Reviews

Let's say that you are a director. A very succesful director who has lots of clout and access to all of the best cinematic technology that money can buy. You then spend four years trying to figure out what to do with all of the expensive sets and crew that you have hired. You never figure out what to do with them and so you string together some excuse for a narrative,never clearly defining what it is you are attempting to say. The punchline to the joke is that the masses latch onto your undefined ideas and immediately take them as brilliance. It then becomes as contagious as the black plague and pretty soon everyone seems to "know" what the director was trying to say even though the director himself had no idea what he was saying. Multiply this by 34 years and you have a certified classic. This was the perfect marriage of eye popping visuals with a plodding, empty headed script. Kudos to Doug Trumbull's effects.

The word lively should never be used in a sentence describing this film. This is destined to be a take home video for sleep clinics around the world. I was delighted to hear that a filmmaker had shot a film two hours away from my stomping grounds. Even more delighted when I heard what the critics were saying and then I saw the film and my hopes crashed like the hindenburgh. It's a plodding mess with no narrative, dialogue that sounds like the child actors wrote the script themselves, and no point. The filmmakers say they were inspired by Terrence Malick's great 1973 film "Badlands". There was a slight difference between this and Malick's film. "BADLANDS" HAD A PLOT!!!!! I don't know what else to say except don't believe the hype and wonder why most of the critics didn't see this wolf in cheap clothing for what it was. If you like watching sod grow tune in.

Isn't it amazing. These kids romp around the woods for days with nothing to eat and the female lead is still capable of

having one of the largest cabooses in recent cinema history. She should have been glad that she had to run. Sorry I digress. All seriousness aside, though, the scariest thing about "BWP"(most movies have intials now, so I'll go with it too) is the fact that thousands of moviegoers actually paid hard earned money to see a film that the filmmaker's families would have found it hard to sit

through. Evidently the lack of food must have also robbed the characters of their ability to come up with any cohesive dialogue besides the F word. Or maybe that was just the ineptitude of the filmmakers who wrote the "script"(I use this term loosely). One last note: There was a sequel as we all know and for all

the agnostics out there who have trouble believing in God look no further than the box office receipts for the second one. And lo God spared us a third go round.

Beginning with Paul Thomas Anderson's "Hard Eight" and continuing through his subsequent films "Boogie Nights", and "Magnolia" we have witnessed the formation of a true cinematic genius in the

making. With each film he has continued to push the cinematic envelope. "Punch Drunk Love" is his best film to date and that's no small praise when I consider all of his previous films perfect or near perfect. This is the kind of cinematic experience that I crave and so rarely find. Most of the films that come and go are designed to generate the most money in the least amount of time and to be forgotten but PTA is smarter than that. He creates cinema that demands to be seen time and again. He is a brilliant craftsman who has total command of the medium of film. "Punch Drunk Love" is visually exciting, full of sharp dialogue, contains great use of music, and that's just the technical stuff. The film is

incredibly romantic,suspenseful and, oh yes, very funny. Best of all it is totally unpredictable and it is a truly wonderful

thing when a film frees the viewer from the constraints of the plot mechanics that so many bloated hollywood productions suffer from. Anything can happen in a PTA film and with this film you can never tell what may happen next. The performances are great as is the casting. Adam Sandler is surprsingly good of course but Emily Watson is equally good and kudos to PTA for casting an actress who is attractive but who is believable in this type of role. An overly attractive actress like J-Lo for instance would have ruined it.

For those who crave a cinematic high like myself the films of

Paul Thomas Anderson are the perfect fix for any cinematic junkie. When I see a PTA film I am immediately inspired to do something, anything creative and "Punch Drunk Love" is no exception and for

those who say they don't get this film, well, that tells me more about

a person than anything else could. But everyone has their own opinions! Just keep up the good work, PTA.

In the past several years a new film genre has arisen. I have dubbed it the "Subtle Horror Film". Basically what happens is that the film takes place in a somewhat ordinary setting, adding layer upon layer of menace in the plot, until it all reaches a fever pitch. It then usually culminates in a horrific plot twist that totally changes everything that has gone before. Some recent examples of this types of film are"The Sixth Sense" and "The Others"(similar title no less). I don't know if any of today's crop of filmmakers have seen Robert Mulligan's 1972 film "The Other" but they certainly owe alot to this landmark film. "The Other" is a film that I grew up with, so it may be hard to give it a fair critical evaluation. I originally saw the film on the CBS friday

night movie sometime in 1977 while spending Friday night at my grandparents' house and even though I was only six years old at the time, I immediately knew that I somehow had struck cinematic gold. The film starts innocently enough and the first half hour plays like an episode of "Little House" or "The Waltons" and it basically follows the exploits of a pair of twins who seem to always be around when tragedy strikes on their Connecticut farm. But there's more than meets the eye here and to reveal any more of the plot here would be a real disservice. Suffice it to say that by the time film is over two things will have happened. 1)You will be disturbed. PERSONAL NOTE: It wasn't until viewing the film some fifteen years later that I fully understood the

implications of what took place in the chilling final half of the film. (2) You will want to discuss this film with the first person you bump into who has seen it. This is a great film and for better or worse it (like a few other films) has truly helped to shape my likes and dislikes in films.

I must also make mention of the technical credits. Robert Surtees incredible camerawork is a bag of tricks unto itself. Jerry Goldsmith delivers an outstanding score and Tom Tryon wonderfully adapted his

excellent 1971 bestseller into one of the best examples of how to faithfully translate a book to film. Last but not least, the great

Robert Mulligan whose eerie staging of certain sequences should have earned him an oscar nomination. Unjustly forgotten when released in May 1972, do yourself a favor and see this horror classic.

Jurassic Park III is strictly a connect the dots film. If you've seen the first two you'll easily be able to connect the dots and see the entire plot coming long before any of the characters do. The entire movie has an air of tiredness to it. Everyone just goes through the paces and there isn't any sense of urgency in any of it. A real dissapointment.

Roman Polanski made some great films. The obvious ones come to mind("Chinatown", "Rosemary's Baby") and I actually like some of the not so obvious ones ("The Tenant"), and so I had wanted to see this film for years after hearing all of the wonderful things critics have said about

it. Well, after having seen it, I'm surprised that Roman Polanski ever managed to get work in Hollywood. It's a pretentious and boring tale of a man and his wife who almost run over some idiot standing in the middle of the road and then ask him to come along with them as they make their way to the marina to go sailing(HUH?). Later the so called hitchhiker pulls out a knife and starts acting like a mental patient and instead of ditching the guy they act as if it's no big deal, as if most people carry a knife big enough to gut a crocodile. We would have all been better off if the hitchhiker had killed them in

the first twenty minutes so we would be spared the agony of having to sit through this mess. I'm sure some people will disagree with me but think twice before you waist your time.

John Singleton's take on young African American men with an oedipus complex may not be entirely succesful but it definitely delivers some powerful moments. The faults of the film can't be pinned on the cast. They all give solid performances, particularly Ving Rhames in yet another standout performance. The problems with the film, however, lie solely in the script, which could have used another rewrite. Another problem

is in the running time, it just goes on too long. While some scenes score a dramatic home run, others go on long after the point has been made. A few trims here and there would have made this film perfect. Don't get me wrong though, this film is certainly the best one I've seen so far this summer and kudos go to Columbia for releasing a film that explores social and political issues in the middle of a summer filled with dreadful, commercial junk.

Some of the critics were so savage in their reviews of this film (in particular, Entertainment Weekly) you would have thought that the filmmakers had commited a federal crime of some sort. I found the film to be moving and totally absorbing. So many critics complained that this film was manipulative. Their complaints might have some basis if the audience manipulations were phony and only for the sake of wringing the viewers tearducts. That was not the case. Sure the film is manipulative but in a very believable way. I can't recall one implausible manipulation in this film. Ignore those critics and do yourself a favor and see one of the best studio films to come out of a very bad year (2000) for studio films. I'll guarantee you that it's better than "Gladiator" and that hunk of junk won best picture. By the way, "Gladiator" is manipulative too! In fact, all films manipulate. Isn't that what they are supposed to do.

This may go down as one of the worst films I have ever seen. I had heard about it for years and was very curious. Like they say, curiosity killed the cat. This film is downright embarassing from the inept direction all the way down to the wasting of great actors like Matthau,Burton, and Brando to name but a few. Maybe the book is funny but the film sure ain't! If your idea of a comedy is jokes that don't work and an incomprehensible story line, tune in.

"A Taste Of Cherry" was praised by many american critics when it finally made it's way here and I'll have to admit that I was intrigued by it's premise. The film actually manages to make some interesting

statements about life and death and then throws it all away with a confusing ending. That's too bad because a film like this that tests one patience needs to have some sort of satisfactory payoff. What we get instead are endless scenes of a man driving around the countryside, picking up strangers, and talking about life and death. The bad part is that it all leads to absolutely nothing.

You don't have to be a fan of "The Incredible Hulk" to appreciate this wonderful two hour episode of the TV series. It was actually shown in a two hour format during it's original broadcast and then released overseas to theatres in Europe. Mariette Hartley stars as a hypnotherapist who can possibly cure Dr. David Banner(Bill Bixby. Banner, on the other hand, has DNA that can cure the hypnotherapist. They eventually come to depend on each other and love blossoms among the beauties of Hawaii. The closing scenes contain some of the most profoundly moving drama I have ever seen on television. Bill Bixby is wonderful as usual and Mariette Hartley took home the first ever non technical emmy award for a sci fi tv show. If you're looking for a good tearjerker, look no further.

Upon hearing of Jack Lemmon's passing I decided to revisit "The Out of Towners" again as a tribute to the man and his enormous talents. Having not seen the film in seven years, I wasn't sure if I would appreciate it as much as in the past. I can honestly say that it still holds up. Neil Simon is a master of great dialogue as we all know, but it's the late Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis who really make the film stand the test of time. There is lots of funny situations and great dialogue. The film was unjustly dismissed by most critics and although it isn't perfect, it's still a very good film.

Upon hearing of Jack Lemmon's passing I decided to revisit "The Out of Towners" again as a tribute to the man and his enormous talents. Having not seen the film in seven years, I wasn't sure if I would appreciate it as much as in the past. I can honestly say that it still holds up. Neil Simon is a master of great dialogue as we all know, but it's the late Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis who really make the film stand the test of time. There is lots of funny situations and great dialogue. The film was unjustly dismissed by most critics and although it isn't perfect, it's still a very good film.

For years I had heard critics and some film buffs heaping praise on this film. I finally got the chance to sit down and see the film for myself and to say the least it was dissapointing. The performances are adequate, the plot is routine and there are entire sections where absolutely nothing happens. I know alot of people will argue that Sergio Leone was using the less is more approach to set the tone of the film but for me it just didn't work. Leone was a technically proficient director and some of the camerawork in this film is brilliant, If he had only learned to pick up the pace a bit I believe the film could have worked.