Reviews

I missed "Night Moves" in the 1970s. I had never seen it till the other night on DVD.

A friend of mine and I were discussing the sexy thick haired earthy blonde actress of that era, Jennifer Warren sans a different movie, and he said, "did you ever see Night Moves? - she was in it."

No. He said, "watch it." He said it is a remarkable film albeit a disturbing ending.

So, I ordered it, and watched it. I was stunned and overwhelmed. The next day, I woke up, and it was on my mind, and I could not remember the ending, so I had to rewind and watch the last 5 chapters the next day.

I still don't fathom the ending, and so a repeat of viewing is soon to come.

I will say this, the story is adult and literate. The acting is stunning. The visual direction is Oscar caliber. And the writing is such the stuff of the disturbing nature of humanity that it seems so very disgusting on a scale of greed, lust, cheap criminal activity, and human nature, that this movies seems so very smarmy and so very real.

Highly recommended if anything to screw with your head.

"Good Night and Good Luck" a DVD Movie Review

by Bradley A. Draper

This a good TV movie, but it is not Oscar class and it certainly is not classic cinema. Nothing to stand up to and applaud. Clooney should stop producing. I am reminded of his aping of the classic "Fail Safe" film and novel via his attempt at live TV with a retelling of a story that needed no reprise. Great movies should not be remade and those that attempt so only do so at the critic's peril. Just because you are a popular actor, George, this does not make you a directoral talent.

In this film, much can be made of similarities of our own paranoid times, of the communist witch hunts of the early 1950's with todays suspectful techno intrusion on our privacy. That is what this movie is all about. It is couched in a period piece but tries to be a political statement of our time. The clichés are even chosen for this affect. Not that our time does not need reflection. But today's political climate is far more tolerant and liberal than the early 1950's. I get letters from the ACLU almost every week. Even though I am sympathetic to their cause, I do not join, because they just want my money, and I do not want to be on anybody's list.

This film is shot in stunning silver black and white. Very well done. An effective period piece, even down to the obligatory black jazz music. Still, one of the clichés that were hard to ignore was that of the cigarette. Every character it seemed smoked a million cigarettes in this movie, and they even throw in a "Kent Cigarette" commercial, with little subtlety. Was this an indightment of cigarette smoking some how? It seemed so. This obsession with tobacco's smoke was to me very distracting.

Although filmed well, and the acting, sliding into the realm of TV soap style still, was good, the writing was contrived and weak.

I found the portrayal of Edward Murrow, legendary CBS World War II broadcaster, by the severe and constant jaw clenching of David Strathairn clichéd and consistently boring. The weird Fred Friendly cameo of George Clooney was unexplainable? Why, other to include his ego into a Oscar territory in a weak Oscar year. Patricia Clarkson and Robert Langella's outstanding character portrayals, were totally wasted in this film. Too bad as they are iconic character actors. And what is the point of including the sad Robert Downing Jr. in a totally inconsequential part?

There is no social impact in this film, although it was very apparent that the film attempted this. I liked the movie, but it is what it is, a tiny little TV film made, to exploit the paranoia of our time, which had nothing to compare to those ultimate "look over your shoulder 1950's." This film, already dated, will be forgotten in six months.

I give it 5 stars.

Manhattan: A DVD Movie Review

This is my second favorite Woody Allen film, funny, but the one I cry over, the one that elicits anguish, the one that makes me think about morality, and what is right and wrong. The George Gershwin music track and black and white cinematography of the great city of New York are compelling cinema, in this unique work of late 20th century art. An amazing movie but, despite being alarming funny, it is so very sad. Is it Woody's aim as a filmmaker to make the audience laugh and cry at the same time? Perhaps. Woody is very clever, but he is no genius, and because he thinks he is, this is downfall. Regardless, "Manhattan" is a truly great film.

Once again Diane Keaton is Woody's straight woman amongst shtick, and in this cinema she is heartbreakingly beautiful. Her cheekbones rise and fall to new heights and lows, and her lyrical voice and disarming gestures are frankly hard not to fall in love with. But Diane is not alone as cast in this fascinating film, as there are many other supportive actors and actresses in this story, all very good, and all necessary to tell the story.

The story is about a TV script writer, played by Woody, that tires of the mundane and phony grind of the everyday. He is admired by New York's culture for being intellectual and witty, but he can't take the phoniness of it anymore and quits his job to pen the great American novel. Of course, without money, or a job, a man is a bum, and this eats away at the Allen character.

Within the thread of this brilliant film is a tall tiny fragile flower. A 17 year old girl that has a serious infatuation with the 42 year old Woody character. Telling is a moment of dialog in this film, when Diane Keaton's character asks this young girlfriend, Tracy was her name, what she does, and she innocently and primly says "I go to High School". This sets a sort of tone to the emotional end to this film. This young girl was portrayed with a sad and final very hard bitten lesson, by a young actress with an ethereal beauty in one Mariel Hemingway. And finally I can't omit, an ex-wife of Woody's character, playing a lesbian, an act that is so very out of character, in a very early role, of one stunning blond in Meryl Streep.

The final chapter in this very good story is about that young afore mentioned High School girl. When Mariel, as Tracy, implores, and looks at the imploring heel played by Woody, and says, "You really hurt me", this little line says it all. Young people should not mix around with the old, because it is the old that controls the emotion of love. I know that all too well having had to deal with age differences in relationships. But still . . .

To really experience this movie, and the failure of human relationships contained within, is to imagine you are Tracy, the young girl acted, aptly, and so very sadly by Mariel Hemingway. She breaks my heart every time in black and white weeping. It is how I view this film and when I feel her hurt, I really take in this experience, and I feel young, but betrayed by love and age.

This film is a 1970's period piece. Manhattan's sky line is old. The cars are relics. The human relationships are a cliché of that era. That is, except, for the love that the young Tracy feels for Woody Allen's character Isaac. And through all the weaving in and out of lies, cheating, and what could be, it is the young woman's love, for an older man, that is brought forth as true. Woody realizes this almost too late, but you have that feeling, that that spring and fall relationship will not work. Because in the end, it is the young girl who grows up, illustrating the immaturity of Woody's character. Classic stuff.

A really great film, despite the director's excuses, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

B. A. Draper

Love and Death: A DVD Movie Review

Relatively obscure, this 1975 Woody Allen written and directed spoof on "War and Peace", and the Ingmar Bergman genre as well, is outstanding fair. Because this is a film that first appears to be slapstick with quick quotes, funny lines, and hilarious dialog, it is often disregarded, but it is really significant movie art.

Not to become too philosophical, but it is also a kind of serious movie, with extreme undertones of satire regarding the ultimate human joke, that is a subjective, or is it objective philosophy towards life, love, and death? It makes ultimate fun of the subject matter of it's entitlement: "Love and Death." Woody Allen was quoted once as remarking that this was the favorite of his films, at least of that comic creative period of his during the1970's. I would have to agree with the director, as this tiny little 90 minute gem is my favorite Allen escape into the ultimate question, and the most perfect flight into the darkness of human insecurities, about immortality, as treated with humor.

Woody is really on with his stand up shtick in this film . His jokes come a mile a minute, with only a few duds, but mostly his deadpan delivery strikes home with logical humor. An amazing comic in his hey day, Allen was truly one of the funniest men on the planet in the 20th century. And joining him in this film is his perfect straight woman which will always be Diane Keaton.

One cannot ignore this amazing actress, and classically beautiful woman, Diane Keaton. The persona she projected during her formative acting career in the 1970's through 1980's was inspired and stunning. She was both a comedienne genius, but also an impressive dramatic female presence, in particular in the "Godfather" series, and in the so tragic brilliant but flawed film "Looking for Mr. Goodbar". Diane possessed a sort of lovely vulnerability, with high cheekbones, steel blue gray eyes, with quick and slight movements, long and tragic fingers, and a delicious overbite that brightened her unique, compelling, sensuous, optimistic, yet always fragile smile.

The rest of the cast are chosen for their physical look. In particular the part of French Emperor Napoleon. This is a sort of period piece set in the time of the Napoleonic wars, and it is interesting to see the mock battles between the French and Russians seemingly almost "Barry Lyndon" accurate when they were not made fun of.

The final barometer of this film is that Love and Life are about suffering and that Death is better than spending an evening with an insurance salesman.

"Love and Death": A Woody Allen film than many critics rate as mediocre is misunderstood, as this lovely treatise on the satirical side of making fun of philosophy, by the comic master, Woody Allen, is by this critic, highly recommended to any thinking man's DVD collection. I look forward to viewing it again soon.

B. A. Draper

"Star Trek's" Dr. Leonard McCoy, aka Bones, always said it best when confronted with a new and unknown alien, "Why do we always call it it or that thing?"

Universal Pictures has made some great horror and sci-fi pictures during the twentieth century. One of the most original was the 1953 sci-fi film adaptations of the famous author Ray Bradbury's story of the xenophobic and paranoiac from both sides of the point of view of human and alien: "It Came From Outer Space".

This was a 3D film, of course lost on the TV and DVD transference. It would be awesome to see the original 3D film in the theater. Regardless, this relatively new DVD black and white transference is very good, atmospheric, dark but not muddy, and silver when it counts.

The story is about an alien space craft that crashes accidentally on Earth. The aliens want to repair their ship and leave. To further their cause, the aliens kidnap humans and take over their physical likeness to aid in the repair of their space craft.

Interwoven in this theme is the typical sci-fi romance, a macho confrontation, and the town posse sent to destroy the aliens.

Regardless of this typical contrivance, most of the script is literate, with Bradbury's unique introspection, woven within poetry as prose.

In the ending, the aliens do leave Earth somewhat peacefully, and we humans are left with a sense of wonder. This is the stuff of future Spielberg's "E.T." and "Close Encounters" type films, which are the ultimate alien encounter movies. In these stories both human and alien are xenophobes (fear of the outsider), not understanding each other, always with early mutual mistrust, and then with communication comes an understanding.

A word about the cast. Richard Carlson portrays the dreamer and stoic astronomer that first meets the aliens and believes in them in this play. Carlson is somewhat known for his cast in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" as a heel, and his scientist cum tough guy performance in "The Creature from the Black Lagoon".

His girlfriend in this film is cast with such breathtaking femininity, by the incredibly beautiful Barbara Rush, who is the hero's rock, and lioness in belief of her man. Barbara Rush is one of the 1950's almost forgotten but unforgettable women. She was so lovely, and when ever I see her on the silver screen, my heart always skips a beat. And like all sci-fi heroines of that age she gets wide eyed and SCREAMS really well when terrified.

This movie is intelligent, well written, aptly acted, with eerie score, and filmed in the lonely desert with the adept eye of the macabre.

Highly recommended as one of the really great sci-fi films of the the golden age of the genre, the 1950's.

I give it four stars out of five.

"Carnal Knowledge": A DVD Movie Review

This fascinating film, crafted in 1971 directed by Mike Nichols, is a product of the American sexual repression of it's time. Banned in many venues, this did not deter this movie from becoming an American classic. It explores the dysfunction of American sexual relations of the time.

This film is so well written, so well directed, and so magnificently acted, that to watch it, provokes great introspection. The subject matter is that of the title. It is the story of four people's journey through human friendship and sexual relations that is profound and significant.

The weaving in and out of these relationships between these four people is mesmerizing. The movie starts with a college roommate relationship between two young men, draws in a mutual love affair, and through these friend's professional careers, compares and contrasts, the normal family man's constant blase sexual life, with the playboy's, at first exciting affairs, then his degradation into impotence. It is a very sad story.

The script is presented in the first person, with the two male characters telling their stories, to whit the two female characters provide the emotional foil that reflects upon the male's soliloquies. The characters in this film provide a tour-de-force in the acting of the human heart.

The two male stars of this movie, Jack Nicholson, and Art Garfunkel are really good in their rooting of this movie. They are in some ways the center. But their masculine performances really take a second seat to the two female stars.

In the first part of the film Candace Bergen as Susan is almost breathtaking in her portrayal of the perfect sorority girl who has to choose between compassion and passion. She chooses compassion over the emotional doom of her passionate boyfriend. This crux of relationships is the focus of this film. The man chosen by the perfect Susan lives a life of boredom and order, with underlining sadness, but yet a sort of satisfaction.

The passionate man that Susan left behind, is a sad product of the cynicism of the free love and sexuality of the time. And this lost man takes up with the ultimate tragic female film character's cheese cake Bobbie, who's characterization by the red haired ultra voluptuous Ann-Margaret, is perhaps the most heart wrenching and beautiful portrayal of a tragic female heroine of emotion ever put on the silver screen.

In the end this film is the tragedy of the sexual mediocrity of everyday life and the failure of those that attempt the provocative. This is a great film, the DVD widescreen transference, necessary for it's back and forth conversational scenes, is first rate. This classic Adult film is recommended and costs practically nothing these days on the internet market.

B. A. Draper

Given some cynical reviews based, I think on a lack of knowledge on the subject matter, I had avoided the current 2004 epic movie "Troy". But I bought it the other day for only ten dollars in a bargain bin - 2 disc deluxe DVD widescreen edition even. And after viewing the film I can only say it retains the soul of Homer's "The Iliad", that fantastic bard of Greek poetry that describes the tragedy of the senseless war between Trojans and Greeks, with the tale of Achilles, King Priam, Hector, Helen, and Paris in tow. It is a great sad story and to see it put to film in such a proper way is a real joy of film making from a fan's point of view.

But why the professional critic's cynicism? Perhaps because of jealousy that Brad Pitt, as the legendary Greek warrior Achilles, can play a successful portrait with his athleticism, male sensitivity, and ultimate male brutishness that is so effective? Or is it that Peter O'Toole's character as Troy's King Priam is a tour-de-force and that critics have always loathed Peter for some reason - is he too good? Perhaps Hector played by Eric Bana is just a bit too human? That Paris' Orlando Bloom is ultimately a coward turned hero but in being so, in irony, kills in tragedy? That love is what sometimes causes wars? And maybe it is because the heroic women in this film, especially Helen, seen as a tragic painting by Diane Kruger, crushes the fragile male soul with her sad and hopeless ultimate beauty? Perhaps this movie is too close to human tragedy to be criticized by jaded movie critics?

In capturing the soul of "The Iliad's" theme, this is indeed a film of epic tragedy. Everybody dies. Revenge is the cycle unbound and unending. The warrior kills until he is killed and then his champion's kill the killers. This is the cycle of the ancient world, the cycle that the civilized world seeks to unbind. In watching this film it is quick to analyze that the warrior's soul is not the way of mankind's successful future, and so this film in a way is good history lesson from the past tale of "The Iliad" and how not to be as a civilized world. Greek tragedy is an awesome ancient lesson that the modern world must learn from, and movie making as such does justice to popularize, but not glorify this image of tragedy. "Troy" directed by Wolfgang Peterson teaches this lesson.

"Troy" is a long film best viewed across either a lazy afternoon or two nights. The spectacle of ancient Mycenaean Greek battle is as authentic as the unknown of those times are to research from scant historical records. The weapons and tactics of the era in this movie are an attempt at authenticity, albeit a bit too much black leather going on. I think Achilles' armor would have been of the most polished brass of the time, not the dark fair that adorned the ultra fit Brad Pitt's form. But the shields, spears, swords, ships, chariots, and basic form of armor are historically correct as much as can be gleaned from rare records. The one on one battles depicted are violent and brutal, perhaps accurate, and if so, show a hacking time when man pitted upon man in ancient battle, makes the NFL look like a sewing circle.

The sweep of ancient epic battles and walled cities is captured in this movie with a combination of effective digital effects and real life action. The widescreen transference from film to digital DVD is very well done without any noticed pixillation. And the women in this film's tears are heartbreakingly real. The soundtrack conveys a haunting sadness to the ear as if tragedy is always present.

I was surprisingly pleased with "Troy" both from a technical, historical, story telling, and acting point of view. Highly recommended for it's type of film fair. Epic cinema at it's highest form. "Troy" is not quite "Spartacus" or "Ben Hur" but it wants to be, and is close to this type of film making.

B. A. Draper

Not for kids, it is rated R for extreme battle violence, tasteful sexual scenes, and disturbing adult themes of tragedy.

Made in 1957, this ultra weird science fiction movie "Kronos" is a product of the then unknown UFO phenom and the Soviet Union's nuclear threat of the time. Before I describe this film, I have to tell you, seeing it first, at a very young pre-teen ager, this movie gave me sweaty nightmares of world destruction's dreams constructed by odd and powerful machines for many nights and many years to come that made me hide under the covers. These dreams of mine were terrifying to the extreme, and when I watch this film today, I can finally understand this.

A strange movie, made by "Regal Films" and distributed by 20th Century Fox, it adds genuine sci-fi terror with the combination of some very effective and occasional cheesy effects, and generally good acting. The story is just weird enough to be believable, which is the mark of a good sci-fi movie. It is a sort of a "War of the Worlds" film in a way. The new DVD widescreen video transference by "Image Entertainment" is very good considering the lack of quality of the original film's input. The sound is true and clear.

The film is in black and white and incorporates many stock footage shots of the era. Some of those shots include the proverbial rocket launches of a German V2. And then there are some very beautiful shots of the elegant first Strategic Air Command's swept wing atomic jet bomber the B-47 StratoJet in flight. Finally there is very rare stock footage of the first supersonic fighter in experimental form, the XF-100 Super Saber soaring. Interesting.

To summarize, a giant flying saucer, mistaken for an asteroid, crashes off the coast of West Mexico. Bubbling out of the Pacific a few days later is this giant metallic multi stepped cube. The cube's goal is to suck up all the energy in the earth for it's home world. The more energy it absorbs the more fantastically large the machine becomes. Bizarre side stories are how this cube's energy affects certain humans for it's aid. You have to watch the movie as this oddness is hard to describe.

The imagery of the alien machine is often really scary, as in some scenes the monster takes upon an electric greenish tint in the wide screen display and it's electric lightning is the stuff of bad dreams. But other images are a bit cartoonish. Those cartoonish images if left out of the film would have made it a much more effective a movie.

Nevertheless on a 1950's level this sci-fi movie is most effective in it's ability to evoke true paranoia. It frightens the beegeezuss out of me every time I watch it and I can guarantee that I will have a nightmare about the giant and massive cubic Kronos, the ravager of worlds, vampire of energy, tonight as I slumber. As Kronos makes it's way on the earth sucking up energy it makes this crushing high pitched pulsing noise as if metal upon rock. Very eerie.

The film stared perennial B-movie star Jeff Morrow as the scientist that figures out how to destroy Kronos. He reverses Kronos' polarity! Didn't Scotty do that on the Enterprise once to save the ship? The obligatory cheese cake 1950's sci-fi actress in this film was the very lovely Barbara Lawrence as the wasted film technician Vera, the ever ignored girl friend of Morrow.

For it's genre, this movie is recommended, for it's unique story, eclectic acting, decent script, terrifying and very spooky imagery.

It still gives me the heebeejeebies.

During the holidays, I get all Biblical, God fearing, and powerfully emotional. There is a lot of Sinclair Lewis' "Elmer Gantry" in my soul. It is my upbringing I guess. The agnostic once attested that his religion is the religion of his parents and no matter what other experiences he has, he must hedge his bets. I was raised as a Christian and so . .

Nevertheless, I enjoy the Biblical movies of Hollywood, and Ben-Hur is the greatest religious Hollywood spectacle of them all. Ben-Hur also titled "A Tale of the Christ" penned by Civil War General Lew Wallace, and you are copy-write free to read on the internet, was perhaps the most popular novel of the 19th century that has several times been put on film in the 20th century.

But nothing quite like the 1959 film, winner of 11 Oscars, has ever quite existed before or ever will. Star Wars only pretends at such spectacle. Directed by William Wyler, this movie is the last great and fantastic non CGI or special fake effect, it is all real action, and amazing cinema. Seeing this print, digitized from the original 65mm film into a 16x9 anamorphic that is really lost on my little 20 inch Toshiba TV screen is still incredible. I need a bigger TV. But even then in witnessing, I can't imagine any attempt to pan and scan this masterpiece of epic movie making.

I will admit this film's plot plods many times but if you cut to the action it never disappoints. Regarding this action there are three scenes that satisfy.

The battle of the Roman and Macedonian Trimarine ships in the Mediterranean is mind boggling. Then the resultant triumphant parade in Rome is breathtaking and telling-- the Emperor Augustus Caesar, pay attention to his gestures. Finally the climactic chariot race between Ben-Hur and Masalla, his horses are white, and the bad guy's black, is an absolute high achievement of movie making that tops even the destruction of the Death Star in "Star Wars IV."

A thread through this film is Christ's influence on Judah Ben-Hur, although he really never get's it. Effective in this treatment is that Christ's face is never seen by the audience, only by the awe struck actors. I found this taking license with the audience's emotions. I think if I ever looked at Christ's face I would not be awe-struck but instead comforted by His love.

Anyway, this awesome cinema spectacle, recently released on DVD with many many extras is recommended. I love this movie and will cherish watching it over and over again.

And yes Charlton Heston still looks great in a loin cloth.

The Fantastic Four - A DVD Movie Review

The genre of super heros changed dramatically from the cartoonish 1950's DC "Superman" and "Batman" 10 cent comics, to the mid 1960's in a more human and realistic tale of real people thrust upon the responsibility of one day being, just regular folk--and then tomorrow--super heros, when Marvel comics created the "Fantastic Four."

From the "Fantastic Four" many other stories of human emotion were thrust upon the then typically susceptible teenage angst with such other super heros, that didn't want to be imbued with super powers. It was just that destiny bestowed upon these fantasy figures a great responsibility. It started with the "Fantastic Four", but then there was "Spiderman", the "X-Men", "Hulk", "Daredevil", "Ironman", and "Captain America" and more. These legends on pulp paper are the stuff of my teenage hero worship.

Recently to my delight, Hollywood has converted many of these Marvel heros of my youth to film. Some of these movies work. Some don't. That works include "Spiderman", the "X-Men" series, "Elektra", and now the original "Fantastic Four."

This film is a pleasant surprise. Generally given Luke warm reviews, I found it to be absolutely grounded in the comic book legend, albeit upgraded to today's time. The "Fantastic Four" were four people that were, through coincidence thrown together, altered by cosmic rays, to possess diverse but great powers. Although these powers were different, and their personalities clashed in this story (and in the comics too), ultimately they formed that fantasy of super hero story making: The Super Hero Team.

The script is pretty good. The cast is a bit young, except for Ben Grimm, but it works. And the villain in Dr. Doom is not a sissy. Dr. Doom is a really bad, scary, murderous, and powerful guy and like the "X-Men's" Magneto he needs to be explored more. It is somewhat refreshing to watch this kind of film and look at good and bad as black and white. A side note is, that a great weakness in the Spiderman movies--is that the bad guy is really a good guy, boo hoo, I feel sorry for him--not! No, in comic book genre, the villain must be totally evil and the hero(s) must triumph over this ultimate evil.

As far as the special effects go, they are really good and some unique. Sue Storm as the Invisible Girl works in invisibility and in her force field (although Jessica Alba is too young for the part but never mind--she is so beautiful), Johnny Storm as the Human Torch scorches in attitude and flame, and the CGI and prosthesis form that builds Ben Grimm's orange rock creature The Thing is outstanding. Reed Richard's Mr. Fantastic's stretching is the hardest effect to do, and in certain scenes it works well but in some it looks kind of cheesy.

Regardless, all in all I really liked this film and recommend it. By the way, the villain, Dr. Doom survives, to suggest menace another day (a necessary comic book commodity), and as this was essentially a super hero "origin" film I full expect another "Fantastic Four" movie.

The extras on the DVD were average and the DVD transference was a bit dark - not bad but a little muddy.

Now, I am just waiting for an intelligent "Captain America" and "Ironman" Marvel film to be made.

P.S. The Great Stan Lee, creator of the comic "Fantastic Four" did a cameo in "The Fantastic Four" as a mailman. Sweet. But you gotta be a comic book geek to get that one.

Despite a few really terrifying moments of cinema, this is a really bad movie. Why can't anyone do H. G. Wells right? Well, in the original 1950's movie "War of the Worlds" George Pal tried, but even they cut corners (they used "rays" instead of tripod legs for the Martian machines.) The best of H. G. Wells to cinema is still "The Invisible Man", "First Men on the Moon" and "Things to Come".

Now to dissect Steven Spielberg's nightmare of what I consider to be the worst modern SCIFI movie ever made. Steven, listen to me, you can't expect a movie to be about toasting humans elegantly as if somehow to evoke the emotions of the holocaust, then have a ten year old little cute white blond girl watch in big blue eyed scream in horror sans Dakota Fanning, and constantly put her in jeopardy: To the cheap reaction of the audience and expect that to be cinema.

And you can't use Tom Cruise's mugging or tired toothy grin to pull you out of a bad script. And please, Steven, don't pull another typical Father and Son conflict out of your old magic hat to evoke drama. That crap just does not work anymore. It is hard to believe that the same man that directed "Jaws", "E.T. The Extraterrestrial", and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" put together, let alone signed his name to such tripe.

Finally and most shamelessly, Steven, you have evoked the paranoia of a real event, that of 9/11 in your film with constant reference to "are they terrorists?" And then to use the jingoistic display of the American flag? That is just pathetic, and Steven, you should be ashamed for exploiting these images for your profit and gain. Shame on YOU!

Finally, Steven, where the heck was the plot? No where to be found. Big bad alien machines crusted up from under the streets and toasting everybody and expecting Tom Cruise's horror at the crust on his face eliciting some sort of compassion? Fantastic movie imagery was all you were after but even those images were few and far between. But who were these machines? Where did they come from? What was their agenda? How did they die? Intelligence is sorely lacking in this film. Sad in a way because Steven, you quote H. G. Wells' novel in the opening stanza. Again . . . shame on YOU!

The original Victorian story of "The War of the Worlds" was one of genuine and unique paranoia for the times. This novel (you must read it - classic stuff) has has yet to be done on film properly. In order to do the film correctly, the movie has to embody the time. It is entirely plausible during the turn of the 20th century that Mars might be a harbinger of intelligent life, given the canals of Lovell, and that Martian war machines could compete with that era's military might - but today it just does not seem credible. Oh well. I am so tired of bad movies.

The death several months ago of the veteran character actor Dan O'Herlihy prompted me to delve into my vast DVD library and watch once again the 1964 rendition of the film "Fail Safe" based upon the novel of the same title authored by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler.

O'Herlihy plays the thinking soldier of peace asked at the end of this film, to make the more than ultimate sacrifice.

The term "fail safe" is used to describe a point on a map, in which nuclear cold war bombers would be ordered to in case of possible war. This is a term of a time long past, in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. That time is over. But this does not diminish the impact of the novel or the gritty rendition of that novel in black and white film genre of the early 1960's.

This movie is a faithful rendition of the novel. I have read the novel and the frightfulness of accidental nuclear war is carried from word to image with such impact that the viewer becomes part of the cast, the ultimate tribute to any movie. In a nutshell, U.S. nuclear bombers by accident are sent to destroy Moscow, can't be stopped, and the U.S. President is forced to make the decision to destroy New York in kind, to save the broken peace. Pretty heavy stuff.

What a great cast this is. O'Herlihy stands alone as the thinking military pacifist. Walter Matthau portrays a most bizarre figure, an intellectual type, I think based on the irresponsible Henry Kessinger of that era, the man that thinks nuclear war is winnable. Fritz Weaver plays the part of a broken SAC officer, driven to perfection, who cracks under the strain of the strident organization of that time. Frank Overton is General Bogan, the SAC commanding general, in what I consider to be an Oscar winning supporting role. And Larry Hagman, as Buck the President's Russian language interpreter, who shows his real acting stuff sans "I Dream of Jeannie" days.

There are so many others, but one actor who really stands out in this film is Henry Fonda, playing the President of the United States. He holds in his hands the ultimate responsibility of life and death, and makes decisions no man on Earth has ever had to make. But Fonda makes us believe, indeed the entire film is extremely frightening in it's reality, and has lost nothing in four decades to diminish this still prescient possibility of nuclear destruction.

What stands out in this film is it's utter believability. It is filmed in a most stark of contrasts, shadows and foreshortened lighting, the black and silver are sharp in their detail. The widescreen transfer to digital DVD format is stunning and unforgettable. Most highly recommended.

Clearly, this film, is one of the oddest, most interesting, eclectic, and finally, one of the most original movies I have ever experienced.

"Being John Malkovich", where do you begin with a review? It took me four nights to experience it. It has some flaws, the biggest being the character played by John Cusack - replace him, and you might have the perfect diversion for a weekend of "what the hell was that"? As is, it is a movie that demands watching.

I am still reeling as I write this review. I don't know where to begin, except to say, if you are inclined to the unusual, the bizarre, and the completely unique, you might want to check this film out.

I won't even try to delve into the story, it is just too strange to relate, you have to watch it, you really do, to get it. And even then, it will leave you wondering.

Acting, of note, is the amazing performance by John Malkovich . . . as himself, and many others. Quirky, egoistic, vulnerable, and self-indulgent, I think John's portrayal as himself and more is, well, it is very very different, and very brave and challenging. Cameron Diaz, how could they make her look homely? But they do, and Cameron is every bit the odd foil to Malkovich's character. Then there is the woman who plays the crux, Maxine, outstandingly performed by Catherine Keener, who in her lynch pin character, ties the film together. I would be remiss in leaving out the aging Orson Bean and the cynical young and then old Charlie Sheen. You simply have to see them in this film to appreciate.

Unless you are an oddball, a thinker, and want to experience something entirely different, I can't recommend this film. But if you are so inclined, I would highly recommend this delve into the possibilities of "what if you could be John Malkovich?"

I give it 3 and 1/2 stars. Good stuff.

Long an aficionado of the Orwell novel "1984", I have to say that the Michael Redford movie is an excellent attempt to glean the tone and emotion of the book in pictures.

The casting is perfect. Especially John Hurt as Winston Smith and Richard Burton as O'Brien.

The sets are appropriately dark. Big Brother's image is almost grandfatherly in it's sinister visage.

The hopelessness of the story is portrayed grimly.

No movie can quite capture Orwell's satire of the stark reality of a nightmare future, but this film comes close, and for those who have the stomach to read the novel, the movie will not disappoint.

However this cinema is not for the faint of heart so be forewarned.

"Paths of Glory" is one of those movies that movie making is all about. It is one of director Stanley Kubrick's earliest movies, indeed, it is his first really important film, and it is a masterpiece.

Today, little is known amongst the general public regarding World War I, the great war, the war to end all wars. I study this conflict because, quite frankly, this war defines how the 20th century will evolve, World War II is merely a continuance of the first war, and the Cold War another chapter of the previous.

The film is based on a book by Humphrey Cobb which I have to say, I have not read, a situation I will soon rectify. The story is about this French army regiment's failed attempt to capture a worthless position called the "ant hill." The attempt is doomed from the start. Generals are embarrassed and examples must be made in the form of three innocent French soldiers, court martialed for cowardliness and sentenced to death by a kangaroo court.

Douglas plays these hapless men's regiment commander, and then their lawyer for defense. But every thing is rigged and so, the three men are finally shot by firing squad. Kirk Douglas' role is in a word inspired, and you can see Spartacus in his future in that intense gaze and strong dimpled chin.

But the film is so much more than this thread on injustice that binds scene after scene. It is more about the experience of the everyday combat soldiers trench warfare and senseless battle that marked World War I as the first of so many senseless wars of the 20th century, and finally it is about the commander's ego at the expense of the dog faced soldier.

This is an outstanding film. Four stars all the way. The writing, the acting, and the scene structure are all compelling. This is the definitive World War I movie, a subject that film gives little credence to today. It is in ultra silver black and white and filmed in a close up aspect ratio of the classic 1.33 to 1. Wide screen is what it is, but Stanley Kubrick knows the value of intimacy in regards to the original theatrical format, that all TVs use today.

I got this fairly new released MGM DVD for 10 bucks at the local big book store the other day. It is truly cinematic drama at a bargain. I know I will watch it again and again.

Recommended highly as high film art.

By Bradley A. Draper

One must see this movie with an innocent, to glean the full joy of this precious childhood fantasy in film. I had that privilege with my seventeen year old Niece, Allison. Ah, to be seventeen again. Such a magical age. But I digress, back to the movie.

Every frame in this dream like story is an oil brushed painting. This film is so visually beautiful it will take your breath away. From dodging cannon balls in pink cotton candy clouds, to sailing ships in the sky, and a live golden sprite called Tinkerbell, such imagery will carry the young at heart to Never Land, forever and a day. And the score sweeps to match the brush of such sights the eye beholds.

The script was actually pretty simple, but is it? The director, P.J. Hogan, chose to follow J. M. Barrie's book, a sweet little English Victorian children's fairy tale with adult overtones, that tells the story of Pan, the boy who never grows up. This memory is in the thought of every responsible adult, in a whimsical wisp of a dream that is nostalgia.

So the story is set, the imagery is magic, the music is perfect, but always, that is the easy part. The writer, director, and most importantly, the cast must pull off the story to make it really sing. This is after all just a movie, and it is dictated that a movie should be generally profitable. I care not one wit for this, as I seek a diversion from reality, and "Peter Pan" the movie took me to childhood's comfort. This cast really works.

There is Peter Pan of course. The Pan, the tempter at the bedroom window. Jeremy Sumpter is Peter Pan. He is a daunting young man, very athletic, and he has that melting smile of the mischievous boy that seems to affect the female heart. Yet, he is still a cocky cut-throat little soldier, ready to take on Hook and his band of pirates.

Jeremy finally breaks the mold, successfully, of middle aged gamine women who had played Pan in the past, and it is refreshing for sure to see Peter the way he should really be. As a young and brash boy, with dirty feet and hands, blond tousled hair, in one hand a sword, and in the other an acorn - a kiss, for Wendy. Jeremy as Peter has some rather heartbreaking moments that affected my male heart, and like all men, I suddenly felt a longing to be a lost boy.

Wendy's father sans Captain Hook, is traditionally one in the same, and this movie rendition is no different. The disciplinarian, and forbidden male dominator, Jason Isaacs perfectly portrays Wendy's Father and Captain Hook, in a delicious dichotomy of stodgy Victorian Dad and the vile evil villain of a pirate. Hook is not to be ignored for he is a key character in this tale. Hook is bad, but we can admire him. And for one moment, Wendy wants to be a pirate and join Hook and his motley crew, as "Red Handed Jill" - ah - a great pirate name, as Hook would remark with gusto.

Olivia Williams is cast as Wendy's Mother. Olivia is one of the most beautiful women alive today. This is necessary, as she must impart a genetic note upon her daughter. Wendy is as beautiful too - just not quite grown up yet. Olivia as Mother of her kidnapped children, is heartbreaking, as night after night, she sleeps in their room, and insists the window be kept open for their return. And when they do, such joy, and Olivia's maternal instincts convince a stodgy husband to adopt the lost boys.

Then there is the fairy sprite "Tinkerbell". She is a key player. Tink is the temptress, the reason Peter Pan stays young. Yet she holds faith in her magical wings and cements the story's chapters together. Tinkerbell is portrayed by the current French coquette that wishes to be Bridgett Bardot, Ludvine Sagnier, who has been seen in French films, in various states of undress. Oh, how perfect, because Tink is a nymph, a sprite, a fairy, and has no concept of "clothing." She is perfect for this role of jealous female as a golden spiteful insect. And you will believe you can fly, if sprinkled with her pixie dust.

To round out the cast, Smee is notable as Hook's comic relief, and Dame Redgrave as Wendy's Aunt adds a necessary Victorian touch, the little girl who plays Tiger Lilly is precious, the mermaids are menacing, and Wendy's brothers with the lost boys throw in the delicious little boy gang. Hook's pirate crew is truly funny and revolting at the same time. Tictoc the croc is really big, and a very real looking digital monster. And who could forget Nana, the Newfoundland nurse dog, who's own brand of protective mischief plays a part in the film.

But it is Wendy, precious and wise Wendy, that really, is what this tale is all about. A young girl on the cusp of womanhood. That is the most tender and fragile of times. She is in love for the first time in her life, with Peter - recalcitrant at parents and teachers authority. A budding beauty that seeks the freedom that Peter Pan gives. A most complex creature this nubile young lady. She is the focus of the story of Peter Pan.

What female actress could fit the bill? Well the makers of the movie looked for someone perfect, interviewed some 300 girls, and in doing so, found the perfect Windy. Rachael Hurd-Wood is an unknown, just pre-teen English lass with lush and long light brown hair, big blue eyes, a body so demure in flannel nightgown, she has dimples and a slightly toothy grin framed by full promising red lips, and such wonderfully perfect cheekbones which mark a little girl as a future beautiful woman. Prior to Peter Pan, she only acted in school plays. She captured my heart and soul as she did Peter's.

And now, because of this part, Rachael is Windy always and forever. She takes on the roll as mother to the lost boys in a touching caretaker way. Yet she is tomboyish and brave enough to sword fight both Pan and Hook. And Wendy is the conscience of civilization. When Peter tempts her "come with me . . . we will never, never, have to worry about grownup things again." Wendy looks at him sadly and remarks "never is an awfully long time." But then Peter smiles and then Wendy smiles, and suddenly we are flying above the rooftops of London in our pajamas to Never Land. Wow! That's love. That's magic. That is the lure of Never Land.

If as a parent, you are reticent to take your child to this wonderful film, it would be as if you would have prevented said offspring from seeing "The Wizard of Oz." You must share this story with them, as it has all the whimsy of childhood magic that an adult can participate in, with, and as if, a child.

This is a wonderful film. One that adult and child can enjoy together. A true classic and I highly recommend it. Oh, and while you are at it, buy Barrie's book as well, and read it to yourself and to your children, as Peter's shadow watches over you.