Reviews

I saw this movie a long time ago and parts of it really stuck with me, but I couldn't even remember the name until I came across it recently. I think, part of the effect of the movie was the sultry Marlene Dietrich, but what I didn't realize is that this movie is so full of atmosphere and rich in texture that it stays with you no matter who is in it. To be honest, most of the acting in this film is pretty wooden. Dietrich rises above all others with her ability to convey her feelings through the camera. More than anything, this film's look and feel are what really make this film work; and to some degree the lighting and directing aid Dietrich's acting. Joseph Von Sternberg directed this film about a group of passengers traveling via train during a Chinese civil war. The passengers all have their own stories, but none is as interesting as the story of Shanghai Lilly (Dietrich) and her romance with the British officer Captain "Doc" Harvey (Clive Brook). Von Sternberg uses light and shadow to highlight different characters and the character's feelings long before anyone else used this technique to such a large degree. There are marvelous images of Dietrich, Anna May Wong and Warner Oland as a rather mysterious and possibly sinister train passenger that really make this movie click. Film students should be required to see this movie for the simplicity of the story and the complexity of the filming. I'd like to say no scene is wasted, but there are a couple scenes that seemed extraneous. Overall though, this is a classic movie that was way ahead of it's time. I wasn't really familiar with Von Sternberg until I went back and watched this movie again. Now I own the DVD and I watch it periodically to remind myself of Dietrich's allure and Von Sternberg's masterful direction.

I need to tell you, I am a fan of Robin Hood. I read the stories of Robin Hood as a child/young adult. I've watched every Robin Hood movie and TV Show (TV Show's in re-runs, with the exception of When Things Were Rotten). Robin Hood is a character who is worthy of legend. He is a character that few can really compare to. And, after seeing Errol Flynn in green tights and cap, I realized, there would never be another Robin Hood.

The Adventures of Robin Hood, from Warner Brothers in glorious Technicolor is a visual masterpiece. From the green forests to the dark, castle of the would-be King, Prince John, the colors and textures really come to life. The excellent direction by Michael Curtiz allows the film to fire on all cylinders. But it is the character of Robin, portrayed by Flynn with a great smile and amazing athleticism that really wins over the viewer. We cannot deny that Flynn's smile will win over the heart of Maid Marian. Nor do we doubt when he casts his smile on his victims that they too would be overwhelmed by his charm and style. Flynn's Robin Hood is not threatening. Flynn's Robin Hood comes across as happy and carefree, fighting for what he believes in. When the time comes for Robin to be serious and fight it out with his enemies, we are equally drawn in, ready to believe that we're watching the greatest hero/anti-hero ever imagined.

No hero is complete without a great adversary. For Robin, his enemy has always been the Sheriff of Nottingham, but here we have, Sir Guy of Gisbourne, perfectly portrayed by Basil Rathbone. Naturally, Sir Guy takes his orders from Prince John, the great Claude Rains showing a slightly feminine side of a would-be-king. Prince John's associates are all evil and conniving, the Sheriff of Nottingham is played for laughs by Melville Cooper, allowing Sir Guy to be the really bad guy that hates Robin Hood.

There is too much about this movie to like -- Robin's "Merry Men" are robustly and warmly portrayed by Alan Hale, Patrick Knowles and Eugene Palette as Little John, Will Scarlet and Friar Tuck, respectively. The glorious Technicolor vision of Sherwood Forest and the complete cast of characters that includes the Una O'Connor in a fun role as Maid Marian's guardian. There is humor and action and, of course, romance as only old Hollywood could make it. Michael Curtiz deftly moves between humor and action with an amazing style so the view hardly notices the difference.

I've watched Douglas Fairbanks, Kevin Costner and Patrick Bergin try their hand at the character, I've watched the old TV series, the Disney cartoon and Mel Brooks satirical "Robin Hood: Men in Tights", right down to Ridley Scott's great retelling of the story with Russel Crowe. None of these compare to Errol Flynn in the Adventures of Robin Hood. Costner was way too wooden to be a true swashbuckler. Bergin was a little too uptight to be interesting. The TV show was... well, it was a 1950's TV show... Even Richard Lester's "Robin and Marian" falls a little short, though Connery is great as an older Robin Hood, complete with a winning, fun-loving smile. Flynn was fun and adventurous. We believe he could split the other archer's arrow. We believe that he could win the heart of Maid Marian and that his men would gladly follow him in to the Lion's den. We cheered for him because he was fun and he looked upon everything with a grin. We believe that he will protect the throne for good King Richard and save all of England, because we see that spark in his eyes telling us nothing is impossible.

I'm a huge fan of Robin Hood. If the old stories of Robin Hood did not make me a fan, Errol Flynn did. There will never be another Robin Hood to compare with what Flynn brought to the screen. If you're checking out the Kevin Costner Robin Hood or the Russel Crowe version, take a look at what Flynn did first and you will be amazed by what you see. Allow yourself to go back in time and meet this man who was charming and fun and so full of life that all would gladly follow him. You too will become a fan of Robin Hood -- and probably a fan of Errol Flynn.

I'll keep this simple -- this movie could have been great, but it wanted to be too much. It wanted to be epic, it wanted to be about friends and it wanted to be an anti-war movie and on top of that, it wanted to be about WWII and the underground work. I wanted to like this movie and while it's not impossible to watch, it is slow and plodding some times. This is a movie that really could have hit the audience hard, but it just kind of laid there instead.

We go through a long, long development of the relationship between the two main characters Charlize Theron and Stuart Townsend. This could have been story enough, but no, we have to follow them over a 10 or 15 year period and go all the way through WWII. Early on, we are introduced to Penelope Cruz who is a good friend to Theron's character. And from this we kind of slip into a pseudo-three-way that never fully develops. Then there is the Spanish Civil War that Cruz's character feels she must partake in as well as Townsend. Again, this could have been an interesting story all on its own. Finally, we get into WWII and it drags on and on and I started to lose interest in the characters and the story.

It's all just too much of a BIG story and, at the same time, not enough of a story to really hold our interest. The actors were okay, though sometimes I felt like Theron was just reading her lines. Townsend, for the most part fits the role, but other times he comes across as too modern for the time period.

There are a few twists and turns here that keep the viewer interested, but overall, its not as good as it could have been. A shorter version, about one of the many story lines could make this a really, really good film.

I have been a huge fan of the original crew of the Enterprise since I was eight years old. I watched all the movies and appreciated each one for what they retained from the old series and for further developing the characters (and the Star Trek universe, in general). Even in "The Undiscovered Country" I thought the aging of the characters was well handled and the story worthy of a theatrical release. However, having said that, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" is easily the worst of the series featuring the original crew. I agree with many that the camaraderie of Kirk, Spock and McCoy is well handled, but the overall script, the direction -- by William Shatner -- and the special effects are not worthy of anything more than a television episode. This is a "buddy movie" and, at times, almost unrecognizable as a Star Trek movie. The action sequences are not sustained and therefore, build little or no tension. The dialogue is weak though it does provide for a few laughs, both intended and not-intended. The Klingon's seem thrown in as an afterthought. The whole "Sha-Ka-Ree" concept is just silly and Laurence Luckinbill, a fine actor in everything else I've ever seen him in, boarders on the absurd in this movie. The scene where Sybok conjures up images of Spock's pain and McCoy's pain shatters the image of the characters as we've known them. Spock would never be party to such stupidity and McCoy, trying to save his father is full of insipid, redundant dialogue and totally wastes DeForest Kelley's acting abilities. The whole scene is wasted and really shows us nothing new and nothing we want to see from these characters. I understand that Shatner didn't have the luxury of working with ILM for the special effects and that the budget for this movie was tight, but that doesn't allow for such a bad story. In some respects, I think this story does fit in with the old series, but the movies, including "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" are all much better quality than this. It's a shame that most of the other characters have so few lines and so little to do with most of this movie. The focus on Kirk, McCoy and Spock is nice, but way over used. The old crew really seems to be out of character. I liked the old Klingon General and the sultry Romulan in the bar. I liked some of the humor and the idea that Spock has a half-brother, but that's about it. If this was a TV episode, I'd be able to accept a lot of the faults. As a movie, this is just bad, uninspired film making. It's a shame too, because I want this movie to be good. Even if it was the level of "Star Trek III" I would be happy, but this movie makes all the other movies in this series seem like works of Shakespeare.

I remember after Raiders of the Lost Ark came out my friends and I were all waiting for a sequel. There was no doubt in our minds that the team of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford would return again to give us another rousing adventure in the form of Indiana Jones! We waited three years only to find that the sequel wasn't even close to the original in its craftsmanship, story-telling and overall adventure.

What Raiders gave the audience was a classic story of good vs. evil with a charming, believable hero who defied odds and came out on top because he was fighting for the good and just cause. With Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones seems to step from his archeologist's leather coat and into a James Bond Astin Martin. He's suddenly not so fallible as he was in the first movie. His rough edge is gone and Indiana Jones seems a bit smoother and more refined. In this one he's more assured and no matter what trials and perils he faces he readily has an answer. And the trials and perils he faces are many and way over the top!

From jumping out of window, with a nightclub singer in tow, crashing down through awnings and into the backseat of a waiting car we know right away that our hero is something out of the ordinary. From there we follow him on an airplane ride (reminiscent of the Lost Horizon) where the pilots abandon our hero and his cohorts. As the plane goes down they jump out in a life raft and take a toboggan ride that puts the scariest Disney rides to shame! This is how the movie goes, one daredevil stunt after another after another with a bevy of gross bugs and dinners with eyeballs in them thrown in so the audience never really feels at ease.

This is what I hate about sequels! They (directors, producers and actors) want to top everything in the original movie and so they do complete overkill of all that made the first movie a success. Spielberg once claimed that he wished he had made Jaws 2 as he thought he could have done justice to the shark. But viewing this movie, I don't see how Spielberg would've saved the shark from its campy fate. Temple of Doom is just too far-fetched and too campy for it's own good. Everything seems forced in this movie: From Indy's sidekick "Short round", to the evil, heart-eating witch doctor to the romance between Indy and the nightclub singer 'Willie' Scott, adequately portrayed by the soon to be Mrs. Spielberg, Kate Capshaw. Everyone in the movie seems as though they are trying their hardest to act, sing, be heroic, scream, menace, be evil, or just be silly. It all ends up being cartoon-ish which is far from what attracted us all to the first Indiana Jones movie.

The trio of Spielberg, Lucas and Ford would later re-unite (and redeem themselves) to make Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade. Sequels don't need to be over the top to be successful. Usually, they just need a good story and a good team in front of and behind the camera. Lucas has done it numerous times now with the Star Wars series. Maybe it's just too easy to overkill a story, laden it with incredible stunts, cheesy plot points and extraneous characters. I don't fault Spielberg, Lucas and Ford for making this movie. I'm sure they thought they were giving us what we all were clamoring for. Lucky for my friends and I we only had to wait another five years after Temple of Doom for the sequel we had been waiting for.

The Hughes Brothers version of the Jack The Ripper story is compelling cinema. From the opening credits to the blood red clouds hanging over the city a strong sense of doom prevails and pulls us in. It's tough to turn away from the screen thanks to the stylized Victorian England look and dark, eerie streets, not to mention the well-known mystery of the Ripper, himself! I own this movie on DVD and have watched it a couple of times, but recently I saw it on Cable and I was still pulled right in. Is it Johnny Depp's performance that pulls me in? No. Is it the fresh-faced look of Heather Graham as a low-rent prostitute? No. I watch this movie for two reasons: one the story of Jack the Ripper is always intriguing; and two I love the way the Hughes brothers made everything sooooo dark!

To begin with, the story is very dark and gruesome so the heavily shadowed scenes, the damp, gloomy, streets, and the dimly lit rooms all add to further the murky ambience of the story. There are brief moments in some scenes where everything is so black that the viewer has to strain to see and guess what is going on. This isn't cheap film making, this is powerful direction that is seldom attempted in movies today. While the violence is there, at the same time, it's not there. We see a shiny knife blade, a slash and we hear the rip of the skin and then we see blood, but with the exception of one very visual murder, we don't really see the victims get cut. The Hughes brothers take a risk with this movie. In a typical serial killer movie we would see the knife cut into the victim. We would see organs ripped out and limbs chopped off, but this movie leaves much of the actual violence to our imagination. Don't get me wrong, there's enough blood and gore in this to cause some to lose their lunch. But truth be known (and the Hughes brothers understand this) the viewer's imagination is usually stronger than any visual that can be put into a scene. That's the magic of this film. The Hughes brothers focus on the drama, the conspiracy and the character interaction more than they do the violence of the story.

In 1888 Jack the Ripper brutally murdered five prostitutes, but that's only half the story according to this movie. Many theories have been suggested as to the identity of the Ripper over the years. The story provides numerous Ripper suspects from a villainous and slimy gang member all the way up to Prince Albert; thus covering most of the typical Ripper candidates that have ever been mentioned. `From Hell' promotes a theory on the Ripper story that includes the Masons, the Royal family and a police cover up. Overall, we focus more on Inspector Abberline (Johnny Depp) and a band of prostitutes who appear to be the Ripper's targets than the actual murders themselves.

Johnny Depp is a little too handsome and young looking to be the over-worked, (in this movie – opium/laudanum user and clairvoyant) career constable Inspector Abberline. Though I like Depp as an actor, it seems to me that he typically adds a certain modern feel to his roles (Chocolat and Pirates of the Caribbean are perfect examples of this). Heather Graham dresses the part of a prostitute, but otherwise, she acts and looks more like a rough and edgy Mary Poppins. Her stunning red hair is nearly a character in itself. The romance that blooms in the story is a bit forced, but it does create an interesting-albeit purely fictional-subplot. The surrounding actors, Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane, and Ian Richardson are all excellent choices whose presence adds to the style and richness of the film.

The Hughes Brothers have shown their style and talent in every film they've made (Menace II Society, Dead Presidents and American Pimp), but this movie takes their abilities to the next level. From strange camera angles, and the effective use of color that separates the slums from the upper class world, to dreary lighting, and the period costumes and settings the Hughes brothers provide a visual feast for the viewer to devour. While the story, based on the graphic novel `From Hell', is a bit contrived at times, the viewer cannot pull away. The characters and the fast pacing of the film will keep most viewers from noticing miscast actors and fictionalized events. Is it art? No. Is it good film making. Yes. This is a movie that should be seen. Just don't see it alone.

The third installment of the Matrix trilogy comes to a close as a bright new `created' sun rises over a city skyline. Fortunately for the movie audience that just sat through Matrix Revolutions, this `sign' signals the best part of the movie-the end!

The Matrix and it's sequel Matrix: Reloaded were loaded with eye popping, unbelievable special effects and an evolving, fast-paced, cyber-punk story that caused audiences to think. Somewhere between Reloaded and Revolutions the creators of this trilogy forgot about what made the first two movies so special. Instead, they turned it into a blazing gun fight (literally) between man and machine and turned the story into a marsh-mellow, sappy, inconclusive, meandering, insipid battle of good versus evil. It's almost as if the producers of this movie `dumbed it down' because the first two were over the audiences heads.

This movie makes about as much sense as three single men marooned with two hot single women on an island and no one ever has sex and no one is ever jealous. That's right, The Matrix Revolutions is right up there with Gilligan's Island in terms of making sense and making use of an `unimaginable reality'. Revolutions settles for `cute' when they should have been `sexy'. They settle for `biblical' when they should've been `mythical'. They settle for `War' when they should have focused on `turmoil'. Basically, they settled for Mrs. Howell when they should have gone with Ginger!

Keanu Reeves, who seems perfectly cast as the monotone, savior, Neo, is back in the third installment acting more like a cross between The Professor and Gilligan than a kick-butt, able-to-defy-reality-hero we've come to know in the first two movies. Suddenly, he's like a kid who's constantly asking `why?' and like an exhausted parent, we get annoyed. This is his journey, his 40 days and 40 nights in the desert coming to terms with who he is and why he is. But unlike Christ or Moses from the Bible and Old Testament, his journey isn't that interesting. Locked away in the world between the Matrix and reality, his quest is fairly tedious and seems to distract us from the movie instead of advancing the story.

There is really very little that advances this story. It moves along with the expected gun-fights and anger without ever moving forward. Throughout the first two movies there was a thread that kept the stories from spinning off into the ether of stupidity. That thread was that there was something `real' to the stories. The emotions, the actions, the characters all seemed to be steeped in reality allowing us to believe in them and the story SNIP! Kiss that thread goodbye! Revolutions has no desire to maintain that. Like a video game that malfunctions, we find ourselves slamming the arms of our chairs as if they were a game-pad, as we curse the screen to get back to where we were.

All in all, this is a bad video game. The special effects remain amazing, and for that reason alone, I'm glad I saw this in the theater. But like most video games it's all about an action sequence that leads to another action sequence with no concern for story. The characters pass by too quickly in this tale of `faith' and perseverance in a cyber-world gone horribly awry. Even Lawrence Fishburne is reduced to somewhat of a minor role as he and Jada Pinkett-Smith exchange steamy glances. Two characters from Reloaded: Merovingian and his busty companion Persephone make a brief appearance, but they don't really serve a purpose. We visit the Oracle again and we're introduced to some creepy looking train conductor who is dead-set against Neo getting on board the train! But that whole point just comes and goes with little effect on the movie.

Meanwhile, back in Zion, the BIG WAR is waged against the tentacle monsters from the machine world. This battle is fought with man-powered mechanical suits with HUGE guns and gutsy women with bazookas. The war turns into an old-fashioned `give ‘em Hell' John Wayne type of event. Ripe with a hard fighting, never-say-die leader, who spits out orders and cheesy dialogue nearly as fast as his guns empty of ammo. The fighting is epic and again, the special effects are fantastic, but somehow…this should've been in a different movie. This seems to go against everything else the Matrix movies have been about: The computer-generated world, the small band of `resistance fighters', an agent who is like a virus detector in the system, control of when to be `plugged in', intense, cliff-hanger type skirmishes and a reluctant hero fighting against logic and reason to save the world

While the Matrix and Matrix: Reloaded were focused and intelligent, this one seems to try to cover too much in too short a period of time. There's Neo in `limbo', the impending attack on Zion, the counsel of Zion and the angry General, Morpheus and Niobe, rescuing Neo, preparing for battle, the love story of Neo and Trinity, Agent Smith, the WAR, the land of the machines, the multiple Agent Smith's and his ability to `assimilate' his enemies, the list goes on and little of it is done well.

Revolutions provides nothing revolutionary. We've seen all this before in countless action-no-in countless war movies with better story lines and much better dialogue. I think more than anything, that's what really disappoints me. The fact that the first two movies seemed so fresh and cool, everything about them was new from the dark look to the fight scenes and the bad-ass sunglasses. Revolutions reverts to an old-fashioned movie about war and remembrance, almost as if it was meant to be attached to something else. This movie leaves us wondering `what could have been'? Like, what if the Skipper ran off with Ginger to the other side of the island and the professor and Gilligan had to fight over Mary Ann!

The Third Man, directed by Carol Reed, is an excellent film set in post WW II Vienna that offers more than just a slight tip of the hat to Orson Welles style. High camera angles, dark shadows, great speeches by the characters all have a certain Wellesian feel to them. Make no mistake, this is a Carol Reed film, but comparing this to his other films (A Letter from Home, Odd Man Out and Trapeze to name a few) The Third Man has a distinctive style Reed had not used before or after.

The story is one of an American pulp western writer, Holly Martins, wonderfully played by Joseph Cotton, coming to Vienna at the behest of his friend Harry Lime. Only problem is, when he arrives in Vienna Harry Lime is dead and Holly Martins has nowhere to go. Major Calloway (Trevor Howard) makes an attempt to befriend Martins and help him get back to the States. However, Martins has started asking questions about his friend's untimely demise and the answers don't seem to make sense. He launches his own investigation, questioning Harry Limes friends and work associates and the beautiful Valli, Harry's flame. Naturally, Martins can't help but fall for the sad beauty. He's like a schoolboy trying to prove his worth to her as he attempts to unfold the truth about Harry's death.

There is a lot going on in this movie thanks to a tightly conceived story and screenplay by Graham Greene. It's not simply a story about Holly Martins bad luck and the search for the truth. Holly is also a stranger in a strange land, out of his league and in over his head. The military is involved because it appears Harry Lime was a black market racketeer. Another man has gone missing and one witness to the accident claims there was a third man at the scene when Harry died. As Major Calloway tells Holly Martins, `Death's at the bottom of everything, Martins. Leave death to the professionals.'

Throughout the movie the tone is set for each scene by the camera. The camera towers over Holly Martins when he finds out Harry is dead, adding to his characters insignificance. Later hen we meet The Baron, one of Harry's friends we see him slightly off angle. The camera is used to enhance the tension or emotion of the scene, just as Welles would have used it. And when we finally see Welles, he steps from shadow, his face partially illuminated, the camera under him emphasizing his characters power.

This is a beautiful film with fine acting by Joseph Cotton and Orson Welles. Lime's friends are all mysterious and vaguely dangerous, with the exception of Valli who is somewhat of an innocent. The Vienna location is perfect for this story as the city stands as a stoic participant in the film. And of course, there is the Zither music, adding ambience to each scene. There is humor, romance, tension and intrigue that are seldom blended in movies these days. It is a well-crafted film that leaves us thinking and remembering the characters long after it is over.

I haven't seen a lot of Carol Reed's films, but what I have seen suggests that he crafted this movie carefully, with attention to detail and a slight nod to the style of Orson Welles.

I stumbled across this movie, back when I was in college, on late night television. At the time, I wasn't a Robert Mitchum fan. I always thought Mitchum had a way of sauntering through film roles, not always giving his best. The Yakuza, made when Mitchum was 58 years old, utilizes his style and persona to its maximum potential. He's world-weary, he's been through the mill and he's come out wiser, but not necessarily harder for it.

Written by Paul Schrader and Robert Towne, The Yakuza shows us a different side of the Gangster world than we have been privy to before. This is not a movie of good vs. bad; it's a movie about loyalty and honor to friends and family. We follow Mitchum as Harry Kilmer on a mission to save a friends daughter. For most movies made these days, that premise would be enough, but The Yakuza is deeply layered and far more interesting than that. It turns out that Harry had been in Japan after WWII and had fallen in love with a beautiful woman, Eiko. 30 years later Harry is back in Japan, much has changed, but his feelings haven't.

Harry teams up with Ken Tanaka, Eiko's brother, to find the kidnapped girl. Samurai swords slash and guns blaze, adding intense, well-choreographed action as the plot thickens and Harry realizes that this is no ordinary rescue. We learn a lot about the characters in the movie, from Harry and Eiko to Ken Tanaka and Harry's buddy George, but more than that we learn about Japan and its infamous and historic gangster world. This is a classic movie in every sense of the word and should be viewed as such. And if you're not a fan of Robert Mitchum before seeing this movie, you will be afterwards.

Alan Rudolph does not make movies for everyone to see. His movies seem like personal projects that interest him at the time. Some of his movies I haven't been able to get involved in (Trixie, Mortal Thoughts, Afterglow) but with The Moderns, I was pulled in quickly. The story focuses on Keith Carradine's ex-patriot Nick Hart, a painter who has the ability to duplicate famous works of art with his brush. He's hired to create forgeries by Mademoiselle de Ville (Geraldine Chaplin).

But the story doesn't stop there. There are other ex-patriots around, including young Ernest Hemingway, comically portrayed by Kevin J. O'Connor; who is constantly drinking, philosophizing and pursuing women. It's not a flattering look at Hemingway, but somehow it adds to the whole ambience of the film and seems to ring true. And then there is Linda Fiorentino, a former lover of Nick's, and her husband, the rich and icy Bertram Stone (John Lone). The characters are odd and quirky, the story is uneven at times, and meanders a bit, but it is never boring. This movie has such style and depth that it pulls the viewer in, like we're trying to see the work that is under the painted canvas. That's what this movie is about -- the greater depth of art. What is art and what is crap? What is love and what is hate? What is real and what is illusion? As a director, Alan Rudolph pulls us along cleverly, with a hint of intrigue, the dichotomy of Nick's love and Hemingway's carousing, a taste of passion and the beauty of art. Then there are the characters who are well-layered works of art themselves. Maybe this movie isn't a masterpiece, but it leaves us chipping away at the paint trying to see what treasure is underneath. It's a movie to be enjoyed on many levels, just like a work of art.

Alan Rudolph does not make movies for everyone to see. His movies seem like personal projects that interest him at the time. Some of his movies I haven't been able to get involved in (Trixie, Mortal Thoughts, Afterglow) but with The Moderns, I was pulled in quickly. The story focuses on Keith Carradine's ex-patriot Nick Hart, a painter who has the ability to duplicate famous works of art with his brush. He's hired to create forgeries by Mademoiselle de Ville (Geraldine Chaplin).

But the story doesn't stop there. There are other ex-patriots around, including young Ernest Hemingway, comically portrayed by Kevin J. O'Connor; who is constantly drinking, philosophizing and pursuing women. It's not a flattering look at Hemingway, but somehow it adds to the whole ambience of the film and seems to ring true. And then there is Linda Fiorentino, a former lover of Nick's, and her husband, the rich and icy Bertram Stone (John Lone). The characters are odd and quirky, the story is uneven at times, and meanders a bit, but it is never boring. This movie has such style and depth that it pulls the viewer in, like we're trying to see the work that is under the painted canvas. That's what this movie is about -- the greater depth of art. What is art and what is crap? What is love and what is hate? What is real and what is illusion? As a director, Alan Rudolph pulls us along cleverly, with a hint of intrigue, the dichotomy of Nick's love and Hemingway's carousing, a taste of passion and the beauty of art. Then there are the characters who are well-layered works of art themselves. Maybe this movie isn't a masterpiece, but it leaves us chipping away at the paint trying to see what treasure is underneath. It's a movie to be enjoyed

I've seen The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance probably 20 times since I was a little kid. In the last few years, I think I've seen it maybe 3 times and every time I see it I fall in love with this movie a little more.

John Ford had such a perfect way of filling his stories with well-defined characters, rich sentiment, tense drama, varieties of humor and realistic action. TMWSLV is a great swan song for the team of John Ford and John Wayne as this was the last western they filmed together.

Filmed in Black and White, the scenes are full of texture and ambiance that Ford had mastered earlier in his career in movies like My Darling Clementine and Stagecoach. In this classic we have Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) as a noble lawyer looking to bring law to the west in the form of books and ideals. John Wayne is perfectly cast as a good-hearted, tough rancher who has seen law dealt out by the gun and lives his life appropriately. Lee Marvin is menacing as Liberty Valance the polar opposite of Ransom Stoddard.

This movie has it all - a great story of good vs. evil. The struggle of man against man and man against himself as Stoddard struggles not to live life by the law of the gun. There's a complicated love triangle with Vera Miles as the center piece and Wayne and Stewart as her courters.

Edmund O'Brian is Dutton Peabody the Editor of the newspaper and a comical drunk. And Andy Devine as the town Marshall who is scared of his own shadow. If you are at all familiar with Ford's movies like the Quiet Man, The Searchers, Stagecoach, The Three Godfathers, you have to see this movie. A movie that Ford obviously crafted with love and great attention to detail late in his career.