the police interviewing the actors during a performance of their play. As an aside, you will notice the sound quality suffers in scenes with expansive views. I think this is because the microphones weren't good enough to pick up the sound when they had to be held far from the subjects to prevent their intrusion on the film. (7-25-94) Beginning

Murder, He Says (1945) (***, comedy) (D.-George Marshall, Fred MacMurray , Helen Walker, Marjorie Main, Jean Heather, Porter Hall, Peter Whitney, Barbara Pepper, Mabel Paige) Dated, but still very entertaining off-the-wall slapstick comedy. One of our pollsters is missing in the Ozarks, and MacMurray is sent to track him down. The locals send MacMurray to the missing man's last visit, the Fleagles, and then debate whether they should have fleshed out their backhanded warning. It wouldn't have mattered; MacMurray is a monorail young man who doesn't notice the alligators or precipice on either side of the track until it is too late. Let's just say the family is not wired well. The Grandmother is dying of a glow in the dark poison administered by rapacious relatives and is a terrible shot. The nefarious relatives include a trigger happy mother, a murderous pair of twins, a Machiavellian husband, and a daughter who likes to run her hands through the hair of the, now deceased, pollster. Oh yes, the bank robbing granddaughter has escaped from jail and is certainly on her way. Some absolutely delightful slapstick as when MacMurray bamboozles the twins into thinking he is conversing with (and protecting them from) the ghost of the pollster, or when the poisoned meal gets misplaced on a lazy susan dinner table. My favorite scene (which alone makes the movie worth watching), however, is when MacMurray stands in the coal bin with the legs of one knocked out twin sticking out in front of him as though they were his legs. The effect is to make MacMurray look very short, and what happens to and with these legs has to be seen to be believed. (1-25-94) Beginning

Murder, Inc. (1960) (**1/2, crime, docudrama) (D.-Burt Balaban, Stuart Rosenberg; Stuart Whitman, May Britt, Henry Morgan, Peter Falk, David J. Stewart, Simon Oakland, Morey Amsterdam, Sarah Vaughan) Clinically brutal story of rise of syndicate's assassination arm during the 30s and 40s. Stunningly photographed in black and white with much of the visual impact of the wide screen version clearly lost on the pan and scan video tape. A knock out performance by Falk as Abe Reles, the prime enforcer. Reles is evil incarnate. Cold, remorseless, without pity. When asked how he

could kill, his response was "You get used to it." He lied. He enjoyed it. I thought about the first half excellent, but then it dragged. Also, the voice over narration when it came was grating and, not only didn't help the story flow, but detracted from it. Lots of cameos. The psychology was really interesting between the different low lives. There were very real caste lines restricting interactions between them. How we draw our lines! (6-10-96) Beginning

Murder, My Sweet (1944) (****, crime, noir) (D.-Edward Dmytryk; Dick Powell, Claire Trevor, Anne Shirley, Otto Kruger, Mike Mazurki, Miles Mander) First rate production of Raymond Chandler's Farewell, My Lovely that still has as much bite as when it first came out. If you want an introduction to the classic film noir hard-boiled detective, search no further. This is Chandler's favorite adaptation of his books and is very true to his dark vision as well as incorporating much of his crisp witty dialogue. Bleak, swift, brutal, and unforgiving of human nature. A top drawer cast, and Powell is Philip Marlowe. His sad-sack appearance, his body English, his witty repartee, and his principled, but not always so bright behavior, are perfect. It opens with Marlowe, mysteriously blind folded, being third degreed by the police and telling his convoluted odyssey (is there any other kind in noir?). As with any good film noir, the less said in advance about plot, the better. All right, it does involve blackmail, sexy dames, more double crosses than tic-tac-toe, and a death count approaching a Shakespearean tragedy.

Some awesome visuals. At one point Moose (Mazurki),a giant dull witted thug who is so strong he kills by accident, appears in a reflection--large, hulking, ominous. As big as Muzurki was, his reflection wasn't big enough for this effect so it is actually done with his reflections off of a huge piece of glass in front of the camera; Mazurki was much closer to the glass to get the size. The same trick is used to protect Powell as he throws himself into the flash zone of a revolver. The drug hallucination was quite sophisticated for its time and, while dated, still works. Actually, Mazurki was only two and half inches taller than Powell, but by having Powell walk in the gutter and Mazurki on the sidewalk or with Powell in his bare feet and Mazurki standing on a box, Mazurki dominates the scenes.

The baby-faced and aging Powell had been a successful singer in films, but was fading (the public had seen enough of him with "Tip Toe Through the Tulips") and wanted desperately to redefine his image. Dmytryk had been a solid B film director and wanted to prove his ability with a good script and talent. Both suceeded. There was one glitch when the film was first released under Chandler's original title, Farewell My Lovely. Audiences stayed away thinking it was just another Powell musical. When retitled with the obvious noirish Murder, My Sweet, people rushed to see how Powell handled a hard-boiled detective. Details from CineBooks' Motion Picture Guide Review in Cinemania '95. (2-19-96) Beginning

Music of Chance, The (1993) (***, drama) (D.-Philip Haas; James Spader, Mandy Patinkin, M. Emmet Walsh, Charles Durning, Joel Grey, Samantha Mathis, Christopher Penn) An allegorical tale told with style and top rate performances. Many will argue over what was meant long after the fade to black. Patinkin, (Nashe) cut loose from his former world, picks up a stranger Pozzi (Spader) stumbling by the road. Spader is a gambler who has two marks lined up but needs a partner to back him. Having nothing better to do, Patinkin agrees. On seemingly simple choices begins a descent into destruction and redemption. The two marks are the eccentric Mr. Stone (Grey) and Mr. Flower (Durning) on their isolated estate. Stone and Flower initially appear to be jovial, good natured odd balls. But bad gamblers, they are not. Ultimately they are not to be trifled with. Deals made and debts accrued must be honored and paid in full. The now not so avuncular pair demand prompt restitution in the construction of an elaborate wall under the watchful eyes of Calvin Murks, played by that marvellous character actor M. Emmet Walsh. Spader's performance was crisp, focused, and outstanding, but Patinkin's role seemed fuzzy. You never had enough information to decide what he was running from and where he was going--even though this was probably the major thrust of the story.

The one major weakness I though was the ending. It was abrupt and appeared unnecessary. Apparently, this is the one major deviation from Paul Auster's novel and it shows. Nevertheless, an eerily provocative, unpredictable, and cerebral film, although not for those who insist on continuous action and adrenaline.

The film was made for two million dollars in Winston-Salem. Rocks were rented from a local doctor who was using them in the construction of his house. Stone masons would work all night in pouring rain to build the wall so that it would be ready the next day. Afer the filming, the magnificent wall was torn down stone by stone and put into the doctor's house. What a great story for the grandchildren. (5-15-95) Beginning

MUST SEES AT THE VIRGINIA FILM FESTIVAL: There are movies that have seminal scenes or a scene of such extraordinary power that they must be seen. Two of these, The Third Man and A Touch of Evil are showing at the Virginia Film Festival this year. See reviews under individual listings. Don't miss the opportunity to see these on the big screen. Roger Ebert will be doing a three day (6 hour) frame-by-frame dissection workshop on The Third Man. Ebert is a most delightful fellow and I highly recommend (****) seeing him if you can. Also being shown is the restored Peckinpah classic, The Wild Bunch. While I haven't seen the restored version, it is supposed to be awesome. Below I include old reviews on these. The last film reviewed is not showing at the Festival! (10-16-95) Beginning

Mutiny: There has never been a mutiny aboard a US warship as the next two movies reviewed point out, although both plots involve such mutinies. The third movie has no mutiny, but perhaps should have. (5-22-95) For these three reviews, see the alphabetical listings for The Crimson Tide, The Caine Mutiny, and The Bedford Incident. Beginning

My Best Fiend aka Mein liebster Feind – Klaus Kinski (1999) (***1/2, documentary) (4-16-01) (D.-Werner Herzog, Claudia Cardinale, Justo González Werner Herzog, Klaus Kinski, Eva Mattes, Benino Moreno Placido, Beat Presser, Guillermo Ríos, Andrés Vicente) This film could easily be incorporated into a course in deviant psychology. Director Werner Herzog and demented actor Klaus Kinski had a multi-year, multi-movie on again, off again relationship. Their collaboration produced some of the most stunning images ever seen on film including Aguirre, The Wrath of God; Fitzcarraldo; and Nosferatu, the Vampyre. This is a documentary of their relationship as seen from Herzog’s perspective several years after Kinski’s death. The film includes scenes from their films, reminiscing of people who interacted with or worked with Kinski, and on set footage that was clearly never intended for the original films. Herzog retraces some of the locations used where they worked together as well as the apartment where Herzog at 13 first met Kinski.

As well as making stellar fiction films, Herzog is a noted documentary filmmaker. One of the marks of a gifted documentary film is the ability of the director to get so close to the subjects that they forget they are on film and reveal great truths about themselves. Herzog succeeds even when he is the subject. I suspect he reveals even more about himself than he planned to.

Their relationship was clearly very sick. A true love-hate relationship. Symbiotic in that both men got something out of it in spite of the fact that they could easily have killed each other. Herzog probably sums it up in one sentence. “The only thing that counted in the end was the result on the screen.” And we are left with some truly memorable ends.

The two men were clearly mirror images of each other. Herzog was more rational, but just as driven as Kinski. Indeed, the crazed Fitzcarraldo who wanted to build an opera house in the middle of the Amazon jungle was a metaphor for Herzog’s desire to make the film. Herzog insisted on dragging the boat over the mountain to prove it could be done. What is amazing is that as driven as both men were there weren’t fatalities. For example, we get to see in slow motion Kinski as the crazed Aguirre striking one of the actors with his sword when the man didn’t do what Kinski wanted him to do. The actor was badly cut and only saved from death by his helmet.

Herzog’s comments on the making of the films and their interactions make for a stellar, if unsettling, evening. How the opening scene from Aquirre was filmed is worth the price of admission. Also, it is fascinating to compare the performances of the gifted Jason Robards and Kinski as Fitzcarraldo. Robards started the film, but had to drop out, and we see the two men’s performance in the town bell tower. Robards does a good job portraying a crazed man; Kinski is a crazed man. There is no doubt that in many of Kinski’s raging performances he was being himself. However, Herzog had to temper him. In Aguirre, for example, Herzog would let Kinski burn himself out in his rantings before they would begin filming, and this led to the more appropriate coldly malevolent insanity that we frequently see on the screen.

Fascinating also is the different perspective of Kinski as seen by the women. Apparently, he was charmingly offbeat; this was a characteristic he could show around men also, but in a much less predictable fashion.

The film begins and ends with the two extremes of Kinski’s behavior. His crazed Jesus Tour and his interactions with a butterfly. Don’t go into Fiend expecting a documentary on Kinski. This is a documentary on the interaction between, and the personalities of, two gifted and troubled individuals. Review based on the DVD from Sneak Reviews. Beginning

My Best Friend's Wedding (1997) (***. romantic comedy) (D.- P.J. Hogan; Julia Roberts, Dermot Mulroney, Cameron Diaz, Rupert Everett, Philip Bosco, M. Emmet Walsh) Wedding is the antithesis of Lost World. A literate, completely character-driven plot with complex characters who interact with each other beautifully and realistically. Back in college Julianne (Roberts) dumped Michael (Mulroney), but they remained best friends. Oh, they did make one little pact back then. If neither had married by the time they turned 28, they'd get married. Suddenly, as 28 approaches, Julianne is reminded of this by a long distant call--but it isn't a proposal, its an invitation to Michael's wedding to rich, beautiful, charming, intelligent Kimmy (Diaz). Now Julianne is bright, beautiful, and an extremely successful food writer and critic who suddenly realizes what she wants--and it isn't escargot. Thus, begins the machinations of Wedding.

Wedding's strong points are that all of the characters are sharp. These are no dummies to push around, although some could be less trusting. The plot twists and our evaluations of the characters are not at all what we are likely to think going in or even in our initial evaluation, and they change throughout the film.

Roberts manages to walk a tightrope where we still end up liking her. Diaz is charming, and Mulroney is suitably desirable and realistic in his reactions. Incidentally, Diaz says that her singing is awful and she only had to degrade it a little for the karaoke scene. One real delight is George (Everett). George is Julianne's editor and close friend, but an unsuitable mate. He is charming and has exceptional insight into human nature in general and Julianne in particular. As the Greek chorus, he is always commenting on her behavior and driving things in the correct direction. He is also a trip.

The ending is perfect. In a film where people could be seriously damaged, Wedding manages a realistic perfect balance. (7-7-97) Beginning

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) (****, comedy, romance) (2-17-03) (D.- Joel Zwick; Nia Vardalos, John Corbett, Lainie Kazan, Michael Constantine, Gia Carides, Louis Mandylor, Joey Fatone) Delightful, good-natured romp based on the one person play by Vardalos. This semiautobiographic story gives an ethnic look at the travails of a single Greek woman. The lead, Toula Portokalos, is played by Vardalos, who initially is frumpy, lacking in self confidence, and at thirty is rapidly approaching spinsterhood. For her traditional parents, who want nothing more than for her to be married to a nice Greek boy, have herds of children, and feed everyone until they pop, spinsterhood rates only slightly below mobster. Oh yes, a non-Greek boy would rate in the same league. Her parents’ attempt to line her up with a suitable mate are classic. She finally decides to break the mold, improve her image, and at least get out in the world and do something besides mope. The transformation is believable. What then transpires is a meeting with a non-Greek young man, Ian Miller (Corbett), and a blooming romance. His uptight WASP family would not be that enthralled either. So under the circumstances they keep it secret.

The romance, the final unveiling, the meeting of the typically exuberant touchy-feely extended Greek family and his formal well to do nuclear family are all handled with humor ranging from droll to slapstick. One always feels that the film is laughing with the characters, not at them.

The film has been savaged by some for its ethnic stereotypes. I had a Greek grandfather and American grandmother. As I was growing up, I well remember the weddings, the various family members streaming through, and their characteristics. I don’t see anything here that didn’t make me feel right at home. The male is titular head of the family and the women know how to work around it. What’s new? Greek celebrations are frequently big, loud and boisterous. They know how to have a good time. If this is ethnic stereotyping, then I love it.

Tom Hanks’ wife Rita Wilson saw the play, loved it, dragged Hanks to it. Hanks loved it and the film got made. Although there was one major speed bump. The money people kept pushing to have it about any other ethnic group as, apparently, they felt that the Greek aspect would not attract audiences. Vardalos held her ground and ultimately got her way. As a further aside, she commented on TV that many of her relatives still don’t recognize themselves in the film. Beginning

My Cousin Vinny (1992) (**1/2, comedy) (D.-Jonathan Lynn, Joe Pesci, Marisa Tomei, Fred Gwynne, Ralph Macchio, Mitchell Whitfield) I do not particularly like Joe Pesci, and this movie is built around him. It does have elements of humor. Two friends are unjustly charged with murder in Georgia. One of them gets his cousin Vinny from New York to defend them. Vinny, unfortunately, has never tried a case, his specialty is litigation, and he has a chip on his shoulder the size of Monticello. If you like Pesci's aggressive, abrasive style, you'll enjoy this. For others it may have a certain obnoxious charm with the underdog pulling his life together as well as a very plump rabbit out of a very shaggy hat. Gwynne's role as a very hard nosed judge, tried sorely by the erratic and unpredictable Pesci, is a pleasure to watch. (2-1-94) Beginning

My Darling Clementine (1946) (**, western) (D.- John Ford; Henry Fonda, Linda Darnell, Victor Mature, Walter Brennan, Cathy Downs, Tim Holt) The Wyatt Earp-shoot out at the O.K. corral in Tombstone, Arizona. Considered a classic, but it doesn't do much for me besides bore me. The cinematogaphy is beautiful as is the terrain around awesome Monument Valley. You can tell from the clearly fake saguro cactus that it wasn't filmed near the much more southern Tombstone. Even given the time, the acting is wooden, the plot is stiff, the dialog is stilted, and the interplay between the characters is totally lacking in tension. As a aside, and having nothing to do with my rating, Clementine must rate as the historically least accurate account of the events leading up to and the shoot out at the O.K. Corral. (10-2-95) Beginning

My Fair Lady (1964) (****, musical, humor) (12-7-97) (D.-George Cukor; Rex Harrison, Audrey Hepburn, Stanley Holloway, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Gladys Cooper, Jeremy Brett, Theodore Bikel, Henry Daniell, Mona Washbourne, Isobel Elsom) Let me begin by saying that I hate musicals. But I love My Fair Lady. Crowd pleasing film version of Lerner and Loewe's musical from Shaw's Pygmalion. Visually stunning with great songs that further the story. Prof. Henry Higgins (Harrison) believes that language determines your status and to prove it he makes a bet with Colonel Pickering (Hyde-White) that he will transform guttersnipe Eliza Doolittle (Hepburn) into a regal lady. He then proceeds to win the bet with dramatic consequences to the lives of far more than Eliza.

The humor ranges from droll to near slapstick. The dialogue is sharp and intelligent. The film and even the songs follow very closely Shaw's original play at the insistence of Shaw's family. Shaw's point is incisively handled, but (as with the stage play) the final effect is ruined by putting on a soft, romantic ending. The characterizations are outstanding. The acting is priceless with the interplay between Eliza, Higgins, and Pickering being perfect. Hepburn's father, Alfred P. Doolittle (Holloway) is fabulous. He has a voracious appetite for life, a keen understanding of his own basic nature, and a fabulous wit and way with words. This is a gem of a part and was equally well played in the earlier film Pygmalion. The sets and costuming are fabulous--the racetrack scene at Ascot with the magnificently attired gentlemen and, particularly, the ladies in black and white is stunning.

The film, which was in disasterous physical state, was restored by the team of Robert Harris and Jim Katz. Before then the video disc version was voted in '92 and '93 the worst video disc on the market. They started with only 70% of the original. Restoration cost $1000 per second for digital restoration--I assume this figure may be cheaper now. The video disc isn't a dog now. I highly recommend that you get the letterboxed video version and view it on the biggest TV with the best sound system you can get.

While Hepburn was led to believe that she would do the singing, the director had no intention of using her voice except for a few pieces (Just You Wait and Wouldn't It Be Lovely) before her transformation. Everything else you hear is the voice over of Marty Nixon. Also, you may note some technological changes. In some of the scenes as Rex Harris moves around, his tie looks a bit large. It is. It contains a microphone. The versatility and quality of the boom mikes and small mikes at the time was inadequate, so they had to hide a large high quality mike in his tie!

At 170 minutes, it does drag a bit at times; nevertheless, I found it delightful. Eight Oscars including Picture, Actor, Director, Cinematography (Harry Stradling), Costumes (Cecil Beaton), Score Adaptation (Andre Previn), Art Direction (Beaton and Gene Allen). Review based on the original release, the magnificent newly restored copy that showed at the '94 Virginia Film Festival, and the restored video disc. Beginning

My Favorite Year (1982) (***1/2, humor) (D-Richard Benjamin, Peter O'Toole, Mark Linn-Baker, Jessica Harper) A truly delightful little comedy about an aspiring young TV writer in 1954 who lands the job of escorting his screen idol Allan Swann around before Swann's guest appearance on a live comedy show (yes, at that time, virtually all TV was live). Swann (O'Toole) is an ex-swashbuckling, Errol Flynn like, movie hero. Now, you ask, why does he need a chaperone? Probably, because the last time he was sober was in the mid 40's, the last time he spent a night alone about the same, and ditto for doing anything remotely responsible. It is critical to everyone that Swann get there on time and sober. O'Toole is perfect as the tattered, but still very sharp witted and ascerbic Swann. A truly enjoyable movie with an excellent supporting cast to showcase O'Toole's remarkable comedic flair. Trust me. You won't regret it. Beginning

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) (***, horror) (12-31-03) (D.-Michael Curtiz; Lionel Atwill, Fay Wray, Glenda Farrell, Allen Vincent, Frank McHugh, Arthur Edmund Carewe) Not the first rendering of the Wax Museum, but a classic treatment. In 1921 London, a master wax artist is nearly killed in a fire that destroys his life’s work. About 10 years later he surfaces in New York with a new museum and models of stunning realism. Too realistic as it turns out. Young damsels are threatened with a form of immortality with Wray maintaining her skills as being one of the great screamers of early talkies. Atwell is suitably both oily and pathetic as the sculptor. The film manages a certain amount of humor. The film has fine atmosphere and the color adds greatly to the unsettling appearance of the film. Wax is the last film and one of the best to be made by the two color Technicolor process. It is truly amazing what was achieved with only two, rather than the standard three, primary colors. The film is worth watching for this noteworthy accomplishment alone. As an aside the film is precode and is a bit racy in both dialogue and in the nude sculpture we see Atwell working on. The theater poster was even racier showing the scantily clad model and the sculptor working suggestively on the life size model. Review based on excellent print shown on Turner Classic Movies.

If you are interested in details of color cinematography with beautiful examples check out

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor1.htm Beginning

Mystery Science Theater 3000. The Movie (1996) (**, humor) (D.-Jim Mallon; Michael J. Nelson, Trace Beaulieu, Kevin Murphy, Jim Mallon, K. Murphy) For those who may have missed the TV show, mad scientist plans to conquer world by having victims watch the worst science fiction films ever made to reduce them to quivering, mindless jello. Victim and robots keep sanity by keeping up a running commentary on the film. The film in this case is This Island Earth, actually one of the more literate 50s sci fi. The commentary is clever and amusing and makes a lot of what you see on the screen seem totally ridiculous, but doesn't have the frequency of hits to be really good. These people would make a shambles of the evening news. I'm not really sure why they did the film. It is virtually identical to the TV version and not as funny as some of their other roasts. However, if you cannot get MST 3000 on TV, the Movie will give you a fix. (6-16-97) Beginning

Mystic River (2003) (****, drama) (5-17-04) (D.-Clint Eastwood; W.-Brian Helgeland from the novel by Dennis Lehane; Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Marcia Gay Harden, Sarah Silverman, Laura Linney, Emmy Rossum, Laurence Fishburne) A brooding masterpiece of mood, plotting, acting, and storytelling. Once again Clint Eastwood demonstrates his complete mastery of the media. The story opens with three young friends playing. One undergoes a horrific life-altering experience, but even the remaining two are traumatized and scarred. Spring forward 25 years to three grown men who still bear damage from the earlier event, but carry them in very different ways. Dave is a handyman with a wife and son. Jimmy (Penn) is an ex-criminal with a family. Sean (Bacon) is a homicide cop who has fled the neighborhood and has a very odd relationship with his wife. This is a tight working class neighborhood and everyone knows, or is related to, everyone else. The brutal killing of Jimmy’s daughter once again brings these men into close contact, and the sense of doom is absolutely palpable. One knows from the outset that it is not going to end well. We just don’t know how or why. The story unfolds as we learn about the principals, their families, the ways in which all stake out their territories and defend it, and the moral choices made. Humans didn’t survive as long as we have by not being adaptable, but nature plays the odds and not all avenues of natural selection work. Mystic River explores many of these paths and ultimately reveals what works and what fails, although under different circumstances, the outcomes could have been completely different.

The men and their wives (Linney and Harden) are stellar. Each stunningly human and believable in anguish and behavior. Sean (Bacon) has a pivotal role in the plot, but is not the emotional core of the film. A small weakness of the film is his relationship with his wife, which is never fleshed out enough for us to understand exactly what we are seeing and why it plays out the way it does. But one can construct scenarios that work.

Taut. Brutal. Unflinching in its assessment of human nature. Mystic River is a great film. It also provides fertile ground for post-viewing discussion as to the impact of events on the survivors. Again the results are likely to be very Darwinian. It is currently showing at the Jefferson, and while most of what you see would work on a small screen, the stunning cinematography fully justifies rushing out to a big screen. Beginning