Jac-15

"Behind the scenes" look at a presidential debate where the moderator and panelists decide to abandon the debate format and instead level accusations of wife/child/employee abuse at the Republican candidate.

The whole premise is pretty stupid, and no real candidate, nor the networks, would have allowed any of this to happen. The rest of the story involves a reporter trying to uncover the mystery of where the information came from and why they did it.

Poorly directed, and unnecessary sidebars including the conservative panelist who is in the closet, but other than showing a male-male kiss, this is never developed, and is rather pointless.

James Garner is solid as usual, but no one else is able to make their character anything but one-dimensional.

The idea is interesting. Follow a group of slackers interacting with each other and then cut away to new group when new passerbys come on-screen. The problems are in execution.

The point is well-taken after only a few of these interactions and new digressions. But the exercise goes on far too long. This would have worked much better as a movie short. There is nothing new to gain from seeing 40 interactions as opposed to just the first few.

The second problem is that the characters are not interesting. They are all, every single one, simply annoying. They go on at long length about conspiracies, and make many idiotic statements throughout (both young and old), but never offer any new insights. Since all the characters (and there are many) are slackers of one variety or another, it makes it appear that the entire town of full of nothing but weirdos. As a former resident (and student) of Austin in the mid-to-late 80s, I can attest that there are *some* individuals like this, but they are certainly in the minority and not at all representative of the city. The only interesting thing for me was seeing the various Austin locales.

This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.

The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.

Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.

Rashomon is clearly one of Kirosawa's best films, although most would probably claim Ran is top of the list. The basic story is about conflicting testimonials of a particular event, but truely deals not with the audience trying to determine who is telling the truth per se, but rather how everyone "remembers" events to their own advantage.

The even in question concerns a woman who has been attacked by a roaming bandit, and how she, her husband, and the bandit react in the aftermath. If the film were to be remade today, it would probably star Gretta Scacchi or someother busty beauty, the rape would be graphically displayed as the bandit rips off her clothes, paws at her tits, and humps her on-screen. The rape in Rashomon was never actually shown, but inferred, and was very obvious. The terror and violation of the woman had to be imagined by the audience making it far more involving than simply passively watching it on-screen. Film directors should take note as to how to properly engage an audience.

The acting may not transcend as well to modern audiences, though. Those who regularly view older (foreign) films will recognize and accept the acting style, but others may well find it over the top.

Pointless movie about making a movie. No where near the flesh shown in the original, which was quite enjoyable and even had fun music. Not here.

It's always fun seeing the Pathmark guy though.

Okay, lots of topless women. But they are all pure silicon. And considering Showtime's other series, its surprising how timid they are about showing lower frontal nudity. Hands and sheets are strategically placed to always cover this up in a way that would never happen during real sex.

The acting is poor and the dialogue putrid. If you see one episode, there is no point in seeing any others. There are much better series out there for soft-core.

There are two Woody Allens. The chaotic director of comedy and the stiff director of drama. On occasion, he has managed to meld the two brilliantly, such as in Manhattan or Hannah and Her Sisters. On occasion, the contrast in an individual film is disastrous, such as in Crimes and Misdemeanors or Manhattan Murder Mystery.

Here, there is only the drama. The film is compelling, with wonderful supporting performances by Gene Hackman and Ian Holm. But this is without a doubt Gena Rowlands' movie. She has always been an exceptional actress, but here the performance is so raw and moving.

Gena's character is slowly beginning to awaken to her life's regrets--how she unconsciously distances everyone and as a result, despite a marriage and successful career, really has little to show for herself. She is a very lonely person.

The film captures the audience. For anyone that has an emptiness inside them, they will surely relate to the movie and character. But be forewarned: the ending, although slightly optimistic in a realistic way, will leave many sad and aching.