R

Rabid (1977) (**, sci fi, horror, vampire) (5-20-02) (D.-David Cronenberg; Marilyn Chambers, Frank Moore, Joe Silver, Patricia Gage, Susan Roman) Motorcycling Chambers has an accident outside an institute and is operated on there—bad choice, you never know what they are doing at those institutes. A minor side effect of the surgery is that she develops a serious craving for human blood. The way she gets it is unique for a vampire, but it does have strong sexual overtones. What is worse is that she is contagious and starts a plague. This is goremeister Cronenberg’s second full length film and he took a break from his more extreme styles here. It is also one of porn star Chambers’ attempts to break into serious films. She shows skin here and as much acting talent as many other young starlets, but she just never made it. Other vampire films.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (****+ Adventure) (D-Steven Spielberg, Harrison Ford, Karen Allen , Paul Freeman, John Rhys-Davies) Academy Award Winners n Art Direction-Set Direction, Film Editing, Sound, Special Visual Effects, Cinematography, Special Achievement Award. Spielberg and Lucas, who conceived this, are both enamored with the Saturday Matinee Cliff Hanger. For those who lacked this "one of lives greatest pleasures", these were short adventure films that preceded the Saturday movie along with the news (yes, the Weekly News used to be shown at the movies). The hero or heroine were always left at the end of each sequences in the most dastardly dangerous predicament and generally with absolutely no way out. Thus, leaving the hapless child fretting over their fate for a whole week. The first few minutes of the next week were devoted to extricating them--sometimes by outright dishonesty (what happened the last week was sometimes completely changed to get them out of a truly impossible dilemma). You can bet these babies guaranteed that we were first in line the next weekend, regardless of what the movie was. Even a kissy, kissy romance didn't stop us. Spielberg and Lucas have raised The Cliff Hanger to fine art and succeeded in making movies where one cliff hanger after another raises the adrenaline to cardiac arresting levels. Raiders is arguably one of the finest adventure movies ever made. Every action, every word , every fold in the clothes is crafted into a seamless whole. The actors and actress are perfect. And the movie came in under budget and early!! Just prior to W.W.II, archaeologist, patriot, and adventurer Ford is sent after THE Ark of the Covenant, which the Nazi also seek. The Ark is a weapon of such power that no army that ever carried it into battle has lost. Thus, begins an epic struggle of good and evil with superb actions, special effects, humor, and dialog. For sheer adrenaline rush, for example, the truck chase is one of the best ever put on film (See, however, THE BEST in Road Warrior). Check out Raiders. While your nervous system will be a long time in forgiving you, you won't regret it. If you saw it years ago, I guarantee that you will find much new and refreshing in it. The drinking contest between Karen Allen and a local in Tibet and the subsequent fight and destruction of the bar are some of the most perfectly constructed and gorgeously choreographed ever put on film--these alone would be worth the price of admission. An amusing anecdote accompanies Ford's delightful sword fight with the huge Arab warrior. Ford was suffering from dysentery and the fight required consider acrobatic effort. When it came time for the fight, Ford thought "There has to be a better way." The rest is history, as they say. Beginning

Raising Arizona (1987) (****; humor) (D.- Joel Coen, Produced by Ethan Coen; Nicolas Cage, Holly Hunter, Trey Wilson, John Goodman, William Forsythe, Sam McMurray) The Cohen brothers' (Blood Simple) delightful little off beat piece of black humor. The more times I watch it, the funnier it gets. The convenience store robbery is as funny as any piece of slap stick ever put on film. Sonnenfeld's surrealistic wide angle and low angle views of this insanity make it work. You will never forget your perspective on the kid and his gun. An inept convenience store knock off artist Hi (Cage) and his police officer Ed (Hunter) fall in love, marry, and she quits working. Unfortunately, no children but, with a little imaginative criminal activity, there is a solution. The plot is complicated by two worthless and witless ex-cons (fabulously played by Goodman and Forsythe) who escape and impose themselves on the hapless couple. A contract for a hit is taken up by the Lone Biker of the Apocalypse who makes Dracula look like a nice guy.

Does this sound totally off the wall? Well, it is. The premise and the previews were so outrageous when we first saw them that we felt no movie could possibly fall lower, but then favorable reviews started coming out and we chanced it. Off beat, unsettling, bizarre, and outrageous. But very funny. Nicholas Cage is the riotous, absolutely dead pan narrator of travails that would try Job. Hunter is superb in a comedic straight man's role. Wilson is delightful as Nathan Arizona, Sr. head of a furniture store who would make your worst used car salesman huckster look good. And the Lone Biker--well, sweet dreams. The only place I found weak was the ending dream. However, given how certain items had to be tied up, I cannot think of an alternative that would be better. Be warned, there tend to be two classes of people: those that love Arizona and those who don't have the foggiest idea where the humor is. Sort of like Dog and Cat People or Mac and PC lovers. Ebert, for example, doesn't seem to get one laugh out of it and analyzes it to death. (revised 8-8-95)

Trivia Question: What was the name of the company that Cage worked for? You can pick it up from the logo on their uniforms. (8-8-95) Beginning

Raging Bull (1980) (****+, docudrama) (D.-Martin Scorsese; Robert De Niro, Cathy Moriarty, Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent, Nicholas Colasanto, Theresa Saldana) A cinematic black and white tour de force that will leave you limp. From the opening scene you know you are in for the ride of a lifetime. A lone boxer, clad in leopard robe, is warming up. Alone, totally isolated, surrounded by darkness--a metaphor for the man’s life. Only the arena isn’t empty as we slowly realize. Raging is the true story of the rise and fall of the middle weight fighter Jake LaMotta. The story of a vain, insecure man who brings about the destruction of everything that he wanted. This is a low, grubby story, but it is told with superb acting (Academy Award for De Niro), awesome cinematography, world class editing by Thelma Schoonmaker (Academy Award) and Scorsese, a superb script by Paul Schrader and Mardik Martin, and an integration of sound and visual imagery that is breathtaking. Raging was rated the best film of the 1980s, and clearly is on a relatively short list of the best films ever made.

The story is simple. Jake (De Niro), a promising prize fighter, and his manager brother, Joe (Pesci), make some deals with the mob along the way to get to the top. LaMotta marries Vicky (Moriarty). His low intellect, his jealousy and his unbridled appetites ultimately cost him everything. Even at the end he is unable to understand his part in his fall and continues to blame everyone else.

De Niro is Jake. He trained as a fighter for two years. Knowledgeable boxers said that if he had been a professional, he would have been in the top 20 in the country. His prowess and single mindedness were demonstrated in one scene in the gym where Jake is sparring with his brother (Pesci), who has on protective body gear. As the scene moves to others in the gym, we hear a yelp from Pesci. Even with the body armor, De Niro has in reality broken one of Pesci’s ribs. Also, in LaMotta’s waning years, he put on a lot of weight. De Niro didn’t feel this could be done properly with padding, so he gained 40 pounds. However, Pesci lost weight for his appearance in later life.

Pesci had had a disastrous film career and was retiring when Scorches saw him on a late night TV show. He was so impressed that he called Pesci up and offered him the role--the rest, as they say, is history. De Niro and Pesci are both very improvisational actors who worked flawlessly off of each other. Much of the interplay and dialogue that you see was not in the script, but flowed from their interactions.

Moriarty wasn’t even an actress. Pesci had seen her in a beauty contest and told Scorsese that she would be perfect. The face of an angel and the accent of a longshoreman. Unlike the others she was young and inexperienced, but nevertheless gave a very credible performance. However, there was one scene where they felt she wasn’t up to it. De Niro was to slap her. Scorsese and De Niro felt that her reaction would not be satisfactory if she knew it was coming. So, after much soul searching De Niro agreed to slap her in the scene without warning. What you see in the film is her authentic reaction.

One of the most recurrent images and sounds that is literally seared into your brain is the flash of the ever present press cameras. The press camera flash bulbs used in the making of the film cost $50,000. The accompanying sound was from master sound man Frank Warner. Unlike many sound people, Warner does not keep libraries of his sounds; after each film, he burns all his tapes. He claimed that he does not wish to repeat himself, but wants every effort to be completely new.

Another place where sound is used extraordinarily effectively is in the background. I’m not sure whether you respond to these at a subliminal level or not, but once you recognize their existence, they add a completely new dimension. Animal sounds are frequently mixed in. The roar of the blood thirsty crowd clearly includes savage animals. In one scene De Niro is beating his brother as the wives and children struggle to pull him off and the background noise clearly includes screeching monkeys in a monkey house.

Scorsese loves to use real people rather than actors where ever possible. In the masterful tracking shot from the dressing room to the rink, the ringmaster announcing LaMotta is a real fight announcer. Unfortunately, he also suffered from film fright and froze up whenever they shot the scene. This is an incredibly complex scene and could not be shot very many times. Finally, the editor, Shoonmaker, told Scorsese that the viewer's attention would be riveted on other parts of the scene, and they would never notice that he wasn't actually making the announcement. She was right. When you watch the scene closely, you will see the announcer with his microphone dangling limply in his hand as the announcement is being made. Also, that is Jake's actual handler putting Vaseline on De Niro's lips.

You may also recognize the shot where Sugar Ray is about to finish LaMotta. It appears to use the same vertigo technique developed by Hitchcock in Vertigo.

The fight sequences are stunning. Brutal. Surrealistic. Realistic. Totally overwhelming your conscience. Scorsese had never seen a fight until De Niro forced him to go to one. The blood on the rope was taken from this experience.

In out takes from the scene where De Niro is cursing the neighbor to shut his dog up, there was a sound man outside the window. Every time De Niro leaned out the window, the sound man would make a joke that would crack De Niro up. This happened several times including one where De Niro hangs out the window shaking (laughing as we know), trying to contain it to continue the scene, finally gives up, stands up, throws up his hands and bursts out laughing.

De Niro's love and experience with children is clearly shown in the film and out takes where he is at the dinner table with a toddler on his lap. As the scene progresses, he is also continually working the child and the silverware on the table to keep the baby from hurting himself, getting into trouble, or becoming fretful and ruining the scene. This is not something you just pick up. It requires lots of experience and a genuine pleasure in dealing with children.

To get the dazed, unsteady appearance, De Niro would turn in circles until he was dizzy. He would also move around with his trainer on his shoulders until his legs were actually unsteady. The final beating was filmed with 90,000 feet of film before editing. The fist striking De Niro is actually just an empty glove.

Review based on Roger Ebert's frame by frame analysis at the 1996 Virginia Film Festival. In addition, he had guest Thelma Schoonmaker who edited the film and showed delightful out takes. (1-26-98) Beginning

Rainmaker, The (1997) (***1/2, drama) (D.-Francis Ford Coppola; Matt Damon, Danny DeVito, Jon Voight, Jon Voight, Mary Kay Place, Mickey Rourke, Danny Glover) Slick, well acted, and very enjoyable film based on John Grisham's best selling novel. This long labyrinthic novel is stripped down, streamlined, and shoehorned into a little over two hours. Yet Coppola (director and writer) has done the job so skillfully that the essence of the book is preserved and only occasionally is one aware of missing pieces. A young, broke Rudy Baylor (Damon) just out of law school finds that the only way to eat is to work for an ambulance chasing law firm. The boss "Bruiser" Stone (Rourke) cuts a mephistophelean deal. It may not be pretty, but if you pull out all the stops you can make a pretty good living. Deck Shifflet (DeVito) is very able and who, while he hasn't passed the bar exam in six tries, has a keen sense of human nature, how to find the dirt, and how to find suitable legal precedents. These two underdogs are presented with a young man dying of leukemia and an insurance company that was more than willing to take money from a lower-class family until it is time to pay out. The company's lawyer is oily, high priced Leo Drummond (Voight) who will happily teach the unpolished neophyte a little humility on the altar of experience. All of this leads us into a confrontation of youthful idealism against a SYSTEM. As a romantic side plot we have an abused young woman (Danes). Throw in an eccentric landlady Miss Birdie (Wright), who insures that Rudy stays in good physical shape. The final key player is the judge (Glover) who is a liberal, but he won't bend the law to accommodate his sympathy for the case.

We've seen it all before, but Rainmaker is pitched as entertainment. Under these conditions, you judge success by style, nuance and your enjoyment level. At this level I thought Rainmaker succeeds admirably. I rooted for these underdogs; I enjoyed the machinations, the characters, and the interpersonal interactions. Of course, there are flaws. Even a fresh law student wouldn't be blindsided by some of Voight's traps or as appallingly naïve in courtroom etiquette as Damon frequently was. (11-17-97) Beginning

Rampage (1992) (**1/2, drama) (D.-William Friedkin, Michael Biehn, Alex McArthur, Nicholas Campbell, Deborah Van Valkenburgh, John Harkins, Art La Fleur, Billy Greenbush, Royce D. Applegate, Grace Zabriskie, Carlos Palomino, Andy Romano) Linear, almost matter of fact documentary portrayal of a serial killer and, especially, the aftermath and trial. Prosecutor Biehn is driven to prove McArthur legally sane for crimes that only a madman could commit. Terse, brutal, believable, provocative. The violence is not graphic, but this is one disturbing movie. Definitely not for all tastes. Rampage does not give simple answers to profound questions, but does provide a good jumping off point for heated visceral-intellectual discussions afterwards. McArthur is frighteningly, believably detached. He is like a run-away truck. No amount of defensive planning and structuring of your life can stop him from flattening you as he jumps the curb and plows down the side walk. (5-9-94) Beginning

Ran (1985) (****, drama, war) (12-7-98) (D.-Akira Kurosawa; Tatsuya Nakadai, Akira Terao, Jinpachi Nezu, Daisuke Ryu, Mieko Harada, Peter Hisashi Igawa) Ran is a King Lear and Mac Beth rolled into one and set in feudal Japan. This is a TRAGEDY in the Greek sense with simple, direct dialogue that does not suffer by being subtitled-- after the first minute or two you forget subtitles. Breath-takingly photographed with classic Kurosawa touches such as battle scenes and pageantry that can only be seen to be believed. Incidentally, Kurosawa was 76 (yes, 76) when he completed Ran, the very best of his movies that I have seen. (reviewed 1992) Beginning

Rapture, The (1991) (***1/2, drama) (D.-Michael Tolkin, Mimi Rogers, Kimberly Cullum) A bored, alienated telephone operator fills her life with sex and drugs until she finds salvation in God through a group that preaches the impending second coming and the apocalypse. Taut, brutal, and completely unpredictable. Very disturbing, unbalancing, and as timely as the Texas Branch Davidian standoff. The Rapture, like a brick in the face, will not be enjoyed, but it will not be soon forgotten either. Well done and acted, provocative, and likely to generate vigorous arguments. Warning: There are at least two radically different interpretations of what transpires. Those with strongly held religious beliefs may find either one painful and offensive. (3-9-93) Beginning

Rashomon (1951) (****, drama) (12-7-98) (D.-Akira Kurosawa, Toshiro Mifune, Machiko Kyo, Takashi Shimura) Kurosawa's classic movie on truth, reality, and human nature. For this review, I define reality as what actually happened and truth as an accurate retelling from the speaker's view point. While Kurosawa's phenomenal cinematic talent was not yet at its peak, the story more than makes up for any shortcomings. Three men in feudal Japan weather a storm in an abandoned Rashomon temple. The story unfolds as two relate the tale of a rape/murder to the third. The story is told in flashbacks through the eyes of the participants. Unfortunately, there seems to be little relationship between the retellings. Rashomon is more about why what is said than about what is said. The fascination comes from trying to reconstruct reality from the eye witness accounts. As it turns out, just as in any human dealing, there are many truths. However, even with multiple truths, you will be hard pressed to arrive at even one satisfactory reality; you can develop convincing reasons for every story to be flawed. Even as simple a question as the murder weapon remains cloaked in the conflicting stories. See this movie with friends. As with my family, you will then spend more time discussing afterwards what actually happened than you spent watching it. A final, intriguing question is to reconstruct the stories that the three temple participants will tell of what transpired during the storm. Rest assured, they will little resemble each other. The movie is subtitled, but the script, actions, and emotions are so direct that you will quickly forget the subtitles. (11-30-92) (8-5-96) Beginning

Rat Race (2001) (**, comedy) (9-3-01)(D.- Jerry Zucker; Breckin Meyer, Amy Smart, Whoopi Goldberg, Lanei Chapman, Vince Vieluf, Seth Green, Cuba Gooding Jr., Jon Lovitz, Rowan Atkinson, John Cleese) Rowan Atkinson, John Cleese) First let me say that humor is highly individualized and many people like Rat Race. I am a fan of slapstick and low humor. Nevertheless, I didn’t think much of Race. Never confuse motion with action. Race has plenty of motion, but very little action. Although it does manage a few delightful laughs scattered throughout. Race is basically a remake of Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Six groups are selected by an eccentric Las Vegas casino owner, Donald Sinclair (Cleese), with a 2 million dollar prize offered to the first to get to a train locker in Silver City, New Mexico. Greed has never made people prudent, ethical, or even honest, and the race is on.

The contestants include narcoleptic Mr. Pollini (Atkinson or Mr. Bean), husband Randy Pear (Lovitz), a much hated (especially in Vegas) NFL referee (Cuba Gooding Jr), a straight arrow lawyer (Meyer), a just reunited mother/daughter (Goldberg, Chapman), and a pair of dopey brothers (Green, Vieluf) with Vieluf being all but unintelligible for a very modern reason. What they don’t know is that Sinclair is not as altruistic as he sounds, which leads to one of the most entertaining subplots in the film. The machinations and travails form the film as others are added to and deleted from this motley crew.

The pace is furious and, in my opinion, most jokes miss their mark. The exceptions are the Sinclair skullduggery, the radar, and the squirrels. It is too bad that the previews gave much of the squirrel skit away—I hate it when they do that!

It was apparently filmed in Calgary. If it was all done there, I was impressed by the sand dunes and what looked like salt flats.

In summary if you are in the right mood and want a few laughs, a night at the Jefferson wouldn’t be a total waste. Beginning

Rats, The (2002) (**, horror) (2-17-03) (D.-John Lafia; Mädchen Amick, Vincent Spano, Shawn Michael Howard, Daveigh Chase, Sheila McCarthy) Made for Fox TV. MacBeth you expected? It was a snowy evening. Rats was just the trash drive-in film to curl up with. It didn’t disappoint. It has all the things you would expect. An attractive woman and a quirky good looking rat catcher with a grudging respect for his adversary. A menace. A city with an upcoming convention that doesn’t want anything made public that might alarm people. The menace is bright, genetically engineered rats carrying Wheels Disease (whatever that is, it isn’t good). The film has a nice edgy opening. The FX of mountains of rats aren’t bad. A few nifty surrealistic scenes such as the use of the black light. Respectable acting. The hordes of real rats are quit well done. In short, a mindless throw away where you can kibitz about what they are doing wrong and try to predict the next move.

However, far and away the best part of the film was the “making of”, which was both educational and entertaining. The man who supplied the rats, Brian Gibbs, has enormous respect for the little rodents and their abilities. As he said when they called him up and asked him if he would do the film, he leaped at the chance. “I have been dying to do a movie like this.” We get lots of opportunities to see how they handled the rats and got them to do what was wanted. As the little girl said “They are cool.” Amick commented they were adorable. The director and handler do a nice job of making a hundred or so rats look like an army. While I didn’t see a notice about no animals being hurt, there is no doubt from the fondness with which they were treawted, no one would have dared hurt one of the rodents. Review based on DVD at Beyond Video. Beginning

Raven, The (1963) (**, comedy, horror) (D.-Roger Corman; Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre, Hazel Court, Jack Nicholson, Olive Sturgess) Amusing tongue in check, satirical take off of early horror films by shlock meister Corman. Price is a magician turned recluse after the death of his beloved Lenore. Enter boozing Lorre who has been turned into a raven by evil sorcerer Karloff. Throw in Price's nubile young daughter and Lorre's son--Nicholson is so young as to be absolutely unrecognizable, and a power struggle between too major magicians and you have it. Lorre is a trip as the self-serving raven/magician. Price is suitably gullible. Karloff exudes evil charm. Nicolson actually appears to be in some of his own stunts--Corman would not have had enough money for a stunt double that looked like Nicholson. The climactic confrontation isn't bad given the budget and state of FX then. Amusing, but likely to be of greatest intest to Lorre, Karloff, Price and early horror fans. Beginning

Razorback (1984) (**, horror) (D.-Russell Mulcahy; Gregory Harrison, Bill Kerr, Chris Heywood, Arkie Whiteley) An awful B level premise: a giant man eating boar. Although not all the animals are four legged. When a man's wife disappears in the Australian outback, he searches for her, but some questions are better left unanswered. Nevertheless, cunning direction and amazing set ups bring you some truly disturbing visual images. In particular, if you get a chance, at least watch the first five minutes. You will never again look at a wind mill in the same way; although in retrospect the lighting is physically impossible. The night hunt scene and the slaughter house are also very disturbing, athough the slaughter house is too polished and perfectly seedy to be real. (11-9-92) Beginning

Reality Bites (1994) (***, comedy) (D.-Ben Stiller, Cast: Winona Ryder, Ethan Hawkes, Ben Stiller) The Graduate of the nineties post-college generation X. Valedictorian Helena (Ryder) sums it up in her graduation speech. After describing in glowing detail how her parent's generation have screwed everything up, she says: "The answer is simple. The answer is... The anwer is... " Long pause as she shuffles through a stack of note cards. "I don't know!" She and her friends try to survive post-college trauma. The personalities range from hedonistic anarchism to "I just want to carve out a small piece of the world and make a go of it." How they cope, mope, bum, bum off of each other, and manage to stay afloat is the primary thrust of Reality. Everyone of them picks up some scars; reality in the real world does bite. Hawke has been fired from 12 jobs, and is proud of every firing. Hawke and Yuppie (Stiller) both end up vying for Ryder's affection in their own characteristic ways. To the extent that there is a plot, this triangle is it.

Many generation Xers are furious about Bites, claiming it in no way, shape, or form represents their generation. Others revel in it as being the defining film of their generation. I recognize every one of the types portrayed in SOME of my current students; it is real. Also, every single one of the characters and virtually every one of the situations (except AIDS, but we had Vietnam and nuclear holocausts) affected my generation. While Bites is a cross section of generation X, it is also a cross section of my generation. I am sure that, in a somewhat modified form, it is a cross section of my parent's generation. Human nature doesn't really change that much; the ancient Greeks complained about their loud, rude, disrespectful children in a way that Helena's father can more than relate to.

Bite has a lot of cute scenes, charming actors and actresses, and an appropriate hard pounding rock score. It doesn't make much of a point, but then I don't think it intended to. It just wanted to be a slice of life of people in transition to adulthood (or what passes for adulthood in our society).

How does Bite stack up to The Graduate? In my opinion, Graduate is a much better film. It is better acted, a lot funnier, and with a more coherent plot. However, this is Stiller's directoral debut. Does Graduate say any more about human nature and rites of passage? Not really. Both choose a microcosm of recognizable types and problems, and both remind us of our basic common humanity.

The story is by Helen Childress. It appears she may play a waitress in the film. (8-8-94) Beginning

Real Life (1979) (***, satire, comedy) (12-31-04) (D.-Albert Brooks; W.-Albert Brooks, Monica Mcgowan Johnson; Dick Haynes, Albert Brooks, Matthew Tobin, Albert Brooks, J.A. Preston, Joseph Schaffler, Phyllis Quinn, James Ritz, Clifford Einstein, Harry Einstein, Mandy Einstein. Karen Einstein, James L. Brooks, Zeke Manners, Charles Grodin, Frances Lee McCain) If you want to see a much better piece of social satire than Stepford Wives, check this one out. Long before reality TV, Brooks insightfully savaged our voyeuristic lust for seeing others lives, and for interfering with them when they didn’t live up to our expectations of drama and excitement. The goal of the study is to record a real family living out real life and converting it into a riveting movie. The monitoring is supposed to be non-intrusive; the mechanism is a hoot. Unfortunately, everyone including the psychologists, has conflicting agendas, and it is rarely to just watch the dynamics of a normal family. Even, or perhaps especially, the creator of this experiment Brooks (Brooks) cannot stop himself from meddling and becoming emotionally involved in the experiment. We get to watch its creation, implementation, and ultimate self destruction. The humor ranges from droll to slapstick. It doesn’t always connect. But given when this was made, Brooks was amazingly insightful about the direction and degradation of modern TV.

Rear View Mirrors--Things to look for: Innumerable errors can creep into even the most carefully checked movies. One frequent, easily detectable glitch is the rear view mirror problem. This is not an error, but a deliberate film-making trick. If you look closely, you discover that in many scenes shot through car or truck windshields, there is no rear view mirror on the windshield, although the attachment point may be noticeable. This ruse prevents the mirror from obscuring the actors. The In-Law has an entertaining example. Peter Falk and Alan Arkin are being pursued in a car. To shake the pursuers, they repeatedly race around a section of divided highway, jumping the media to change direction. However, the rear view mirror miraculously disappears and reappears on each jump and straight away shot! (4-26-93) Beginning

Rear Window (1954) (****, crime, thriller) (D.- Alfred Hitchcock; James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter, Raymond Burr, Judith Evelyn) In an industry where suspense is now so often dictated by more gasoline, dynamite, and fake blood, Rear Window is a superb treat. It is, essentially, a perfectly crafted thriller where I hung on every nuance from the opening seconds to the end. Stewart is an action photographer confined to a wheel chair while his broken leg heals (a little too close, a little too slow on the race track during the crash--but what a shot). He lives in an apartment overlooking a big city court yard. In the oppressive summer heat, everyone leaves their windows open. His high fashion model girl friend (Kelly) and he are on the verge of a split up over their incompatible life styles. With the exceptions of his high spirited nosy nurse (Ritter), Stewart's sole daily activity is getting to know his neighbors vicariously. This tranquil, if not idyllic existence, is shattered when he thinks he discovers a murder and goes about trying to prove it on the basis of all but nonexistent evidence. At what point does Stewart's neighborly curiosity cross the line into active Peeping Tomming? Stewart should have remembered the adage about curiosity and the cat. Since many of you have probably not seen the film, or not seen it recently, I'll refrain from letting any more "cats" out of the bag.

Virtually everything works to perfection. The courtyard (a single set) is a microcosm of life. The characters, even though we can only see them at a distant and hear their muffled words are believable and immediate in their humanity. The plot ticks along with the precision of a Swiss watch and the predestination of a collision as two trains rush toward destruction on the same track at night. The only potential weak spot was Kelly's part where, with any other job, her immaculate coiffure and classy dress would have been out of place. However, her job allows Hitchcock to indulge his fantasies within the plot. Turn out the lights. Pop in the tape--or better yet the video disk, and watch suspense with style. (2-12-96) Beginning

Red Corner (1998) (**1/2, drama) (1-11-99) (D.-Jon Avnet; Richard Gere, Bai Ling, Bradley Whitford, Byron Mann, Peter Donat, Robert Stanton) Gere is a strong supporter of the Dalai Lama and a staunch foe of Red China, so his strong bias permeates the film. I do not know how accurate his portrayal of their legal system is. This review is based solely on the story itself. Jack Moore is in China to clinch a big deal. A young woman he picked up turns up dead in his bed, and the evidence is pretty compelling as to his guilt, although he remembers nothing about the killing. This throws him into an Orwellian legal system that would make Kafka's The Trial look positively fair. Yeulin (Bai Linga) is his court appointed lawyer who suggests plausibly that he plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court--it might save his life, since contrition is a good way to absolve yourself. The first half of the film I think does a very good job of fueling our paranoia as Jack discovers, through trial and error, the nature of the legal machine into whose blades he has been thrown. Unfortunately, the last half of the film is totally implausible and muddled, and loses the fine mood established in the first half. So you might quit after he gets to the American embassy.

On the subject of the American embassy, Jack's treatment at the hands of the American embassy is apparently pretty accurate. Contrary to the viewpoint of the public, these embassies are there to further our relations with the host country, not necessarily to look out for our citizens. When these two areas conflict, our citizens frequently end up on the short end of the stick. Beginning

Red Dragon (Prerelease comments) (9-30-02) With the release of Red Dragon this Friday, I thought it appropriate to dust off my review of the original Manhunter and update it with information on the DVD. Why does Hollywood insist on remaking excellent movies? Stupid question! Money. Manhunter was based on the riveting Harris novel Red Dragon. Michael Mann made this into a perfect thriller Manhunter, one of the most mesmerizing nail biting films to come out of Hollywood in years. Harris later wrote Silence of the Lambs, an interesting novel that was distinctly second rate compared to the original, but it did give him an opportunity to further explore Hannibal Lector, a character that Harris clearly found fascinating. This was then made into the Academy award winning film of the same name starring Jody Foster and Anthony Hopkins.

While the chemistry between Foster and Hopkins is stellar, I never felt that Silence rose to the same level as Manhunter. The film went too much for the shock and gore value. Manhunter with the exception of a brief bit of violence in the middle and the climax was purely at a psychological level. What has been rarely mentioned over the years is that Brian Cox played the original Lector and, while is role was much smaller, it established one of the most chilling screen characters in years. In my opinion it is every bit as good as Hopkins’ performance.

Judging from the trailer, Red Dragon will fill in some of the background from the novel before it resumes in the present. The novel is very convoluted and Manhunter had to make some concessions to shorten it, so there may be some differences in story line. In addition, it appears that they may have gone with the original whole body art tattoo that Mann filmed and then rejected in Manhunter. Incidentally, in the new film they apparently had to extensively use computer graphics editing to reduce the age of Hopkins for the much younger Lector.

In summary, while I want to see what they do with the new film, I find it difficult to believe that Hollywood will improve on it. My recommendation is go see the original (at Sneak Reviews) before you see the remake.

Red Planet (2000) (***, 50s sci fi, space opera) (3-12-01) (D.- Antony Hoffman; Val Kilmer, Carrie-Anne Moss, Tom Sizemore, Benjamin Bratt, Terence Stamp) Check your credibility at the door and you are in for a satisfying white knuckle sci fi film. Pick the total illogic and the scientific fallacies apart over dinner later. The year is 2025. Our world, polluted beyond redemption, is dying and taking down the responsible party with it. Our sole hope is to terraform Mars. Launches of algae have been going well and Mars is showing lots of green and, therefore, oxygen production. Suddenly something goes wrong, the algae disappears, and a mission captained by Bowman (Moss) is sent up to try to salvage the situation. Suffice it to say, starting with a meteor shower, if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. Four men are left stranded on Mars with limited oxygen and a steadily dwindling set of options. The tension builds well. Their behavior is realistic. The end is pretty standard, but the getting there is fun.

The effects are adequate. And, oh, that Martian landscape! The moon would almost look hospitable by comparison. Judging from the credits much of it was shot in Australia. I’ve added that to my list of places to visit. Red Planet is showing at least until Thursday this week at the Jefferson and is definitely a BIG screen movie. So if you like 50s style sci fi, do give it a look. Review based on the DVD. Beginning

Red Rock West (1993) (**1/2, crime drama) (D.-John Dahl; Nicolas Cage, Dennis Hopper, Lara Flynn Boyle, Timothy Carthart, J. T. Walsh, Dan Shor) Entertaining and unpredictable film noir thriller. Lots of twists and turns. Cage is an out-of-work driller who wanders into a bar, is mistaken for someone else, and is offered a "job". He accepts the job sight unseen, only to find that it is a lot more than he bargained for, especially when the the real hiree, Hopper, shows upand, to say it mildly, Hopper is put out. To give any more away would be unfair. Cage is suitably unsettled and resourceful, and Hopper is his delightfully unhinged self. I thought the first half held together very well with a lot of fine black humor. The second half got a bit too heavy and predictable and never rose to the fine tone of the first part. Nevertheless, an entertaining evening for film noir buffs. (2-21-95) Beginning

Red Tent, The (1971) (***, docudrama) (D.- Mikhail K. Kalatozov; Peter Finch, Sean Connery, Claudia Cardinale, Hardy Kruger, Massimo Girotti) Fascinating story of the 1928 attempt by an Italian expedition to reach the North Pole by dirigible. The story revolves around the crash, the attempts to get help, and the rescue. In particular, we are left with the moral dilemma of the captain who was apparently destroyed by his actions. However, whether his behavior was correct or not makes for fascinating post-game quarterbacking. Connery's performance as the arctic explorer, Amundson, is top flight as always. Amundson had lived by polar exploration and had beat the doomed Scott expedition to the South Pole by days. His story, thus, has its own ironic twist. As best we can tell the main story points are accurate including the red tent, but we have been unable to confirm the actual fate of the Italian captain. (4-10-95) Beginning

Red Violin, The (1999) (****, historical costumer, drama) (6-28-99) (D.-Francois Girard; Carlo Cecchi, Irene Grazioli, Samuel L. Jackson, Sylvia Chang, Colm Feore, Don McKellar, Greta Scacchi, Jason Flemyng) Beautifully rendered multi-century tale of the activities surrounding a beautiful violin. The story begins in 1681 as Nicolo Bussotti (Cecchi) puts the finishing touches on his masterpiece, which will also prove to be his last violin and one of the most perfect acoustical machines in the world. A complicated set of flash forwards to the present where the violin is being auctioned off coupled with flashbacks reveals the twisted path the violin takes in arriving on the block. Five tales reveal the impact the violin had on those around it and of those around it on the violin. Each of the stories, though brief, reveals a great deal about the individuals involved and their basic humanity. The participants range from the young to the old, the virile to the infirm, the rich to the poor, the ethical to the unscrupulous, the zealot to the victim, and those deserving of the violin and those not. Most are complex and very human in their weaknesses and strengths. The stories sweep the globe from Italy, to Austria, to England, to China, and finally Canada. And all of this is set to the prophetic Tarot cards as a local woman spins the future to Bussotti's pregnant wife. As with all fortune tellers and prophets, little is as it seems and everything is as told.

The story telling is fluid, mesmerizing. The transitions seamless yet jarring. The cinematography beautiful and appropriately ethereal or frenzied as required. And the sound track. Yes, the sound track. Haunting, rousing, beautiful orchestral pieces and violin solos. Don't miss this one in the theater where you will get the full visual and aural effect!

Ultimately, the apparently disconnected threads do come together in the auction house, but not in the way that we might have expected. Every detail is significant. Finally, as many times during the story, we are left with moral ambiguity. Also, the violin has its own secret. The film is a gem for seeing with friends so that you can discuss it afterwards.

At 126 minutes the film is long, but it didn't seem so. I have tried to refrain from giving away too many details since much of the pleasure is in the unraveling of the stories. So don't let anyone tell you more. Beginning

Ref, The (1994) (***1/2, humor) (D.-Ted Demme, Kevin Spacey, Judy Davis, Denis Leary, Richard Bright, Robert J. Steinmiller, Jr Glynis Johns, Adam LeFevre, Christine Baranaski) Forget the misleading name. The Ref is not about sports, but has strong roots in O'Henry's The Ransom of Red Chief. A thief, Gus (Leary), in a bungled jewel robbery on Christmas eve in a small New England town takes the Chasseurs (Spacey, Davis) hostage. By the end of the movie Gus, masquerading as their shrink, is juggling the couple, their blackmailing juvenile son (Steinmiller), the husband's disfunctional brother and his wife (LeFevre, Branaski) and their family, and a wealthy male-crushing mother (Johns) who would reduce Attila the Hun to a quivering lump of fearful jello. In short, a family unit so disfunctional that the Borgia's would disown them. Throw in a drunken Santa Claus and an equally disfunctional get away driver (Bright), a guard dog named Cannibal who chews up billiard balls like dog candy, and jail begins to look like paradise. The Chasseurs are so intent on savaging each other that they only occassionally acknowledge their dangerous situation as hostages and, even then, it usually requires Gus to wave his gun in their faces. Unnecessarily profane and a bit strident at first, it does settle into a deliciously nasty rhythm where I eagerly anticipated the next round. One series of scenes in particular nearly killed me. The wife, the world's most deadly cook, serves a Christmas dinner with a fourth century Scandanavian motif. Everyone is wearing a Santa Lucia crown of lighted candles at the dinner table! As the savageries flow, the thief tries to keep the lid on, and everyone tries to figure out what they are eating and how they can avoid eating it, remember that all heads and pronouncements are crowned with these burning candles. Unlike many sight gags, this one takes a while to sink in. The longer it went on, the more ludicrous and the funnier it got. A satisfying, although not overly believable ending. Spacey and Davis never met before filming; they screen tested against other actors and actresses at different ends of the country. Nevertheless, their chemistry is outstanding. (3-27-94) Beginning

Reference Material: I am sometimes asked where I get information on films. In addition to books, I use the following:

Premiere Magazine is an invaluable source of information on actors, upcoming films, video releases, gossip, and techniques. One of my favorite features is their Classic Scene where they provide the setup for, and then one page of, dialogue in a critical scene. More than once we have used that to run out and view a film that we had not seen recently or had never seen. For those interested in F/X, the trade magazine Movie Magic is informative and frequently amusing. Also, as I wrap myself around a cup of coffee in the morning, the Today Show frequently interviews actors and this supplies a stream of tidbits.

There are now several excellent online data bases and sources that provide information. My favorites are:

http://www.cineville.com/

which provides up to date information on what is going on in Charlottesville including what is showing at what theaters. This is a good way to find out what is at the Jefferson Theater and their show times.

http://www.mrqe.com/lookup?

The Movie Review Query Engine, which has over 78000 reviews of over 13000 films.

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert.html

Roger Ebert's current and archived reviews back to 1985 plus essays and other commentary. While I frequently disagree with his reviews, I always find them insightful and entertaining.

http://www.bmonster.com/

The URL says it all. Designed and written by Marty Baumann, this is an amusing and insightful overview of everything related to B monster movies. Available by e-mail subscription.

http://us.imdb.com/search

Probably the most valuable single source on films. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb) provides useful information on over 170,479 titles with over 2,462,516 entries and is expanding continuously. Just about everything you want to know about a film is available including filmographies for actors, directors, writers, composers, cinematographers, editors, production designers, costume designers, producers, plot summaries, character names, movie ratings, awards, etc.

http://www.afionline.org/home.html

The American Film Institute's Web Page. One of the leaders in conservation of American films.

http://www.mrcranky.com/

Mr Cranky is the dark side of the movie review Force. He has never seen a movie that he didn't dislike. Ratings start at "One bomb" ("Almost tolerable"), drops to "Four Bombs" ("As good as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick") for real dogs, and in a family publication, I cannot print his description of the lowest rating, "Dynamite". Irreverent, tasteless, sophomoric, and frequently quite amusing. Available by e-mail subscription. (11-9-98) Beginning

Relentless (1989) (*1/2, thriller, crime, drama) (D.- William Lustig; Judd Nelson, Robert Loggia, Leo Rossi, Meg Foster, Patrick O'Bryan, Ken Lerner) Nelson is a serial killer. Its too bad his first victim wasn't Relentless. No style, no suspense, and not believable. Beginning

Relic, The (1997) (***, horror) (D.-Peter Hyams; Penelope Ann Miller, Tom Sizemore, Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, Clayton, Rohner, Chi Muoi Lo, Thomas Ryan, Robert Lesser) Slick, entertaining genre film. One too many artifacts is brought to the Chicago museum and supplied with a cornucopia of the city's most delectable at a gala evening function. Of course, the scientists and curators are so fixated on their money maker that they insist on ignoring the warning signs. In a genre where there is rarely much new, good and bad are differentiated by style. Relic does a fine job of setting mood and some creative suspense scenes. I really like the juxtaposition of the search of the catacombs (done with a preponderance of faceless low angle shots) and the arrival of the main course--I mean guests. Also, unlike much horror, they supplied tantalizing glimpses of the creature rather than rushing him. However, when you finally get the creature, Kothoga, it is a gem. Stan Winston' monster, presumably done by stop action and puppets, is absolutely magnificent! One of the most fluid, life-like creatures in a long time, although parts (no pun intended) were reminiscent of Predator. One awesome image was the fire at the end. The chemistry between police Lieutenant D'Agosta (Sizemore) and Dr. Margo Green (Miller) is good. Lo plays a delightfully oily self-aggrandizing scientist Greg Lee. So, if horror is your cup of tea, Relic delivers a solid, if predictable, evening. (7-28-97) Beginning

Remains of the Day, The (1993) (****, drama) (D-James Ivory, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson) Don't miss it. Another gem from that producer-director team Merchant and Ivory. Set to the gathering storm of WWII a head housekeeper (Thompson) and head butler (Hopkins) have a distant romance that is both unspoken and not even acknowledged by either. This isn't about events but about people. Hopkins lives only to serve his lord. To allow himself any outside interest or information would give him opinions and feelings possibly inappropriate for this task. Additionally, his position provides him with absolute stability, something which he loves above all else. Thompson is more open but ultimately as incapable of expressing her feelings as he is, although she appears to have mainly fallen victim to the cultural prohibition of a woman being the one to bring up the subject of romance with an unresponsive male. Only two such superbly gifted actors as Hopkins and Thompson could have pulled this off. It isn't what is said, but by everything that isn't said and how it isn't said that creates the enormous power of the character studies. By the end, the war has come and gone, nothing has really happened, and yet this is one of the most moving dramas I have seen in a long time. I was as taut as a high tension wire within minutes, kept on edge throughout, and took hours afterwards to unwind. In visceral feelings and with the absence of anything really happening, it reminds me of the disturbing Picnic at Hanging Rock. The supporting cast is outstanding, the story seamless, the cinematography stellar, and the low level sound track consistently unsettling as befits the subject. As a bit of trivia, Hopkins' daughter from his first, and disasterously unsuccessful, marriage has a bit part as the maid who wakes up the dying father. He was estranged from her for years but they are now on good terms, and he arranged with the director to have her play in the movie. (3-22-94) Beginning

Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins… (1985) (**1/2, action, crime, humour) (D.-Guy Hamilton; Fred Ward, Joel Grey, Wilford Brimley, J.A. Preston, George Coe, Charles Cioffi, Kate Mulgrew, Michael Pataki, William Hickey) Based on the popular Destroyer books by Richard Sapir and Warren Murphy whose only intent is to entertain with no social significance whatsoever (Oh, also to sell a bizillion books). The film shoots for the same tongue-in-cheek style and comes close to working. Ward is a New York cop recruited and trained by a secret society to avenge the world's wrongs. Grey is the diminutive oriental master who can dodge bullets by hearing a certain muscle move as the trigger is pulled. The interplay between the two, especially during the training is a lot of fun, but at a hair over 2 hours it just drags too often. Too bad. With the title, it was clearly intended as a series, and Ward and Grey clearly had a ball. (7-31-95) Beginning

Replacement Killers (1998) (***, crime, action) (D.-Antoine Fuqua; Chow Yun-Fat, Mira Sorvino, Michael Rooker, Kenneth Tsang, Jurgen Prochnow) Given some of the reviews, I went into Replacement expected to dislike it. I was wrong, although you do have to take it on its own terms. With the opening scene, I was captured. Replacement is an exercise in style and mood. Lush. Dark. Brooding. A superb integration of visual and aural elements that kept me entranced from beginning to end. Yun-Fat, a well known Chinese actor and long time collaborator of John Woo, who produced the film, is John Lee, a killer for Mr. Wei (Tsang). However, there are limits to what John will do, which sets in motion the chases, shoot outs and killings that follow. Acting is not a prerequisite for films of this type but Yun-Fat and Sorvino do more than necessary. Yun-Fat moves and looks like the world-weary man he is. His almost stoic face manages to convey deep inner feelings. Sorvino is brassy and believable. The villains are worthy. The plot is almost superfluous as its primary reason is just to blend the scenes together.

Being produced by Woo, we expect and get the operatic, elegantly choreographed violence. Woo fans will not be disappointed. However, that isn't what I really liked about the film. Indeed, I could have used less violence. Replacement was edgy, disorienting, and unbalancing. Even from the opening scene; you don't even know what country you're in. In terms of style, creating an alien world, and sucking you in, I kept thinking about Bladerunner. I am very much a visual-aural person, and Replacement knew how to use these approaches and grab me at a deep, subconscious level and drag me through the film. While others may not enjoy it, I liked it.

Yun-Fat wished his first entry into American films had not been a violent actioner, but I liked what I saw and wouldn't mind seeing him in other types of films. As an aside, he is extremely knowledgeable about all of the armament that he uses. So the apparent ease with which he assembles the rifle probably didn't require any extra practice for the film. (4-13-98) Beginning

Requiem for Akira Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune. (12-7-98) This past year was a sad one for film. We mourn the passing of the great Japanese director Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998) and one of Japan's greatest actors Toshiro Mifune (1920-1997). While Mifune's first film (which he got by accident) was not with Kurosawa, his second, Drunken Angel, was. This led to a long and fruitful collaboration. Some of their most influential films were joint. Rashomon is the definitive study in human perception and "the ultimate statement of the unknowability of truth", and the name of the film alone is adequate to describe a situation. The Seven Samurai is the definitive samurai/western. The Hidden Fortress was the model for Star Wars. Throne of Blood was one of Kurosawa's tributes to Shakespeare--set in feudal Japan. Yojimbo was the inspiration for Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars. Indeed, Leone's enormously popular Spaghetti Westerns (filmed in Italy and Spain by an Italian director with multinational casts) were inspired by the work of Mifune and Kurosawa. In fact, the "Man with No Name" (Clint Eastwood) was adapted from Mifune in Yojimbo, and while Mifune didn't have the filthy cigar, he clearly had something that could be interpreted as one. Mifune, in addition to being a great actor, was also a marvelously physical martial artist. I include below reviews of several of their films. Also, I couldn't resist including a very early review of Kurosawa's Ran.

I also include links to several entertaining and relevant sites:

Kurosawa:

http://members.aol.com/ronintom/Kurosawa.htm

http://www2.tky.3web.ne.jp/~adk/kurosawa/AKpage.html

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/monkeys/273/

http://www.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Movies_and_Films/Filmmaking/Directing/Directors/Kurosawa__Akira/index.html

(all URLs one line with no breaks)

Mifune:

http://www.sprout.org/toshiro/biography/index.html

http://cgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980112/cinema.html

(all URLs one line with no breaks) Beginning

Repo Man (1984) (**1/2, sci fi, humor) (6-4-01) (D.-Alex Cox; Emilio Estevez, Harry Dean Stanton, Vonetta McGee, Olivia Barash, Sy Richardson, Tracey Walter, Susan Barnes, Fox Harris, The Circle Jerks) Review based on the DVD from Sneak Reviews. And now for something completely different. In this cult classic things couldn’t get any weirder. It involves a crazed Los Alamos scientist (Harris) on his way to Los Angeles in a Chevy Malibu. Ongoing wars between two groups of car repossessers and between the government and The United Fruitcake Outlet. A not-too-bright punk kid, Otto (Estevez), gets suckered into the not so gentle art of repossessing cars by Bud (Stanton). Possible aliens. A government that wants the car back badly—but quietly. A crazed, or perhaps not, philosopher (Walter) who won’t drive because “the more you drive the less intelligent you are.” The most normal people in this world of grunge, rock, and drugs are marginalized, and it goes down hill from there. And I’ve only touched the surface. Completely off the wall. Totally unpredictable. And frequently very funny in an off-beat way. In short a unique experience. Oh, yes. Since the director could not get product endorsements (you’ll know why when you see it), they have a running and very funny sight gag involving name brand products in movies. Their only product endorsement was Pine Tree car scent. For using it, they got a crate of car scents.

The DVD has trailers and a voice over commentary by the director and some of the actors. Although I didn’t watch all of it, it was almost as offbeat as the film itself. Real guerrilla film making and a lot of insight into the mentality of the people who do it. When you listen to the commentary, you discover that the humor isn’t so far fetched after all. After they signed Harris on as the scientist, they discovered he couldn’t and wouldn’t drive. Since he spends the entire movie driving, this required a little creative editing. The director loved Stanton and Harris because they had the “old remnant of the west cadaver look.” The film actually made it to TV, but was cut by the censors to 55 minutes, so they had to pad it.

Like Caddyshack, Repo Man is filled with quotable lines. Just remember. “It happens sometimes. People just explode.” Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Beginning

Reptile, The (1966) (**1/2, horror) (12-31-03) (D.- John Gilling; Noel Willman, Jennifer Daniel, Ray Barrett, Jacqueline Pearce, Michael Ripper, John Laurie, Marne Maitland) Solid piece of beautifully atmospheric Hammer Studio schlock. A young man in a small Cornish village meets a sudden death. “Heart failure.” Trust me, not in a Hammer film with a name like this one. His brother Harry (Barrett) and new bride Valerie (Daniel) inherit his house. After a less than cordial greeting from the locals, the local pub owner Tom (Ripper) suggests: “If you take my advice you’ll sell it.” Of course not. This is a horror film. Enter the abrasive Dr. Franklyn (Willman), who has the social graces of a praying mantis, and his lovely daughter Anna (Pearce), who is clearly dominated by her father. The film largely depends on and succeeds with build up, atmosphere, and nifty 1900’s sets. The creature itself works best when only vaguely seen and suffers when you get a good look at it, although I have seen worse. Whenever Dr. Franklyn is on the screen, your have a steadily increasing sense of dread. The dinner party is a little gem. Go into Reptile in the right mood, don’t expect a totally logical flow and you are in for an edgy and entertaining evening. Incidentally, the reason you see so many repeat actors in the Hammer films is that it was a people friendly family-run business. Once people worked for them, they tended to go back. Beginning

Reptilicus (1962) (Turkey, sci fi) (D.-Sidney Pink; Carl Ottosen, Ann Smyrner, Mimi Heinrich, Asbjorn Andersen, Marla Behrens) A frozen tail of a great reptilian beast found in the tundra regenerates into a whole creature that terrorizes Denmark. So bad that we laughed throughout. Dialogue and acting so wooden a fence post would look good. A steady stream of pompous riotously inappropriate and mistimed lines from the American general, although the scientists weren't much better. A monster less threatening than the average child's toy. One of the most extensive uses of stock footage that I've seen in years. And, for crying out loud, a long travelogue tour of Copenhagen in the middle--maybe the Danish government subsidized the film. A real corker of inattention to details was the 1 gallon of drug that they put in a tiny bazooka shell. I guess it was a metric gallon! If the human race ever comes down to the crunch, I hope we muster better military and scientists. Apparently, the general never watched the 50s sci fi Tarantula or he would have known exactly how to solve his problem. The woman scientist actually does serve a minimal function besides looking good; however, even moderate feminists will be cheering for the monster. (2-24-97) Beginning

Reservoir Dogs (1992) (***, crime, drama) (1-15-01) (D.-Quentin Tarantino; Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Steve Buscemi, Lawrence Tierney, Randy Brooks, Kirk Baltz, Edward Bunker, Quentin Tarantino) Tarantino’s directorial debut. He has always acknowledged the input of previous films in his work, but he spins them in unique ways. Dogs shows deep roots in The Asphalt Jungle and The Killing. Ultraviolent, nihilistic story of a horribly bungled diamond heist. After an opening diner scene with the gang, the story is told in flashbacks as the survivors meet at the warehouse and go over what happened. All of the gang members are given code names since most don’t know each other. Mr. White (Keitel) arrives with the terribly wounded Mr. Orange (Roth). Mr. Pink (Buscemi) then comes convinced that they were set up by an informer in the group. The rest of the story plays out as the others gather, the end game unfolds, and we learn details about each character and the heist in flashbacks. Like a cage full of wounded animals they self-destruct.

Each character is interesting in his own right. Mr. White’s fondness for, and defense of, Mr. Orange brings about one of the pivotal events of the film. The psychotic Mr. Blonde (Madsen) is one of the most horrific screen monsters in years. Mr. Pink (Buscemi) is one of the quirkiest, yet rational, of the group. The gang lord Joe Cabot (Tierney) is avuncularly lethal; he is also right at home here having played some of the great film noir heavies. The acting is uniformly excellent. The story disturbingly well told. The cinematography fine. The music, frequently brought to you via a fictitious radio program written and spoken by Roger Avary, adds to the imbalance. You will not soon forget "Stuck in the Middle".

The film shows many of the roots that came to fruition in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. The extended, frequently blackly humorous, conversations and the story telling style. Here it is more profane, blacker. The marijuana story is a classic. This is not an easy film to watch; however, as with Pulp Fiction, it is not AS violent as it seems. Much of the horror is off screen or seen at a distance. But it is brutal and disturbing and not for the squeamish. Review based on the nicely letterboxed DVD available at Sneak Reviews. The DVD contains some textual information. Beginning

Return of Martin Guerre, The (1982) (***1/2, historical docudrama) (D.- Daniel Vigne; Gérard Depardieu, Nathalie Baye, Roger Planchon, Maurice Jacquemont, Bernard Pierre Donnadieu) Based on a true incident. Very hard-edged story of soldier (Depardieu) returning to his wife (Baye) after 7 year absence during the brutal and dehumanizing Hundred Years War. As with many returning people, he has changed-but in this case a lot. He is much more civilized, articulate, and loving to his wife. Is he an imposter or the real thing? If an imposter, why do people accept him and treat him as they do? Absolutely fascinating psychological study and story with many plot twists and turns. Don't let anyone tell you about it beforehand. Even if they did, I think you'll still enjoy it. Excellent performances by Depardieu and Baye. Remade in 1993 as Sommersby. (3-14-95) Beginning

Richard III (1995) (***1/2, drama) (12-21-97) (D.-Richard Loncraine; Ian McKellen, Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey, Jr., Nigel Hawthorne, Kristin Scott-Thomas, Maggie Smith, John Wood, Adrian Dunbar, Edward Hardwicke) And now for something completely different again. This is Shakespeare's Richard III set in a Fascist 1930s England. Ian McKellen is Richard. Physically deformed, brilliant, erudite. And with a mind infinitely more misshapen and ugly than his body. The opening two scenes leave us with two seminal impressions: A man with no more humanity than an insect and a man whose honeyed words soothe as he plots other's doom.

For those unfamiliar with the plot, Richard slays his way to the throne while taking whatever he wants and destroying others for the sheer pleasure of the power. As in any Shakespearean play, evil ultimately brings about its own destruction.

McKellen is perfect as Richard. Suave. Cunning. Absolutely ruthless. The ultimate sociopath, although Shakespeare didn't have the term. A man who seeks revenge on everyone for his physical deformity. And he even manages to play the political correctness card.

The supporting cast is first class. Particularly noteworthy are the Duke of Buckingham (Broadbent??) as his second in command and the assassin. Both men ultimately and believably rebel over Richard's excesses.

The dialogue is all the original Shakespearean. The play appears to be the original Shakespearean rather than the later altered version by Colley Cibber. The dialogue is spoken like normal English, flows smoothly, and is easily understood. But what makes this such a marvelously fascinating story is the flawless integration of the Shakespearean dialogue against a modern technological society. It works. This includes power boats, tanks, aircraft, sex, drugs, and both still and motion picture film. The escape of the queen mother to France by aircraft is handled without so much as a disturbing ripple. Even the famous line "A horse! A horse! my kingdom for a horse." fits perfectly.

The film also plays with our expectations. The Tower of London isn't what we expect, but is even more disturbing and foreboding. The continual presentation of a Fascist state provides the backdrop that nurtures his rise to power.

The ending does deviates from the original and Richard's reaction seemed out of place to both my wife and myself.

My recommendation: Turn out the lights. Pop in the tape of Richard III. Be disturbed. Beginning

Ride the Pink Horse (1947) (***, noir, crime, drama) (D.-Robert Montgomery; Robert Montgomery, Wanda Hendrix, Fred Clark, Thomas Gomez, Art Smith) Classic noir about embittered WWII veteran Gagin (Montgomery); Vietnam wasn't the only war with its share of dysfunctional basket cases as revealed in many film noirs. Gagin is out to take revenge on unscrupulous businessman Hugo (Clark) for killing his friend. The action is set in a small New Mexico town during fiesta. The principals include a young Indian girl Pila (Hendrix) who sees an aura of death and disaster around Montgomery and tries to help, a federal agent (Smith) out to get Hugo honestly, and hard drinking Pancho (Gomez) who owns a dilapidated merry-go-round that is much sought after entertainment by the locals. Unlike much noir, Gagin's fall is self-inflicted. He doesn't succumb through a moment of weakness; he is just dumb, totally misjudges his opponent, and ignores the counsel of those trying to save him. The plot has many of the stylized, unrealistic elements that are mandatory to noir so don't look too closely at the plot logic. Horse is ultimately a morality play driven by sin, greed, love, hate and possible redemption. Much of the action revolves around the merry-go-round from which the film gets its title and which could form the nucleus of salvation. Most of the acting is classic noir, but Gomez has a ball in an over the top performance.

An interesting point is the old man effigy, Zozorbra, that they carry through town. He represents the gloom and all that went wrong during the year. During the festival he will be burned, and with his demise a clean bright new year can be started. To the best of my knowledge, this is only a Santa Fe tradition that was started early this century, but it is a most spectacular and powerful ritual. When I saw it in 1983, Zozorbra was about 30 feet high and wailed, moaned, and gesticulated as he was consumed. Although Zozorbra is only alluded to once in the film, it seems clear to me that the writer had a connection between the protagonist and the old man--rejuvenation is possible, but only through trial and pain. In my opinion, the director missed a great chance by not incorporating the burning. If you ever get a chance, do watch them burn old man gloom usually in September. Beginning

Ride with the Devil (1999) (***. War, drama) (2-26-01) (D.-Ang Lee: Skeet Ulrich, Tobey Maguire, Simon Baker-Denny, Jeffrey Wright, Jewel, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, James Caviezel, Thomas Guiry) The film begins at the onset of the Civil War in Missouri and ends not long after Quantrill’s raid (massacre is the more correctly applied historical term) on Lawrence, Kansas. Jake Roedel (Maguire) and his close friend, Jack Chiles (Ulrich), are about to experience up close and personal the effects of a civil war. The area is polarized into the Southern Bushwackers and the Union Jayhawkers. Neighbor against neighbor. No slight too small for retribution. Ride is more a study in human nature than an intimate human drama. As in so many wars, Jake starts with illusions and ideals of the rightness of his cause. As the war drags on and the brutality and ruthlessness of both sides escalates, killing and survival dominate their lives. Ultimately, these become self perpetuating ends in themselves with no thought or concern for the reasons or for alternatives. Ride is about possible redemption and destruction. Who will choose which path and why? As with real people, the issues and behavior are complex. Besides friendship there is a love story involving Sue Lee Shelley (Jewel) who does a credible job. George Clyde (Baker-Denny) fights along side his ex-slave Daniel Holt (Wright). Motives and loyalties are never simple.

Lee’s story telling is cold, almost clinical. This deliberate distancing allows the viewer to objectively watch the characters as the story unfolds without excessive emotional involvement. However, this also leaves you unattached to the characters, so that their fates are not of deep significance. The film is slow and deliberately paced. These factors have contributed to the negative reviews. Nevertheless, the story is interesting. The behavior realistic. The cinematography beautiful. The cavalry battles are spectacularly staged; the actors all went through a three week boot camp and were highly conversant with their weapons. Patterson, MO doubles as Lawrence, KS. The streets were covered with dirt, the telephone poles removed, and a number of Civil War re-enactors were used in the battle.

Review based on the beautiful DVD transfer at Beyond Video. It includes a wide screen version as well as production notes and backgrounds on several of the actors. Beginning

Rififi (1954) (****, noir, crime) (5-21-01) (D.- Jules Dassin; Jean Servais, Carl Mohner, Magali Nöel, Robert Manuel, Perlo Vita (Jules Dassin)) Review based on the newly released DVD available at Sneak Reviews. Film noir. The Americans developed it during the war, but it took the French to recognize it and name it: Film noir or black film. That didn’t stop some great noir being made in France by the French; however, Rififi is a French oddity because it was actually done by an American director. American director Dassin was a master of noir with such gems as Brute Force and The Naked City until the House UnAmerican Activities (HUAC) went after him. Essentially they were pounding on the front door while he was escaping to France out the back door. In France he created Rififi (aka Du Rififi Chez Les Hommes). While it doesn’t get any blacker than this, it is also one of the great grandparents of all caper films. Four French hoods, led by master strategist Tony (Servais), prepare to knock over a gem store. Their safe man is Cesar, an Italian womanizer, who speaks only Italian. Cesar is played by Dassin; see the supplementary DVD material for why. The planning is meticulous. The operation flawless. What isn’t flawless is human nature, and critical human errors are made before, during and after the heist that leads to this being one of the blackest of noirs. Nevertheless, the film is leavened with humor, although much of it is black.

The story telling is relentless. The tension palpable. The acting is first rate. The cinematography is stunning and beautifully bleak black and white. The new DVD has a stellar transfer. There are subtitles available or you can get it dubbed. We watched the subtitled version. The jewel heist is a 28-minute masterpiece. No music. No spoken words. Only the actual sounds.

The DVD has fascinating extras. The out takes and production stills are striking. But it is the interview with the director that crowns the DVD. We had no idea how far reaching and devastating was the influence of HUAC outside of the United States. Dassin reveals how it nearly destroyed his career even in France. Also, Dassin provides anecdotes about others in the US that further demonstrates the dehumanizing and destructive influence of HUAC.

The film is ultra-low budget, but Dassin explains how he managed to assemble a perfect crew. He also had trouble with the producer who wanted more sunlight—which would have been totally wrong for this bleak film. His description of the original book, its quirky writer, and their interactions over the table with a gun sitting on it is a gem. “Where is my book?” The concept of using French gangsters was actually quite radical. Dassin was given one weekend to read the book and decide whether he would take the job, but it was written in such a baroque and opaque local dialect that he ended up having his agent read it and tell him what was going on. Dassin was so appalled by the story that he was going to refuse to do it. However, as he said, his children had to eat. But then when has artistic genius been stymied by a little problem like an impossible story? Check out the DVD and be prepared for a stunning but bleakly disturbing evening. Beginning

Riff Raff (1991) (unrated, drama, humor) (D.-Ken Loach; Robert Carlyle, Emer McCourt, Ricky Tomlinson, Jimmy Coleman, George Moss, David Finch) Highly rated by some who consider it bitingly funny, but I just couldn't watch it. The struggles of a young man (Carlyle) fresh to London who signs up for a construction job. Some of the dialects are almost incomprehensible (this isn't the first time that I realized the English do not all speak English). In fact, the situation is so bad that the film was released in this country with subtitles! When I saw previews in the theater, I discovered that the subtitles didn't always match the spoken words, much like other subtitled films. Review based on the unsubtitled version. (4-21-97) Beginning

Right Stuff, The (1983) (****, docudrama) (D-Philip Kaufman, Sam Sheppard, Scott Glenn, Dennis Quaid, Ed Harris, Barbara Hersey, Fred Ward) (193 min.) Based on Thomas Wolfe's novel, this is a panoramic view of the early US. space program. Although sometimes the brush strokes are too broad, it is full of delightful characters and situations, humor, black humor, and cliff hanging action. Even for me (old codger that I am), it is far enough back that I couldn't remember all the details and frequently wasn't sure what was going to happen. The "story" loosely revolves around the test pilot Chuck Yeagers. The real Yeagers is still a firebrand supersonic flier and played a brief role as a bartender; he has more recently been seen advertising products on the TV. The aerial footage and action are breathtaking. At the end you are left with the feeling that this is the way it really was: hyperkinetic energy, excitement, risks, and people who would do anything to get into the space program and into space. These people march to a different drummer than most of the rest of us--but now you can at least pick up on the rhythm if not follow all the patterns. Academy Awards in Film Editing, Best Original Score, Sound, and Sound Effects Editing. I know its long. I know the subject sounds incredibly boring. It isn't. Trust me on this one. Check it out. (12-12-92) Beginning

Ring, The (2002) (***1/2, horror) (7-21-04) (D.-Gore Verbinski; W.-Kôji Suzuki (novel), Ehren Kruger (screenplay); Naomi Watts, Martin Henderson, David Dorfman, Brian Cox, Jane Alexander) After having watched and really enjoyed Ringu, we thought we’d check out the American remake. Given Hollywood’s record on remakes we were not expecting much. We were wrong. Up to a point, The Ring follows the original very closely with the tape, the journalist Keller (Watts), her son Aidan (Dorfman), and the ex Noah (Henderson), then it adds it own twists and turns. What it succeeds in doing is being a taut, chilling, very disturbing ghost story that stands on its own. Again style, cinematography, pacing, sound and music all conspire to slip past our mental defenses and expose our emotional core to the underlying terror of the story. As with the original, it is beautifully atmospheric.

Ring is more graphic than the original. The plot is more convoluted. The video is more complex—too complex in our opinion. Each film has strengths the other lacks, and some weaknesses. Ring, for example, addresses the final moral question head on, while Ringu glosses over it. Ring on the other hand, adds unnecessary complexity and gore. But both work independently of the other and are must-sees for fans of classic horror films. Incidentally, we recommend seeing Ringu first, as Ring is full of little bits of homage to the original.

The DVD has a short by the director that expands on the story line and fills in meanings for some of the extraneous elements in the video tape. The son, again, is a standout and perfect for the part; expect to see more of him.

As an aside Brian Cox as the bereaved father and husband makes a devastating and timely remark to the reporter, Keller, when he thinks she is just preparing to exploit another tragedy. “What is it with reporters? You take one person’s tragedy and force the rest of the world to experience it, spread it like sickness.”

Ringu (1998) (***1/2, horror) (7-21-04) (D.-Hideo Nakata; W.-Kôji Suzuki (novel), Hiroshi Takahashi (screenplay); Nanako Matsushima, Miki Nakatani, Hiroyuki Sanada, Yuko Takeuchi, Hitomi Sato, Yoichi Numata, Yutaka Matsushige, Katsumi Muramatsu, Rikiya Otaka) Let’s begin by recognizing that there is rarely anything genuinely new in horror. What separates the gems from the dregs is style and nuance. Ringu has plenty of both. It is a classic style ghost story where most of the horror comes from a growing sense of unease and dread as the plot unfolds rather than from blood, gore, and things jumping out at you. Not to say that there aren’t some starts, but this is a much more leisurely excursion into fear than your usual mad slasher film. If slashing and gore is your boat, skip Ringu.

The story begins with a teenager saying that she and several of her friends saw a weird video tape the other day, and that anyone who watched it is supposed to die in a week. Prophetic.

The story unfolds as a young newswoman Reiko (Matsushima) picks up on the threads of the story and begins to piece together what happened. She should have heeded the adage about curiosity and the cat; but the Japanese may have a different version of that one. She is about to drag her young son Yoichi (Otaka) and ex-husband Koichi (Muramatsu) into a terror from which there may be no escape.

As in any good ghost story, much of the fun is in watching the plot unfold, so that is all you are getting on the story. What I can tell you is that the cinematography and the sound are beautifully atmospheric and unbalancing. Or in many places the absence of music. In short a very disturbing movie in spite of the absence of explicit gore.

The acting is good with the son being amazing. There are many excellent set pieces as when the newswoman views the video of a car accident or the initial exchange between the son and his father. The video itself is truly bizarrely disturbing. You are not sure what you have seen, but as the film progresses some things become clearer—too clear. The name incidentally, comes from either the ring on the video, the ringing phone, or both. Your choice.

My wife and I think that the film had a few too many red herrings, or alternatively elements that if properly put together could have made a stronger ending. But one gets good ghost stories so seldom, why quibble over the details?Beginning

River's Edge (1986) (**1/2, docudrama) (D.-Tim Hunter; Crispin Glover, Keanu Reeves, Ione Skye Leitch, Roxana Zal, Daniel Roebuck, Tom Bower, Constance Forslund, Leo Rossi, Jim Metzler, Dennis Hopper) Based loosely on a true incident where a high school student killed his girlfriend and then brought members of his clique to view the body. Inexplicably, it was days before anyone reported what had happened. I had a lot of trouble evaluating what the director was doing. Was he trying to get into the minds of these kids and explain their deviant behavior? Was it out and out exploitation? Or did it just seem like an intriguing starting point for a bizzare story? So in the absence of details about the real incident, I am forced to interpret this as just a fictional account of some very sick youths. Glover was the self-appointed head who used his charisma to persuade the group that it would be a violation of group solidarity to rat. Dennis Hopper was a disenfranchised Vietnam veteran who supplied his own brand of paranoia and psychopathology to the group. As presented, the members of the group are the lost elements of any school, the alienated ones who cut class and are perpetually spaced out or drunk. Their home life, or lack thereof, is generally a contributing factor.

In the final analysis, I think the director failed. If his intent was to discuss in an enlightened fashion the morality and psychology of the actual event, he didn't make clear the boundaries to allow intelligent discussion. As pure fiction, I think it failed. Glover was good as the wired leader, but I didn't think that his charisma was adequate to manipulate the group. The most glaring weakness in my opinion was the Hopper character. While appropriately sick, he added gratuitously to the story but his omission could have sharpened the plot, which was ultimately about the students. In spite of my criticisms, River is an intriguing glimpse into diseased or dysfunctional youth. As portrayed, much of what happened has a sick air of reality. (1-15-96) Beginning

River of Death (1989) (*1/2, adventure) (D:-Steve Carver; Michael Dudikoff, Donald Pleasence, Herbert Lom, Cynthia Erland, Robert Vaughn, L.Q. Jones, Sarah Maur Thorp) Dudikoff journeys up river and finds death, lost city, and Nazis (Vaughn and Pleasence) bent on taking over the world. Based on Alistair MacLean's novel. Too bad there isn't a touch of the style that made MacLean's early books a pleasure to read even when the plots didn't really work--which was most of the time. (3-18-96) Beginning

River Wild, The (1994) (***, adventure, thriller) (D.-Curtis Hanson, Meryl Streep, David Strathairn, Kevin Bacon, Joseph Mazzello) Hanson (Hand that Rocks the Cradle) knows how to craft taut, satisfying formula thrillers. Failing marriage has Boston husband and wife (Streep and Straithairn) and their 10 year old son (Mazzello) taking a white water trip in Montana for the boy's birthday. Forget any past impressions of Streep as a dainty little thing. Here she is a highly experienced rafter, and looks and acts the part. On the river, they encounter Bacon and his cohorts who are robbers/murderers on the run posing as fellow rafters. Contact leads to kidnapping, beatings, and murder. After an initial honeymoon, Bacon, using her family as hostage, expects Streep to get him and the money down the river through the all-but-unpassable class 5 plus "The Gauntlet", a murderous confluence of three rivers.

Bacon with his good looks, easy banter, and quick wit is a charming sociopath who woos the wife and the impressionable son. He also kills with the ease and total lack of emotion or remorse of a praying mantis eating its mate when its function is done. Streep is excellent as the resourceful, take charge rafter. Mazzello is emminently believable. Strathairn is played a bit drily, but is adequate.

The plot is nothing new, some of the plot development is far fetched or even illogical, and the pacing is a bit slow at times. However, Hanson knows how to let the river and breathtaking Montana and Oregon more than make up for these shortcomings. River will reacquaint your system with adrenaline. River reminded me of why rafting is such rush. I've never been on anything this awesomeit just seemed like it with those walls of water rushing at you.

When Streep signed on she thought that it would be shot with her in a raft on the bank with guys shaking it while the cameras rolled. Wrong! Most of the time that is her (and probably the others) in the raft out in the thick of it. She got quite good at it and commented that this Streep was closer to the real one than her other parts. Many of the shots were done with a camera mounted on or off the front of the raft, which unbalanced it and made the tense even more exciting. Also, much of the shooting was done in the wilderness, and everyone was helicoptered in every day including Bacon, who hates helicopters.

For those who get the bug to white water after watching River, you don't have to go to Montana or Oregon. Some of the best white water rafting in the country is as near as three hours in West Virginia. You can get it easy or, if white-knuckle-and-premature gray is your wish, then the controlled release Gauley will drain your adrenals. (10-3-94) Beginning

Road Runner/Coyote celebrated its 50th anniversary on September 19. (9-20-99) Surrealistic Southwestern landscape (actually patterned quite realistically after parts of Utah and Arizona), stylized mayhem, and the terrors of technology run amok have delighted audiences young and old for five decades. The creator of this winning combinations was Chuck Jones. The last of the original series was made in 1963, although one prologue, Chariots of Fur, was done 5 years ago. The Coyote had actually been around for a while before this; he had tried matching--or better put mismatching--wits with Bugs Bunny. However, the real breakthrough was the introduction of the Road Runner. The cartoonists were struggling to come up with an appropriate adversary when they had the brilliant idea of using a road runner. These birds were plentiful in the area, and as Jones put it "They were fast". No lie! They can do 30 mph on the ground. The rules were simple in the final formula. The Road Runner never really fought back. Wile E. Coyote, in spite of his genius IQ, failed because of his ineptitude, lack of common sense, and the failure (or generally more often misinterpretation of the technical specifications) of the imaginary ACME equipment used in the pursuit.

They were also not sure what noise the Road Runner would make when providence answered their prayers. Another cartoonist came down the hall carrying a huge stack of papers that he could not see over; to clear the way, he was going "Beep. Beep." The rest is history.

One of the finest collections of excerpts from the Coyote series is in the Bugs Bunny Road Runner Movie. This not only provides the distilled best of the Road Runner-Coyote but also Wile E. versus Bugs Bunny. Not to be missed by lovers of the genre. Chariots of Fur is true to the original, but lacks the bite. In my opinion, it is worth seeing primarily for its historical interest.

As Jones said they were barely paid a living wage. But at 80ish, he is doing well with three galleries devoted to this favorite topic, and he recently netted over $200K for a painting of his friends. The security cameras in his studios are labeled as being from the fictitious ACME. We assume they work more reliably than the Coyote's items.

In the modern politically correct view, many would consider the originals quite violent. However, as Jones said, the violence is stylized and of the same level as the Keaton and Chaplin violence. Certainly, I don't remember any of my friends bashing each other with mallets, and I never had (or have) any desire for violence after seeing one of these magnificent cartoons. Beginning

Road to Eldorado, The (2000) (***, animation, comedy) (10-11-04) (D.- Bibo Bergeron, Will Finn; voices by Kevin Kline, Kenneth Branagh, Rosie Perez, Armand Assante, Edward James Olmos) Charming bit of fluff that entertains children while not insulting adults. Tulio and Miguel (Kline and Branaugh), two con artists in Spain in the 1500s, end up with a map to Eldorado, the fabulous city of gold. Escaping Spain one jump ahead of the angry mob that they have conned, they arrive in the New World and get a chance to follow up on their map. They will have trials, tribulations, meet a priest Tzekel-Kan (Assante) eager to sacrifice everyone in sight to appease his gods, a beautiful runaway (Perez), and discover a marvelous new world. Fine characterization, humor (some guardedly adult), decent animation, and a passable set of music make for an evening that allows you to enjoy the children’s reactions and have a decent time watching the film. Beginning

Road To Perdition (2002) (***1/2, crime, drama) (7-22-02) (D.- Sam Mendes; Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Tyler Hoechlin, Jude Law, Daniel Craig, Stanley Tucci, Anthony LaPaglia, Jennifer Jason Leigh) Written by David Self from the novel by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayne. Taut. Brutal. Fascinating. As with Mendes first film American Beauty, from the beginning we have a good idea of how the story will play out. The only questions are how you will get there and what revelations will occur during the odyssey. The time is 1931 and the story is told from the viewpoint of 12 year old Michael Sullivan, Jr. (Hoechlin). His father Michael (Hanks) is a mob enforcer known as The Angel of Death who works for John Rooney (Newman). Rooney raised Michael like a son and Michael is clearly and even literally Rooney’s right hand. Rooney has an actual son Connor (Craig).

As with many gangsters, Michael Sr. leads an outwardly normal life complete with wife and two children. He is neither a brutal nor overly intelligent man. While he is not particularly demonstrative towards his family, he does love them. However, he is methodical and very good at what he does, and he feels that he owes Rooney for everything in his life. His eldest son, Michael Jr., does not know what his father does for a living but, like many 12 year olds, has become curious. Curiosity and the cat come to mind. This youthful nosiness precipitates a sequence of events of tragic proportions. Michael Sr. doesn’t realize it but he is about to get a fateful lesson in the relationships of blood, honor, and vengeance. Because much of the fascination on first viewing is the way in which the story unravels, I will provide no more details.

The cinematography by Conrad L. Hall is stunning. It leaves an overwhelming memory of cold, dark and rain. The stunning lighting of one room through the rain drenched windows reminded me of the scene in In Cold Blood where the killer Blake, about to be executed, appeared to be crying because of similar lighting on his face. Surprise. Hall was the cinematographer on both films.

The plot unravels in slow motion but with the inevitability of an express train bearing down on a car stalled on a railroad crossing. There will be revelations for all concerned--enough to last a lifetime. Hanks is one of our great actors and manages a superb performance where ever so much is conveyed with ever so few words. Newman is stellar as Rooney, who wants to do the right thing in his own skewed way. Law is unique as Maguire, a Chaplinesque newspaper reporter and killer. His job provides him with inconspicuous mobility and information. It also gives him an opportunity to make additional money from one of his sick pleasures. The rest of the cast provides great support for the principals.

To disavow you of any feelings of honor and respect for the adults, Rooney has the telling line "There are only murderers in this room, Michael. … And there is only one guarantee--none of us will see heaven."

I think the film can get a little too taken with itself. Some of the music can become overbearing; give the audience a little credit for subtlety. Nevertheless, an intriguing well told tale with stellar acting and cinematography. Beginning

Road Warrior aka Mad Max 2 (1981) (****, action, sci fi) (D.-George Miller; Mel Gibson, Bruce Spence, Vernon Wells, Mike Preston, Virginia Hey, Emil Minty, Kjell Nilsson), Australian with Mel Gibson). In a post apocalypse Australia Gibson joins a group of survivors defending an oil well. They are trying to produce enough gas to make it to the coast and survive the onslaught of an absolutely ruthless road gang. A good action film rises or falls on the merits of the bad guys; these thugs epitomize evil but with their own strict code of honor--in short, great villains. Wells is fabulous. This movie has the BEST road chase scene EVER put on film. The fabulous chase in Raider of the Lost Ark looks like a Sunday school picnic in comparison.

If you accept the premise, the plot follows exquisitely with attention to details that is a true labor of love: Why does a very cautious survivor use his shotgun the way he does? Why does he pick up a crowbar rather than the shotgun as the weapon of choice when he approaches the deserted gyrocopter? Why does the tanker smoke, but not catch fire? When Gibson leaves the compound at night, notice the barely visible man oiling Gibson's leg brace so it won't squeak as he tries to sneak past the gang. These details could have been ignored, but not if you want a first class production.

If you are into car chases, you must see Bullitt (1968 ***) (San Francisco) and The French Connections (1971 ****) (under the El). These chases may (?) look a little anemic to the younger generation. This is rather like the Victorians saying that "Shakespeare would be more interesting, if only he didn't use so many clichés". These movies are the standards on which modern car chases were built. Go back and check out the roots. Beginning

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) (***, action) (D.-Kevin Reynolds; Kevin Costner, Morgan Freeman, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, Christian Slater, Alan Rickman, Geraldine McEwan)This is a high spirited thoroughly enjoyable medieval romp that works in spite of a monorail performance by Kevin Cosner and a romance with Lady Marian that strikes as many sparks as a wet towel. Spectacular action, humor, good costumes and settings. Allen Rickman (terrorist leader in Die Hard) is the sheriff of Nottingham and does a real job on him. You'll either love or hate this performance. Beginning

Robot Monster (1953) (turkey, sci fi) (D.-Phil Tucker; George Nader, Claudia Barrett, Selena Royle) A Hollywood Classic. Awful, beyond human comprehension. So bad that it makes Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space look positively polished. I cannot imagine why it wasn't the centerpiece of the Golden Turkey Film Book. A space invader destroys all human life except for a small band hiding in a canyon and those he spends the movie trying to kill. The destruction of earth is footage pilfered from a One Million BC complete with giant lizards. The alien monster? Well, the director was going to use a space-suited alien. However, he could get a better deal on a gorilla suit and a diving helmet. So this shaggy diving gorilla goes bounding around the Los Angeles canyons. To add insult to injury, his space communicator is a bubble machine with feeler. My heart goes out to the actors. How embarrassing. Pray they used pseudonyms. I cannot remember if the actor in the gorilla suit remained mercifully anonymous. See also Plan 9.(5-1-95) Beginning

Rob Roy (1995) (**1/2, action) (D.-Michael Caton-Jones; Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Tim Roth, Eric Stolz, Brian Cox) Stunningly photographed in Scotland. A story of Rob Roy's travails with his ruthless English lord. The story is shallow, and the only actors given much opportunity are the villains and they run with it. Almost soporific for about the first half hour, before it livens up. The high point is Tim Roth's marvelous characterization of a foppish young lord. His dainty exterior manners hide an interior of pure animal lust and appetites. Actually, I do animals an injustice. Roth rapes, kills, robs, and destroys for pleasure rather than need. He is also a superb swordsman where his mannerisms give him a gamesmanship edge over those foolish enough to accept his face value. Also, it is good to see Brian Cox, the orginal Lector in Manhunter, once again manipulating souls; the scene on the island is classic Lector. The climactic sword fight is beautifully choreographed and worth sticking around for; it is clear that Neeson and Roth do most if not all of their own work. (9-11-95) Beginning

Rock, The (1995) (***, action) (D.-Michael Bay; Sean Connery, Nicolas Cage, Ed Harris, Michael Biehn, William Forsyth) First the rating. This is a family average that ranged from very good (***1/2) to so-so (** to **1/2). My guess is that this will be fairly representative. Ed Harris is a general who finally rebels against the US sweeping the deaths of soldiers in covert operations under the rug and disavowing their actions and families. His solution is a hostage style take over of Alcatraz with all of San Francisco under the gun. Cage is an FBI agent who specializes in chemical weapons. Connery is a jailed non-person and the only man to ever successfully escape from The Rock, which suddenly makes him a very valuable commodity indeed. After this, you can begin to fill in the blanks. However, as with most actioners, don't look too closely at the plot. Connery and Cage are at their quirky best and their chemistry is quite diverting, if not always unpredictable. The various assaults and counter measures have some fine moments of suspense, but the director's timing is frequently off and he has a strong tendency to equate motion with action. The frenetic and derivative San Francisco chase comes to mind. Thus, many of the set pieces and their build ups which should have you ripping the armrests off are just ho-hums. In my opinion, see Executive Decision for the proper way to do it. The cinematography is good, Alcatraz is as bleak and forboding a piece of real estate as you could find in your worst nightmares, and some of the scenes work as they should. So if you don't go into Rock expecting too much and turn off your analytical facilities, it can be an entertaining flic. And no, you never do find out who shot JFK. As a technical point, nerve agents, as horrible as they are, do not corrode the skin, nor does atropine protect you from a massive exposure. (6-17-96) Beginning

Rocket Ship X-M (1950) (**1/2, sci fi, classic) (6-25-01) (D.- Kurt Neumann; Lloyd Bridges, Osa Massen, Hugh O'Brian, John Emery) Bleak cautionary tale of the nuclear age. Probably the first film based around the atom and space travel. It beat the more literate The Day the Earth Stood Still by about a year. Neumann also managed to beat out George Pal’s Destination Moon even though X-M was started later. Neumann planned on, and successfully capitalized on, the advertising and hoopla over Moon. X-M was a true B picture: ultra low budget, quick and dirty shooting. The original used all stock V-2 test footage to represent the X-M even though the single stage V-2 bore no resemblance to the multistage X-M. A crew of 5, four men and one woman, a chemist, set off for the moon. Then, due to technical problems, scientific miscalculations and possibly divine intervention they end up on Mars. What they find on Mars leads to their consuming goal of warning earth about the dangers of nuclear weapons.

The film is in black and white except for the Mars portions, which are in sepia. The barren Martian surface was shot in Death Valley.

The film is a riot to watch in terms of the scientific errors. Unlike Destination Moon, X-M doesn’t use weightlessness and other physics at all correctly. The difference between mass and weight is totally misinterpreted. It has some of the most ludicrous examples of technobabble to ever fall on your ears. Notice the roar of the meteor storm and the direction the clouds move past the port holes. Actually on thinking about it, I’m not sure that X-M uses any physics correctly. The briefing before lift off is a hoot as the time counts down and the crew hobnobs with the press; then at about 6 minutes before lift off suggest that it might not be a bad idea to get onto the ship. The bomber jackets, side arms, and hunting rifle as standard equipment on a moon expedition does strike one as little out of place.

Even though the woman is a first-class scientist, the film will really raise the blood pressure on even the most easy-going feminists—but this was 1950. Bridges thought that the inclusion of the love scene at the end was ridiculous and wanted it taken out since he felt that under the circumstances no normal people would behave that way. However, that element actually seems to have hit a responsive cord with the viewers, and I believe that under the pressure of the situation it is not that unreasonable.

The version that you are most likely to see (DVD, tape) is not the original theatrical release. Wade Williams, who loved the film, bought it for $2000 in the 70s, replaced the V-2 footage with a more modern model that looked like the original design and added some Martian footage. Apparently he is one of the people seen in a distant shot (davidnewcastle@aol.com). For further info go to the B-Monster web page at http://www.bmonster.com/scifi21.html.

Ultimately, however, X-M is cautionary, not science. In this regard it doesn’t work too badly. A must see for all fans of vintage sci fi. Review based on the recently released DVD available at Clemons Undergraduate Library. Beginning

Rock Horror: This is not a movie but a description of a limited class of horror movies--those in which heavy metal or a guitar is used in some way as an instrument of death. I, of course, would never watch any of these movies (well, most of them), but for the aficionados of the genre, I lifted some from Guitar World ("Freak Previews", August 1992). Please consult the original for extended campy reviews. Some of these gems and Guitar World's ratings are as follows: Trick or Treat (****), Shock'em Dead (*****), Rocktober Blood (**), Slumber Party Massacre II (****), Terror on Tour (***), Kiss Meets the Phantom of the Park (****), Black Roses (****), Rock'N Roll Nightmare (*), Rock'N Roll Mobster Girls (*)--from, I kid you not, Demolition Films, Shredder Orpheus (***)--not to be confused with anything related to the gentle sport of snow boarding, Phantom of Paradise (****), New Year's Evil (**), Rockula (**), and The Decline of Western Civilization: The Metal Years (*****). The last is actually a very well reviewed documentary and it is only the presence of large numbers of disreputable rock musicians on the screen that give it a horror rating by Guitar World. For calibration, I give Trick or Treat about **1/2 out of **** with the most memorable scene being Ozzy Osbourne as an overbearing evangelical preacher Aaron Gilstrom struck down by a demon-induced myocardial infarction while preaching on the evils of rock music.?? I have also seen parts of the forgettable Slumber Party Massacre II where a demon-wielded guitar comes complete with wood-working and nubile-young-woman-dispatching attachments. (3-9-93) Beginning

Roger & Me (1989) (***, documentary) (D.-Michael Moore) He does know how to put a spin on images. If I ever gave him the time of day, I would be justifiably concerned about how it would be broadcast. Homey, savagely satirical documentary based on closing of GM plant in Flint Michigan with the loss of 40,000 jobs. The basis of the film is Moore's attempt to track down GM chairman, Roger Smith, in order to "explain" what happened to the town. A real piece of Americana. Beginning

Romancing the Stone (1984) (***1/2, romantic adventure) (D.-Robert Zemeckis, Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner, Danny DeVito, Zack Norman, Alfonso Arau, Manuel Ojeda) Turner plays a homely wallflower (I know it's hard to believe), but enormously successful woman's romance novelist. She finds herself trying to rescue her sister in South America from conniving low life (one played masterfully by DeVito--the man you love to hate). They are after a map she has, which leads to a fantastic gem. Unfortunately, an evil military officer also covets the gem. The uptight Turner finds herself allied with an arrogant self-centered adventurer, Douglas. On the surface, both characters are ugly ducklings in their own ways. Through shared risk and personal discovery, mutual respect develops, and each discovers the others inner beauty and spirit. Turner's transformation to the self-assured heroine of her own novels and Douglas' change to a prince worthy of Turner is credible and forms the emotional and dramatic core of the movie. Romancing came out shortly after Raiders of the Lost Arkand my first reaction on seeing the previews was "Rip off!" Not so. A delightful, imaginative adventure comedy in its own right. Sharp dialogue and wit, fine action and suspense, excellent villains (both evil and comedic), and outstanding and believable chemistry between Turner and Douglas. A fun evening for all. (2-15-94) Beginning

Romeo Is Bleeding (1994) (**1/2, crime drama) (D.-Peter Medak; Gary Oldman, Lena Olin, Annabella Sciorra, Juliette Lewis, Roy Scheider, David Proval, Will Patton, Larry Joshua, James Cromwell, Julia Migenes, Dennis Farina, Ron Perlman) Panned rather viciously by critics, who cannot seem to agree on what was good and bad in the movie. I am more forgiving, but will add yet another interpretation of the high points of the film. Jack Grimaldi (Oldman) is a corrupt cop assigned to the witness protection program. He ends up responsible for the death of his buddies and is given the job by a mobster Don Falcone (Schieder) to eliminate the hit woman Mona (Olin) who was responsible for the killings. The director attempts to play the movie as a black comedy. Olin is over the top with her Mona, as a woman who loves death, destruction, seduction, and killing-and if she can combine all of them in one, so much the better. In my opinion, the movie doesn't work as black humour, as a send off of film noir, or as a good crime drama. What did work for me, and made the movie fascinating to watch and analyze afterwards, was Oldman's interpretation of Jack.

Jack is driven by an overactive libido, which makes him a natural mark for Olin, and an obsession with money. He feeds (literally) all of his money into a hole in his backyard. Using it for his pleasure never crosses his mind. He is like the miser whose sole gratification is in looking at his fortune, running his fingers through it, and seeing the pile grow. These two obsessions make him cheat compulsively on his wife and eagerly destroy his respected position as a police officer. As with so many criminals, the consequences of his actions are totally hidden by his need for instant gratification and by a keen sense of rationalization, no matter how divorced from reality. An absolutely fascinating performance that more than compensates for the film's weaknesses. The story is told in a film noir flashback style with a voice overlay by the proprietor of a remote desert filling station. Pay attention to what, and how, you are told. (4-17-95) Beginning

Romy And Michele's High School Reunion (1997) (comedy, **1/2) (D.- David Mirkin; Mira Sorvino, Lisa Kudrow, Janeane Garofalo, Alan Cumming, Julia Campbell, Camryn Manheim) Two young air heads, Romy (Sorvino) and Michele (Kudrow), are at the bottom of the food chain and just making it in Los Angeles. They are almost clueless, their lives are on hold. Learning of the upcoming 10 year high school reunion in Tucson brings back many unpleasant memories. However, they would like to go back and see old, but unresponsive, love interests and to learn how those in the "A" group managed. With uncharacteristic imagination, they decide to go back projecting a more upscale image than they have achieved. This subterfuge sets up the last half of the film.

The film works because they are not pathetic. While they understand at some level that they aren't much, they still truly enjoy most of their life, and they genuinely like each other. Ultimately, their adaptation and enjoyment is far more than many people with far more brains and money ever achieve. Garofalo, as one of the few really successful people in the class, has a pivotal role in creating defining crises throughout the film.

The interplay and timing between Kudrow and Sorvino is perfect. They have the fluid banter of two close friends who can and do complete each other's sentences. Their expressions when a thought actually manages to rise to the surface of their brains is priceless. Kudrow is the less mentally keen of the two and reprises her TV role. Sorvino, who has ably demonstrated her dramatic flair, proves a comedic natural.

The viciousness of childhood is brought home through a series of vignettes, which sets the stage for much that happens in the reunion. By the end, everyone has learned something about themselves or about others. For me, the primary weakness of the film is the inability to maintain a consistent comic tone. There is just too much dead space. In summary, Reunion is a throw away no brainer with about as much substance and staying power as Romy and Michele, but I did grin and laugh a fair amount. (5-19-97) Beginning

Ronin (1998) (***, action) (4-1-00) (D.-John Frankenheimer; Robert De Niro, Jean Reno, Stellan Skarsgard, Skipp Sudduth, Jan Triska, Natascha McElhone) Ronin were basically the hired guns of feudal Japan. They were samurai whose lords had been killed and they roamed the land taking on jobs as available. Our group of international killers who assemble in Paris at the beginning are their modern counterparts. I won't go into detail as much of the fun is learning about the characters, discovering their relationships with each other, and watching the labyrinthic plot unravel. Suffice it to say that it involves crosses, double crosses, multiple crosses, murder, mayhem and action. Do keep an eye on the critical briefcase. The plot is driven by everyone wanting it, but are the contents important?

Frankenheimer is a talented filmmaker and Ronin shows it. The all-star cast is first rate with De Niro and Reno being in top form. However, Ronin is style over substance. Don't analyze the plot. Just go along for the ride. Ronin is filled with beautifully choreographed setup and action scenes and great character interactions.

Review based on the excellent DVD release. As interesting as the film is, I found the DVD track of the film with the director's voice-over comments fascinating. The director commented on why and how different scenes in the film were set up along with anecdotes about the film. It turns out the scene where the two men go over the railing in the coliseum was not planned; the two stunt men got a bit too rambunctious. They weren't wearing any padding and were lucky to escape with no serious injuries, but it looks great. You also get to see the several endings filmed and can pick the one you like. The film also has a couple of continuity errors that we caught. In the coliseum the pursued loses his glasses in a fall and keeps running without picking them up; how convenient that he is wearing them moments later and the director avoided pointing this out. In another scene the gang's car is racing surreptitiously towards a rendezvous--going the wrong way down a narrow one way street. Actually, this may not be an error; the director may just have liked the balance of the car barreling down a single lane with cars parked on either side pointing in the opposite direction.

So if you are interested in a stylish actioner and can check your credulity at the door, give Ronin view. Beginning

Rope (1948) (***1/2, suspense) (9-6-99) (D.-Alfred Hitchcock; James Stewart, John Dall, Farley Granger, Cedric Hardwicke, Joan Chandler, Constance Collier, Douglas Dick) Only Hitchcock would have the audacity to conceive such a film. Only Hitchcock would have the studio clout to make such a film. And only Hitchcock could pull it off. This is Hitchcock's first color film and it is an experiment. Hitchcock wanted to make the film in 10 minute, unbroken segments--the running time of one film cassette. NO post-film editing! NO cuts!

The story: for the thrill, and to show how clever they are, two young men (Dahl, Granger) plan to kill an old schoolmate and then host his family and friends to a dinner party to be served over the hidden corpse. Based on the real-life Leopold-Loeb murder case from Patrick Hamilton's play. Among the guests is their smug, eccentric past professor (Stewart).

Does it work? I think so! The editing is done in the set up and camera movements, and it is amazingly fluid and efficient at telling the story. The acting is excellent. Dall, in particular, as the dominant partner is coolly malevolent as he controls the evening and keeps his weaker partner (Granger) under control. Stewart plays a rather unsympathetic character; he wanted this part to deliberately help break his post-war hero goodie-goodie image. His character's growing puzzlement and amazement as he realizes his complete misreading of human nature is very realistic. The timing is incredible. There is one scene where the action is synchronized to a swinging door.

Now for some details. It was a nightmare for the actors and everyone else involved. Since nothing could be edited, a single error in a shot meant it had to be completely redone. They never managed more than one shot per day. The floor had countless cues for directing the actors' action. Since, even in '48, the cameras were pretty massive (a special one was developed for the film), the walls and furniture had to move in and out of the way as the scene progressed. Hitchcock claimed that the movements were so quiet that the vocal was actually recorded live. In fact, Stewart claimed at least some of the scenes were post dubbed by the actors because of noise.

This was the first film of which I am aware that unfolded in REAL time. High Noon is the classic where time is a character in the film. A major portion of the Rope set was the New York skyline in the background, and the story is set in the evening as the sun sets. The back drop was a magnificent 35' mural. 5 miles of wires, 8000 light bulbs, 250 neon signs, and 126 kW of power were used to light up the building and skyline as the evening progressed. The color of the lighting had to change as the sun set. All of this was worked out in great detail with a timing schedule of what happened exactly when. Further, there were clouds in the sky. These were spun glass and were also moved in a carefully programmed schedule during the periods when the camera was not viewing them. Hitchcock ultimately recognized that this approach was antithetical to all of his editing rules and styles.

To get the sound right for the people in the distance at the end, Hitchcock had the microphone mounted 6 stories up and had a group of people at ground level respond to the shot. For the approaching police sirens, the sound people just wanted to use a stock siren and vary the level. This was unacceptable to Hitchcock, who had them hire an ambulance and have it approach the microphone, siren running, starting two miles away.

Was it a complete success? It was after all very uncinematic. Stewart probably summed it up best. "I think he realized later that giving up the device of the cut was giving up the tools for pacing, for impact. It was worth the trying--nobody but Hitch would have tried it. But it really didn't work." So check out Rope and decide for yourself. Details from Truffaut's Hitchcock and The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock by Donald Spoto, 1983 (Ballatine Books). Beginning

Rope of Sand (1949) (**1/2, drama, adventure) (D.-William Dieterle, Burt Lancaster, Paul Henreid, Corinne Calvet, Claude Rains, Peter Lorre, Sam Jaffe, John Bromfield, Mike Mazurki) Solid, although dated story of intrigue in a company controlled diamond field in Africa. Lancaster is a returning guide who wants payback for his brutal treatment years earlier and basically will stop at nothing to get it. Lancaster is a bit slow for reasons of plot development and the love interest is rather unrealistic, but cinematography (the stunning opening for example), crisp action, and the believable tension between savage, but intelligent, security officer and refined but pragmatic company official (Henreid and Rains) rings true. The desert is Arizona, not Africa. The outstanding sandstorm fight was originally staged during a real standstorm. It was so thick that the actors had to have their mouths rinsed out every few minutes. Trust me, they really do get that thick; sometimes you cannot see more than a few feet. What realism! What exploitation of raw nature! Too bad after everyones' work, the filming just didn't look right, and what you see was actually restaged on a sound set. (6-27-94) Beginning

Rosemary's Baby (1968) (****, classic, horror) (orgininal review much earlier, reprinted 9-18-00) (D-Roman Polanski, Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon) Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the video store, someone cons you into renting a baby movie. Subtly scripted story of the seduction of innocence by Satan. The snake couldn't have done a better job. Oh, how respectfully dressed and amiable comes the end of the world. An unsuspecting young wife is drawn inexorably into becoming the receptacle for the Anti-Christ. A believably shocking ending. Outstanding performances (Gordon got Best Supporting Actress Oscar), pacing, and plot. In contrast to much horror, a great deal of this one is set in well lighted, "safe" places. Again, don't let its age fool you. It will be a long time after the movie before your muscles loosen up. A must see. Beginning

Rounders (1998) (***1/2, drama) (D.-D.-John Dahl; Matt Damon, Edward Norton, John Malkovich, Gretchen Mol, John Turturro, Martin Landau) Rounders is a taut, well-acted film about poker and life. Mike (Damon) pretty much has it all with a beautiful girlfriend and a promising future as a lawyer. He also has a compulsive bent for poker at which he is very good. We see a full range of types. Marks at the Atlantic City gaming tables might as well be carrying signs saying "take me". Knish (Turturro) is a technician who plays it safe and tight and makes a very good living. Worm (Norton) is the adrenalized risk taker who pushes the situation until it is on the edge--or over it. He is the closest to the true "lose everything" addict we see, but even he is as much a con man as a true addict. Matt falls in between Knish and Worm; he likes the adrenaline, but generally doesn't like to take irrational risks. However, he likes the adrenaline too much to keep what he has. Teddy KGB (Malkovich) is the gang-connected, high stakes gambling master, who ends up with his hooks in Matt and Worm. Jo (Mol) is the girlfriend who understands Matt's words of wisdom and knows when to fold.

It is fascinating to watch Worm play Matt for what Worm lusts after--another adrenaline fix. Worm is truly dangerous. He doesn't care who goes down with him. Matt is interesting to watch as he makes bad decisions based on perceived friendship and his own need for that adrenaline rush, albeit more subdued than Worm's. But he does know what he is doing--"I know all the reasons I shouldn't be here." KGB is likewise a manipulator and one can reasonably doubt whether his final outburst is real or just an attempt to sway others' long-term behavior. Landau is Matt's professor, who make the pivotal observation "What choice? Destiny chooses us." This really isn't true, people like Matt and Worm create their own destiny in response to their needs, but to them it looks and feels like destiny.

We get a lot of insight into gambling, the tricks and the psychology. The recent The Negotiator provided minitutorials on lying and negotiating in much the same way Rounders does on poker. Also, in terms of the psychology of risk taking, Rounders has a lot in common with the excellent House of Games. In Rounders there is a great scene where a group of New York sharks discover themselves at the same table in Atlantic City. If they had wanted to play each other they wouldn't have left New York. And do their eyes light up when fresh blood sits down. As Matt says, they didn't help or hurt each other, but "It was like the Nature Channel. You don't see piranha eating each other."

The film is taut and well shot. The sound track and music perfect. The cast and acting is excellent. The plot is somewhat contrived, but we are really interested here in the characters' response to the unfolding situation. In spite of the claustrophobic structure, Rounders is best viewed on a big screen.

Film Facts: http://us.imdb.com/Title?Rounders+(1998) (9-21-98) Beginning

Rounders, The (1965) (**1/2, western, comedy) (D.- Burt Kennedy; Glenn Ford, Henry Fonda, Sue Ane Langdon, Hope Holiday, Chill Wills, Edgar Buchanan, Kathleen Freeman) Charming bit of fluff about two cowboys (Ford, Fonda). These two losers know exactly where they stand in the grand scheme of things, and still manage to enjoy life to the hilt. They could be more, they could do more, and they know it. However, there are just all those other things that keep getting in the way. During a six-month slice of their life, one of these things is a contrary saddle horse that surely inherited some of its genes froms Mephistopheles himself. Throw in midnight skinny dipping with a couple of exotic dancers, a few other subplots, and an off the wall assortment of characters and you have a fun 85 minutes without any redeeming social value or offense. However, the two cowpokes wouldn't have wanted it any other way. (10-3-94) Beginning

Roxanne (1987) (**1/2, comedy, romance) (D.-Fred Schepisi; Steve Martin, Daryl Hannah, Rick Rossovich, Shelley Duvall, John Kapelos, Fred Willard, Max Alexander, Damon Wayans) Yet another charmingly light weight modern variation on Cyrano De Bergerac. Martin is the respected and honored fire chief in small ski town (actually beautiful Nelson, B.C.). His brash articulate exterior (his bar put down of a rude drinker is a beauty) is just one way of covering up his enormous insecurity over his schnozzle (nose, even huge nose, does not do it justice). Martin brings in an expert (Rossovich) to train his ineptly eccentric fire crew. Astronomer Hannah (Roxanne) arrives to catch a comet and instantly enchants both men. Rossovich is crude and does nothing for her until bashful Martin starts coaching him as his proxy. The path of true love is never smooth and with Martin's prime opposition vying for her affection with Martin's able assistance, it could hardly get harder. Roxanne is a bit more frenetic and physical than Cats & Dogs and has a more complex cast of misfits (ignoring the turtle), but the travails and complications are instantly recognizable. The cast, especially the principals, are pleasant and their chemistry works. Not a knee slapper but a steady stream of smiles through the human suffering to the satisfactory resolution. (5-20-96) Beginning

Royal Flash (1975) (***, action, humor) (D.-Richard Lester; Malcolm McDowell, Alan Bates, Florinda Bolkan, Oliver Reed, Britt Ekland, Lionel Jeffries, Tom Bell, Alastair Sim) Recently shown on cable. To call Captain Harry Fleshman (McDowell) a worthless bounder, an opportunist, a womanizer, and a coward would do him an injustice. Fleshman has raised all of these to an art form. Due to a fortuitous and misinterpreted disaster, Harry is also a celebrated military hero. In Victorian England Fleshman crosses swords, among other things, with a hair brush wielding opera singer (Bolkan), Otto Von Bismark (Reed), a queen in need of a husband (Ekland), and an iron fisted (literally) henchman (Jeffries) to name only a few. McDowell is perfect as the quick talking, charmingly boyish Fleshman who can turn into a quivering coward in a heart beat. However, he is not above rising to heroic heights--although not always for heroic reasons. The cast is excellent. The humor ranges from droll to slapstick. Jolly good fun where everyone looks like they are having a grand time. Script by George MacDonald Fraser, from his novel. (8-25-97) Beginning

Rules Of Engagement (2000) (***, war, drama) (4-10-00) (D.-William Friedkin; Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson, Guy Pearce, Philip Baker Hall, Ben Kingsley, Bruce Greenwood, Anne Archer) My *** rating is given grudgingly. Read on. Rules is both a brutal war actioner and a suspense courtroom drama. Colonels Hays Hodge (Jones) and Terry Childers (Jackson) have a very close connection dating back to the Vietnam War as we discover from the opening minutes. Spring forward to the present. Childers has become the Marine warrior's warrior. Hodge has managed a painful stay in the Marines. Childers is involved in a disastrous raid to extricate Ambassador Mourain (Kingsley) and his family from the embattled embassy in Yemen. The dead and dying has created a media disaster that necessitates a scapegoat for the government, and Childers is it. This leads to the courtroom drama with Major Biggs (Pearce) as the gung ho prosecuting attorney who wants justice and the clearing of the Marine Corp. name opposed to Hodges, a mediocre lawyer, an ex-drunk, and a total cynic. But a man who owes everything to Childers.

The theme of Rules can be summarized in one line from the film. "We all have our priorities". Everyone in Rules has their priorities and acts on them. Human beings are messy creatures and the conflicting and overlapping priorities form the tapestry of the film. Virtually everyone in the film has to make painful choices and live with the consequences. No one at the end will remain untouched by their, and others', actions.

While the film clearly has it own spin on the actions of the principals, it does not give clean answers to some of the complex moral dilemmas presented. Many of the things that transpired are left like open wounds to be worried over and discussed later. The film does not give your clean dramatic Hollywood ending to the courtroom scene. I consider this a plus and more realistic. Others are upset by the lack of clean closure or, perhaps, left without the satisfaction of seeing an on-screen comeuppance.

Regardless of whether you like the theme, the acting is superb. Jones and Jackson are stellar, always a pleasure to watch. The chemistry between these two men bound by blood is exceptional.

So what didn't I like? In my opinion the director did not play fair with his audience. After building the entire film around one set of images, he changes the ground rules. Unfair. In spite of this, in my opinion, major transgression, the acting and the overall story more than make up for it.

Be forewarned, the film has scenes of great violence and extraordinarily disturbing images that it likes to revisit often. Beginning

Runaway Train (1985) (***1/2, action, drama) (D.-Andrei Konchalovsky; Jon Voight, Eric Roberts, Rebecca De Mornay, Kyle Heffner, John P. Ryan, T.K. Carter, Kenneth McMillan, Stacey Pickren) Based on the screenplay by Akira Kurosawa and shows the master's touches. A brutal, taut, thinking person's action film that was much underrated at the box office. Two convicts escape from a maximum security Alaskan prison in the dead of winter, hide on an engine, and then try to survive when the train breaks loose and runs away across the Alaskan tundra. Superb cinematography, heart stopping action, fine acting. The life and death problems of the humans are juxtaposed against the real star of the film, the train, coupled with the Alaskan winter, in which man was not intended to survive. The engine is tons of implacable, enormously powerful, gray, ice encrusted steel with no exterior signs of humanity but an engine number. To the train, the survival of the trapped humans is no more important than that of flies as it thunders inexorably towards destruction. Beginning

Run Lola Run (1998) (fantasy, crime, ***1/2) (12-13-99) (D. and W.- Tom Tykwer; Franka Potente, Moritz Bleibtreu, Herbert Knaup, Armin Rohde, Joachim Krol) Opening with a frenetically fractured view of our world, we are presented with a statement and a question: "Always the same question. Always the same answer?" Lola addresses a life and death question with multiple answers. Set to an insinuating techno pop sound track, marginalized Lola (Potente) tries to save her worthless boy friend, Manni (Bleibtreu), who has lost a gangster's 100,000 Deutsch Marks. She has only 20 minutes. And to do so, she has to run--the woman is in marvelous shape. Oh, did I forget to mention that when all doesn't go so well, she gets additional shots at making life come out right? And with each replay, things unravel a little bit differently. The film is almost continuous action. The set up is a bit slow, but this is necessary to set the rhythm and flow, and the plot line, which allows you to anticipate what will happen in the replays.

The film is hyperkinetic and high spirited. I found myself totally wired by the end. Lola is full of twists and turns. It is alternately funny, brutal, surrealistic. I won't give any plot away, but I will warn you that you have to watch each play very closely. Subtle, but significant, changes appear without warning. Life or death hangs on seconds different in timing.

In summary, I really enjoyed Lola. The energy, the action, the visuals, the music, the twists, the suspense were delightful. And it makes for good post-viewing discussion. For example, how much of anything did she remember from try to try? Everyone looks like they are having a good time. In German with respectable subtitles that are not a detriment to your enjoyment. Just remember, "We all have our bad days." Lola is not, however, a mainstream film; you were warned. Beginning

Running Man, The (1987) (**1/2, sci fi, action) (7-23-04) (D.- Paul Michael Glaser; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Maria Conchita Alonso, Richard Dawson, Yaphet Kotto, Jim Brown, Jesse Ventura, Erland Van Lidth, Marvin J. McIntyre, Gus Rethwisch, Professor Toru Tanaka) Solid grade B escapist entertainment. Why do you go to film like this? If it is acting, subtlety, and style, you are in the wrong theater. How about mindless entertainment? Bingo. Running Man delivers a healthy dose of Saturday evening escapism along with a dose of satire. Not much else, but then that is all that it promises.

A mixture of Bladerunner, Death Race 2000, and Soylent Green. A totalitarian government manages to control a starving population with a mixture of force and the ultimate TV game show, The Running Man. The contestants are turned loose and everyone gets to watch them being hunted down by five (if necessary) of the nastiest brutes (Fireball, Captain Freedom, Dynamo, Buzzsaw and Subzero) you could find. If you survive long enough, you get an all expense paid lifetime vacation to paradise. If you lose, you are lucky to fit into a coffin.

Cop Ben Richards (Schwarzenegger) discovers the hard way how corrupt and manipulated the system is that ends with a once in a lifetime opportunity to star as the principal in The Running Man. The show is hosted by real emcee Damon Killian (Dawson) playing in effect himself. In a very unflattering way this is the role of a lifetime where the excesses of modern TV are scathingly revealed. Running Man was before the current crop of reality TV shows, but we could see it coming even then, and such visionaries as Robert Scheckley wrote about it years ago. Indeed, Running Man could easily have been written by him 50 years ago, although the film is based on the novel by Richard Bachman (Stephen King).

The violence is moderately graphic. The satire is scathing as Dawson strives for still higher point rating and doesn’t care what happens to anyone who gets in the way.

Arnie is up to his usual one liners and his foil, Amber (Alonso), is excellent although as portrayed, is an amazingly idealistic newswoman who still hasn’t gotten it. But she is about to. Their chemistry is good. The action sequences are entertaining, although ultimately a bit repetitious.

Everyone does a respectable job with Dawson being depressingly believable. Here is the ultimate merging of game shows and reality shows. Also, the film makes the point, even more important today than when it came out, that photographic proof – isn’t! Can it happen? In 1987, I’d have thought probably not. Today, I am much less sanguine.

For a classic Robert Scheckley story on this sort of game show check out

http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/sheckley5/sheckley51.html

Run Silent, Run Deep (1958) (***, war, drama) (6-24-02) (D.- Robert Wise; Clark Gable, Burt Lancaster, Jack Warden, Brad Dexter, Don Rickles) This looks like a WWII submarine picture, but it actually has deeper roots in Moby Dick. Commander Richardson (Gable) has his submarine sunk out from under him in the death trap of the Bungo Straits by an exceptionally capable Japanese destroyer, the Akakazi. Chained to a desk in Pearl, he longs for revenge. He gets his opportunity and makes Lieutenant Jim Bledsoe (Lancaster) his second in command. There is an ongoing conflict between the two men especially as the Ahab portion of Gable asserts itself. How many is he willing to sacrifice on the alter of his great white whale, and how will the first mate and crew react? Well acted, taut action sequences, and an intriguing plot line make for an entertaining evening. Rickles is barely recognizable in his dramatic role. The effects are amazingly good, although the submarine shots don’t always match up. Review based on the excellent wide screen Turner Classic Movies showing. According to Robert Osbourne, this is the only role Gable had that didn’t involve a romance. Also, contrary to the on-screen antagonism of Gable and Lancaster, they got along extremely well. Beginning

Rush (1991) (**1/2, drama) (D.-Lili Fini Zanuck, Jason Patric, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Sam Elliott, Max Perlich, Gregg Allman) First directorial effort by Zanuck is gritty, brutal, and atmospheric. When you exit you feel like you need a shower. Fine cast helps make weak crime drama touching and believable. Undercover cops Patric and his new partner Leigh infiltrate a big local drug scene possibly ruled by the almost nonspeaking Allman, whose mere presence still overshadows everyone. Patric is one of those brassy young men who views himself as indestructible. To get into the inner circles, he is willing to take drugs to prove he is not a narc. As many others, he is sure that addiction is merely a state of mind that affects only the weakand that certainly doesn't include him. For him, a few nights of soaked sheets and no problem. Addiction and dragging his partner down with him turn out to be only some of his problems. He should have remembered: Whoever fights monsters should see to it in the process he does not become a monster. (Friederich Nietsche) Patric and Leigh's descent into hell is painfully believable; indeed, it is hard to see how undercover narcs don't all fall prey to this malady. Perlich does a fine supporting role as a small time dealer trapped in the middle who eventually develops a set of ethics he can believe in. Nastily appropriate score by Eric Clapton. (7-19-94) Beginning

Rushmore (1999) (**, drama, humor?) (6-7-99) (D.-Wes Anderson; Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Olivia Williams, Seymour Cassel, Mason Gamble) Max (Schwartzman) is a 16 year old student at Rushmore, a prep school. He is very bright, but unfocused. He wants to, and does do, everything but study. And he is even good at these things since he puts all his energy into them. He is managing to squeak by with his wits and by being a masterful manipulator. He is also on fellowship since his father is a barber (Cassel). However, the headmaster (Cox) has finally had it and puts him on "sudden death" warning. Max falls for the attractive kindergarten teacher, Miss Cross (Williams), as does local steel magnate Blume (Murray) whom Max is manipulating to get to Cross. Max is a manipulator, but Cross isn't interested, which leads Max to increasingly fixate on her and brings the film to near tragedy.

The biggest problem with the film was focus, Max's problem. Was it comedy? A tragedy? A teenage angst film? It seemed like it wanted to be The Graduate for the 90s, but Max wasn't Dustin Hoffman and the situations weren't comparable. Indeed, at times, with his intellect and cunning, he was just plain scary. Murray's character was in its own way equally immature, and I never warmed up to him either. Ultimately, the film just doesn't know where it wants to go, and by the end it was a mess. Beginning

Ruthless People (1986) (***, comedy) (D.-Jim Abrahams; Jerry Zucker, David Zucker; Danny DeVito, Bette Midler, Judge Reinhold, Helen Slater, Anita Morris) A philandering tycoon, a shrewish wife (Midler makes Katrina in The Taming of Shrew a sympathetic character), and a blackmailing mistress for openers. DeVito, who had been planning to murder his wife finds his prayers answered when a young couple, down on their luck, kidnap the wife and threaten to kill her if he does not pay up--which of course he won't. Unfortunately for him, they wouldn't harm a hair on her head. The plot revolves around the interactions and transformations of most of those involved. Everyone gets what they deserve, but not necessarily what they believe they deserve. DeVito is priceless as the Machiavellian tycoon who merrily shafts a wrong number caller with the same gleeful enthusiasm that he plots the demise of his wife. Midler's transformation from dumpy spoiled witch (pity the poor kidnappers) to reasonable human being is fun to watch and believable. (2-22-93) Beginning