Reviews

This is a shaggy dog of a tale that could have been Much More interesting. Just look at how much Spike Lee wrung out of Inside Man (granted, probably with more of a budget.) This felt like there was a whole 'nother, better story hidden in the cracks that didn't have a chance to come out. I did like the acting, for the most part the direction was competent if not really potent. In the end there was just lots of undeveloped stuff. Too many loose and open questions.

There's one thing in this film that I love in a very film nerdish sort of way and that is Danny Aiello's character, which is, in a strange way, a homage to an earlier character in Altman's California Split (a film well worth revisiting). And while some of the characters may seem over the top, my own experience in the fashion world would attest to them being pretty realistic. While it feels as fragmented as any Altman, there is a story here, and it's a pretty subtle one, but perfectly satisfactory in my opinion. I think the film, overall, is woefully under-rated. I feel like everyone got caught up in the idea of "ALTMAN" and then got confused by "THE STARS" and then didn't really bother to look at the movie, which has some lovely grace and is well worth the time. Then again, why listen to me, I liked Ishtar.

This is one of the greatest sports stories ever told, the real story about how and WHY they fixed the World Series. Eliot Asinof's book should be read by anyone interested in history, and Sayles does an admirable job of tying it all together into a script (Sayles even cast Asinof in the movie, and then cast him again in Sunshine State.) It's a story that anyone interested in a history of America, a history of labor and management, a history of the greatest game will definitely enjoy. After reading it, the Shoeless Joe character from "Field of Dreams" suddenly has a resonance which that particular film could never explain (though it is nicely explained in the source for that film "Shoeless Joe") Also worth reading is "The Glory of Their Times" an oral history of early baseball.

It's a pretty good cast, but the film has nowhere near the grace of the original Italian comedy "Big Deal on Madonna Street" Anyone looking for an entertaining caper film should visit the original. William Macy may be one of our greatest living actors, but here he's put to little use. And his role in the original was played by Marcello Mastroianni, so I sort of feel sorry for him trying to fill those shoes. Might as well try to imitate Bogart or a young De Niro. The art direction is rich and textured but brings nothing to the story, the extra bits they add to the story feel completely unnecessary and the things they take away are missed. Even starting the way they do seems bizarrely gratuitous and takes away from the surprise of the original. Sam Rockwell has his odd and genial charm and Luis Guzman has that odd charisma, but the love story part of the movie just seems clunky and flat. It's too bad nobody has figured out how to make this movie as well as it was first made, but then again it's too bad we live in a culture where we feel like we need to remake amazing things instead of simply learning to savor the originals.

I thought there was an interesting intersection of themes in this short piece. I think the art direction and the pacing is quite nice. I think it's actually one of Michelle Pfeiffer's more interesting works as an actress. The piece was engaging enough that I went and tracked down the John O'Hara short story it was based on, which is quite lovely. The filmmakers managed to convey the same feeling of distance the story possessed, which is rare for an adaptation. I actually just read an old Paris Review that interviewed Budd Schulberg, who worked on this as well, he was quite a character. So I suppose I'm simply pleased this little piece exists. I would recommend it for many reasons and I'm quite surprised that it has garnered such negativity from other reviewers.

This is a classic, with one of the great slapstick scenes of all time (in an automat) and wonderful innuendo and great timing throughout the film. Jean Arthur is a splendid comedienne, just lighting up the screen with a wry innocence, and Ray Milland is perfectly cast as someone a little debonair, a little too bourgeois, but ultimately quite charming. Finally, Edward Arnold is a lot of fun to watch as he chews up the scenery. As a long time fan of Preston Sturges who was quite happy to see "Miracle at Morgan Creek" finally released on DVD, I have to say, it is A CRIME that this little gem isn't available on DVD, just ridiculous.

The fact that Hollywood is filled with losers and freaks isn't anything new, but this portrait has small bits of charm. It would have been nice if the filmmaker had pushed a little more into the idea of Hollywood, as well as his own relationship to it. There are traces of "Sherman's March" and "The Target Shoots Back" but unlike Ross McElwee or Christopher Wilcha, this director keeps things at a pretty superficial level. It's too bad too, since issues like the culture, economics, and seduction of Hollywood are issues that are worth exploring. Additionally, I there seemed to be something questionably ethical about his tendency to interview people when they're inebriated.

it would be great to see De Niro bring this much energy to a character again, something really varied and eccentric and lively. I suppose it's just a sign of our culture that once you're famous for something, you have to be that over and over again. But I don't think he's brought anything like this to film since maybe "King of Comedy" or the bit he did in "Brazil". Anyway, I think this is a really incredible, challenging, funny film, a cross between "Rear Window" and something Godard might have done. It's amazing too, considering how big the careers of De Palma and De Niro got and how much attention is paid on places like IFC to the innovations of the "Easy Rider/Raging Bull" era films that this film and "Greetings" are so completely ignored. Watching this you can understand how Paulene Kael was so hot for De Palma. It really has some amazing pieces to it. Also, thinking about the plots and themes of "Taxi Driver" and "King of Comedy", I'm betting this film absolutely blew Scorsese away, really got his head going. You read things like the fact that Redford's working on a sequel to "The Candidate" and all you can think is, man, it would be nice if all these guys would get together and say "let's do something messed up and smart and fast like we used to, remember? Remember that? Back when we had to get our own lunch?"

Okay, I get that Clive Owen was supposed to be Robbie Robertson, and the guy who played Lancelot was supposed to be Rick Danko, and Tristan was Richard Manuel, Ray Winstone was obviously Garth Hudson, and Gwain was obviously a poor man's Levon Helm? But was the conniving Roman Bishop supposed to be Bill Graham or Martin Scorsese? Was Bob Dylan supposed to be Merlin and if so why didn't he get more screen time? And why nothing of the early years these knights spent together, touring honky-tonks in Greyhound buses with Ronnie Hawkins? I liked the metaphorical battle with the icons of southern rock, Stellan Skarsgård did an amazing imitation of some Lynard Skynard die-hard fan running on a collision course with the The Band, and I learned some stuff I didn't know about how The Band made decisions in a consensus "round table" fashion and how they felt about the bastard children they sired on the road, but all in all, the whole story being told in this psychedelic fashion made it all pretty difficult to follow. I really wish they had found a more straightforward way to tell the story of this important chapter of Rock History.

While there were some really funny references to oral sex, and some of the

puppet motion stuff was funny, overall it seemed like something less than a

good South Park episode. And making fun of Alec Baldwin didn't seem

particularly timely. I liked when Orbitz, or whoever it was, made fun of the

Thunderbirds, I mean they're so ridiculous. But those commercials were like a couple of years ago. So, making fun of the puppets seemed a bit flat. Except

during the puppet sex. That was funny. It also seemed especially odd to be

making fun of Hans Blix when, as it turned out just this week, he was basically one of the good guys in the whole Iraq thing, in that he said there were no

weapons and we shouldn't invade and then low and behold he's right. So

mocking him seemed particularly empty and something even less than

sophomoric.

This is one of the most satisfying films I've ever experienced. David Lynch's masterpiece gives us so much to mull over. The guilt and the burden of jealousy, the haunting, unsatisfied ambitions that leave us feeling burned and broken, the way we have to carry ourselves through the debris of dead relationships, the strange sorts of revenge we wish upon those that cross us, all told through brilliantly through the lexicon of dreams. Walking around with his film in my mind was like opening a dark treasure. Boy howdy, that was good. Plus, lesbian kissing. At a book signing I asked David Foster Wallace what he thought of the film (Wallace has a nice essay on Lynch in his excellent book "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again") and Wallace put it quite nicely. He said that, after a few failed attempts, Lynch had finally succeeded at making a real David Lynch film. I think that may understate it a bit, but it falls pretty close to summing up my love of this film.

I expected very little from this movie, but what I got was simply amazing. I like Lynch, but I wouldn't say I'm a fan. This film, however, held some of the finest emotional storytelling I've ever encountered. It's such a rich expression of love and anger, jealousy, revenge and guilt. I've read through a lot of interpretations and I have to say I think people are thrown off a bit by Lynch's other films. With it's twists and turns, this one has a simple clear and simple narrative in which the emotions boil over into something beautiful and fantastic. Naomi Watt's really powerful, just incredible. Also, Lynch's use of humor is as sharp as ever. And his sense of evil, as a beast so scary just the sight of it can kill, but which resides within us all and haunts our consciousness, is a nice evolution from what he did with Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet. Very underrated. Excellent. Good.

One of the best, most enjoyable little films I've ever seen. It's remarkable that it isn't more celebrated, especially considering the director and the actor involved. A must see, if you can figure out a way to see it.