Tunica

I recently watched all three of the Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple films (MURDER SHE SAID, MURDER MOST FOUL and MURDER AT THE GALLOP). They are a great deal of fun. After 50 years they haven't aged in entertainment value. Even the black and white photography seems perfectly apropos. Agreed they are light entertainment, as they were intended to be, but even that category of cinema has it high points and low points, This trilogy is truly one of a high point. My main criticism is that only three films made. Wish it had been a dozen! (For some reason I will never understand, IMDb requires that all film reviews have at least ten lines of text, as if length equals weight. One of the most famous reviews of all times was that of one critic's review of THE LONGEST DAY, a film about the D-Day invasion. I will quote it in its entirety: "IF you liked the war, you will love the movie.")

This comment is not about the movie but about the unique way it was released in the USA. Joseph E. Levine, a master showman of his day, acquired the rights to the film. He created a 'buzz' for the movie which created audience demand. He booked the Astor theater in Times Square, then a major Broadway movie palace. He advertised it like a Broadway play. There would be showings every night at eight, plus matinees at two every Wed., Sat., Sun. This was nothing new. Several films, such as "The Ten Commandments", had done the same to great effect. The difference was that Levine's film was in a foreign language. And in black and white. His plan worked. It was a smash hit.

One of Albert Brooks' best efforts. I was impressed by Debbie Reynolds, who proves she is more than able to take on roles like the ones the older Ruth Gordon once excelled in. Rating: 8. Will appeal to males more than females, perhaps because it hits a bit close to home.

This is a lot of silliness about a woman from London who marries a tea planter from Ceylon whom she barely knows. It's full of cliches, and the Liz Taylor character is not believable. It has a marvelous set, some exotic location footage. It shows Taylor at the height of her beauty. She looks stunning.

Like most David Fincher movies, The Game has style and tension to spare. The problem I had with it was that it lay in the middle zone of fantasy; that is, it introduced elements of high fantasy into a low fantasy world. This odd combination prevented this viewer from achieving the needed level of suspension of disbelief. The movie starts with an excellent premise, but the storyline becomes increasingly implausible. Only a puppet could have been at all the right places at the right times, as Mike Douglas's character was. Problem is that this character has an Alpha Dog personality and could never have been manipulated in this way. Beyonf that, many elements of the game were so risky that it is unlikely the player would have lived through them.

Basically, what The Game plays on is the wide-spread belief and/or superstition that there is one or more highly organized group of people in this world that could take total control of your life. I simply couldn't buy this one.

In no way a mainstream movie, White Mischief is a fascinating study of decadence among the expatriate English crowd in Kenya during WWII. Shows that not all Brits through the years have been stiff upper lip. [I already knew this.] Excellent photography, fine performances, witty dialog. Based on a true story.

Horror and science fiction movies are among my guilty pleasures. So I was looking forward to a new version of "The Mummy." I was really disappointed.

This movie does not frighten. It does not excite. It certainly does not entertain. Not only the special effects, but apparently the story as well, were created by a computer. The FX were were often awful because the computer graphics were so obvious. I am beginning to think that computer FX are an increasing problem because what looks great on a 20" inch monitor looks truly fake on a 60' wide theater screen.

Brendan Frasier reverted to his George of the Jungle personna, which was another disappointment.

I could say more, but why waste more time? [Oh, yes, why do some theaters install splendid digital sound systems and then play them so loud that you could get nerve deafness? The real advantage of a digital system is that you can pick up all the sounds without cranking the volume up all the way.

Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn once again waste their talents in this remake of a 1971 comedy, in which Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis once again wasted their talents. At least Lemmon and Dennis were believable as the couple from an Ohio Suburb. Martin and Hawn come off way to sophisticated to be so easily befuddled by The Big Apple.

This light-weight romantic comedy is fairly pleasant. The main problem with the script is that the 'forces of nature' theme is ruined by a very unnatural ending. Neither Bullock nor Affleck has yet proven to be a strong romantic lead. Both are talented, but may find more power in other kinds of roles.

The movie is episodic and depends too much on the viewer's having prior knowledge of the life of Dorothy Parker and her literary friends. Its saving grace is Jennifer Jason Leigh as Mrs. Parker. Her only flaw is that, in trying to look and sound like Parker, her dialog is often hard to understand. Still, one of the greatest and most under-rated performances by an actress in an American film in the 1990s.

One of silliest male bonding movies ever...Should wind up at the top of Christian Slater's list of movies he wishes nobody remembers. Cone to think of it, the only male bonding movie Slater ever succeeded in was Interview With the Vampire, because all he did was to interview Brad Pitt's Louis. He is at his best as the outcast [Heathers, Pump Up the Volume]

1. Had this been released a year BEFORE "Saving Private Ryan", there would not have been the inevitable comparisons, of course. In a decade, the timing of the two movies will no longer have any bearing on how they are viewed.

2. To say that they are both WWII movies is correct on the surface, but that's like saying Monet and Picasso were both painters. WWII was a vast event and had many levels and components. "Ryan", for example, gave the impression that the war was non stop combat, because it took place over three or four critical days in the European theater.

3. WWII was a bizarre event, to say the least. While Europe was being devastated, America stood on the sidelines, perhaps compelled by its isolationist policies. The attack on Pearl Harbor was, of course, carried out by the Japanese, whose war had only marginal connections to that of Germany in the West. [What would Hitler, the ultimate ethnic cleanser, done with the Japanese, if we had lost the war?] We could not declare war in the Pacific without also doing so in Europe. Once in the war, America found itself fighting two different cultures. We understood what was going on in Europe, since most of us originated from there. The East was a society that, if not unknown to us, was certainly not understood.

I mention these things because the war in the Pacific was, by nature, more surreal and dream-like than it was in Europe. I think Malick captured the tone of the event there just as well as Spielberg did in "Ryan". This may be much of the reason why audiences were uncomfortable the "Thin Red Line". That area of the world is still exotic to many people here.

4. I completely disagree with those who wrote that these "uneducated" soldiers could not have so many philosophical thoughts. The questions asked were pretty basic for anyone could up in such a terrifying and life threatening situation. Through body language, Melick implied that their Japanese counterparts were also thinking the same thoughts. EVERY character was not philosophical. The complaints about this aspect are, I assume, being made by people who know war only as something CNN and other networks occasionally bring to us for our entertainment.

There seemed to be a technical problem, however. Listening to the film on my Dolby digital system, I noted that the other sounds were never muted, making it difficult to understand much of the narration. Several times I had to rewind the video to decipher these passages.

5. I was especially impressed by the discordant music by Hans Zimmer. As much as I appreciate SOME of the work of John Willams, I should imagine that the average soldier in combat does not hear stirring anthems in his head.

6. TTRL is not a paint by numbers or connect the dots production, which is why I found it to be so powerful. For me, I had to work to understand some of it. In the process, I became involved, which made it a very powerful movie.

The irony of Gus Van Sant's having made an exact duplicate [in color] of "Psycho" would not have been lost on Alfred Hitchcock. The great director of thrillers and mysteries was himself apt to be very experimental. Examples: 1. Using essentially one set in "Rear Window." 2. Ditto "Rope." 3. The technically difficult [at the time] crop duster and Mount Rushmore scenes in "North by Northwest". 4. The stairway tracking shot in "Frenzy". 5. The shower scene in "Psycho," which was considered extremely adult and violent in 1960. 6. The overhead shot in the second murder in "Psycho." 7. The aerial shots at the beginning of "Psycho." 8. Essentially telling a story twice in "Vertigo." 9. The best in the business in making music a part of the story telling, especially in his efforts with Hermann. 10. Use of opening credits art to set the mood, especially in the 1950s and 1960s.

The point is that he would laugh at how antiquated the 1998 remake of "Psycho" is. For is he had had access to today's technology, his "Psycho" would have looked entirely different.

I believe this was the second film in the series, and it was the one whose popularity really sent the James Bond phenomenon into orbit. Admittedly, it doesn't benefit from the technology of 1999. Still, if you bear in mind that it's bells and whistles were extraordinary for 1964, you should be able to adjust your mindset. I might also point out that, because we weren't so tech driven back then, the story still was expected to drive a movie, and the plot of "Goldfinger" remains delightful escapist entertainment.

"Stage Fright" is a minor work from Alfred Hitchcock. It has not aged well, and the twist at the end is also time worn. However, the performances by Alistar Sims and Marlene Dietrich make this one watchable. Dietrich's role foreshadows her much more famous one in Witness for the Prosecution.

Horror and science fiction movies are among my guilty pleasures. So I was looking forward to a new version of "The Mummy." I was really disappointed.

This movie does not frighten. It does not excite. It certainly does not entertain. Not only the special effects, but apparently the story as well, were created by a computer. The FX were were often awful because the computer graphics were so obvious. I am beginning to think that computer FX are an increasing problem because what looks great on a 20" inch monitor looks truly fake on a 60' wide theater screen.

Brendan Frasier reverted to his George of the Jungle personna, which was another disappointment.

I could say more, but why waste more time? [Oh, yes, why do some theaters install splendid digital sound systems and then play them so loud that you could get nerve deafness? The real advantage of a digital system is that you can pick up all the sounds without cranking the volume up all the way.

I had to watch this movie because reviewing films is one of my jobs as a writer. It was much more fun than I expected it to be. In fact, a reason why it failed at the boxoffice it that it is a comedy. Those expecting a horror film, which is, of course, its subject matter, may have thought the laughs were unintentional. The best film in this genre since Scream and its sequel.

I can see how 8MM would be viewed by many as a movie about depravity. In many ways, it is. Some of it is even naive. Its portrayal of the adult film industry is not realistic - or rather, it shows that side of the entertainment business as it might have been three decades ago. I mention this because it begins with the truth that, for all intents and purposes, snuff films are simply a modern myth. It then goes on to portray certain aspects of the porn business in ways that are also myth.

Aside from that plot flaw, I found it to be one of the best studies of a man trying to do the right thing in a long time. It questions how far one is willing to go and how much one is willing to give up to find the truth. It asks whether the life and death of a young tramp from the wrong side of the tracks is worth bothering about.

Nicolas Cage is excellent, as always. [And Sean Penn, as another of your ex-friends, I don't care if you think Nick no longer acts.] And Joquin Phoenix, in a supporting role, shows that he is destined to become one of the best actors of his generation. He so physically transforms himself for his role as a Hollywood punk that he is hardly recognizable.

I really thought this was an intriguing movie. It's subject matter will make it repellant to many viewers. Also, it is too serious to be called an entertainment.

It has been reported that Mel Gibson forced the director of this utterly meaningless film to make the ending kinder. What I want to know is who forced Mel Gibson to act in this piece of trash in the first place?

I know, I know, violence is hip these days, violence is cool. I'm older than the average moviegoer, and I admire Tarantino. I loved the coen Brothers Fargo. I thought Silence of the Lambs and Seven were about the two best thrillers of the 90s. I even found 8MM to be good because it raised issues about what the truth can do to people and about what happens when basically good people go where they should not.

This is not the Mel Gibson of the wonderful Mad Max movies. Get real! A man battling for survival in a post-wwIII world is not to be compared to a sleazy con man who wants his frigging $70,000 back. How can one be out to right a moral wrong when one is totally corrupt morally? It makes no sense.

It certainly doesn't work as comedy, except for those who are so insensitive to the feelings of others that the laugh out of some sadistic need.

This movie reminded me of something out of the novel Brave New World. In one scene, the main character goes to the movies. He says he saw a newsreel in which a boatload of people trying to escape to freedom, were shot by police in helicopters. He remarked that the audience laughed loudly.

I do wonder how Mr. Gibson explained his presence in this movie, which is nothing but a pricey tribute to violence, to his six children.

I am in the movie business and occasionally a film comes out that makes me ashamed of this industry. This was one of them.

Stylish, funny, sad, adult, provocative, honest. Living Out Loud made me adjective crazy. Holly Hunter and Danny Devito are first-rate. Queen Latifa proves that she made the right choice when she went into the movie business. Her acting is now controlled and self-assured. She drops the hiphop style that her famous and here becomes a torch singer of the first magnitude. [I dwell on her because we all know about the talents of Hunter and DeVito.]

This movie is too sophisticated for most young movie goers. It helps to have some miles on you to fully appreciate it.

This is no feel good piece of eye candy, yet it made me feel very good indeed. It is not one of those movies, ala Sleepless in Seattle or You've Got Mail [not picking on you, Meg and Hank!], where you have that improbable happy ending. Living Out Loud has a hopeful and appropriate finale.

I went to this movie expecting not to like it, because "Dangerous Liasons", made in the late 80s, is one of my favorite films. While "Cruel Intentions" in no way matches the dramatic power of that movie, it doesn't attempt to. Instead, it concentrates on the dark humor of the story. In doing so, it creates its own identity. And why not? The original novel was written long ago.

Much has been made of Hollywood's recent concentration on the teen audience - as if this was news!?!? "Cruel Intentions" is one of the best thought out movies for this group in ages.

I thought this movie was beautiful. It was somewhat overlooked in America when it was released in 1998, partly because it had to compete against some higher profile British films and partly because it is not commercial. It could not be sold to the general public for a very sad reason - most movie goers have absolutely no sense or knowledge of history. So, the story of being a Jewess in mid-19th Century England and Scotland would seem too odd to them. In addition, the average person might have difficulty in grasping how amazing photography was to people in those days.

For those who do have knowledge of history, I highly recommend this film. Some might say that Rosina [Minnie Driver] is too much of a modern character, but intelligent women, rebellious women and highly sensual women have ALWAYS existed, regardless of the morals and hypocrisies of the times they lived in.

This variation of the fairy tale is quite entertaining. A lot of thought and effort seems to have gone into it. The main detraction, to me, was some obvious plot twisting, perhaps caused by the writers wanting both to be original and to be faithful to the original fairy tale. The prolog and the ending are needless and seem tacked on, as none of the actors in those scenes are otherwise in the movie.

I know this is a fantasy, but for anyone who is interested in history, Leonardo Di Vinci could not have been present as shown in the story, as he would have been dead for century at least.

Who in the world paid someone to do the effects for this overblown mini-series, which could have been done as a two-hour movie?

1. This was an unusual snow storm, but only because it didn't snow on the rooftops of the town's buildings. 2. It couldn't have been that cold, because there was no "smoke" coming out of anyone's mouth. 3. The snow shown was hardly of the "white out" variety. 4. In a storm of such supposed intensity, the snow would blow in a vertical direction. Perhaps the fakeness of the storm was a metaphor for the utter fakeness - and banality! - of the storyline.

I personally can't see why this is in the top 100 films at IMDB. It is one of the best American films in the last few month. Perhaps our group was so hungry for something worthwhile, they got carried away when they voted.

Bill Bob Thornton certainly deserved all the nominations and wins for his role as the simple-minded brother. Bill Paxton showed he can extend his range, if he has to. Bridget Fonda has had better characters to work with. Here she is merely a clever plot device.

The film is definitely creepy, and there are several plot twists that will surprise many viewers. The ongoing snow scenes were almost as good as those in Fargo. The symbols of the fox in the henhouse, as well as the black birds, worked.

My major complaint was that, while the beginning and the middle of it were well written, the ending left too many unnecessary questions, as if to raise the meaning of the story higher than it deserved. Especially suspect was the way the money was finally dealt with because the actions taken were counter to Paxton's and Fonda's characters as written up to that point.