petermaxie

Well, here I am again commenting with nobody listening. I saw it on Showtime a few nights ago, and frankly I don't even know why I have Showtime, or that is, why Showtime is subscribed to in the house where my wife and son and me currently live in North Hollywood after they tried to get rid of me so many times before. I'm such a damn loser, of course I don't blame them. I should be dead by now. But here I am. And they love me, so.. here I am.

I've made a lot of dumb-ass comments before on this site. I hate reading most of them, except maybe the one on Fabulous Baker Boys. I could say the reason I didn't even know this film existed is because my son was born in March of 1992 and literally all of my time was spent caring for him that year. So maybe I'm not as much of a loser as I thought. American Heart really hit me hard, though. Powerful mother. I like how the title sounds like a stupid country record, too. Puts it smack where it needs to be: heard by the mainstream. If it wasn't seen by the mainstream, that's nothing more than Sturgeon's Law (95% of everything is crap) applied to general film viewing public.

If I was president, I would force feed ala Clockwork Orange certain movies to every citizen - i.e. force each person to view with eyes pinned open until they vomit, then force more viewing. I know this is stupid and didn't work etc. but still.. Those movies would be Wilder's The Apartment, Fabulous Baker Boys and this film. A couple others too, that I can't think of at the moment as I'm hurrying because my wife needs to get on the computer to do her work so we can feed ourselves.

Just wanted to say that this film is freaking great, very realistic and reveals EXACTLY what it's like to be an ex-con trying to go straight and how our screwed up society prevents that. Whatever with drama, films, directing, art and other crap. This film isn't about those things. This film has a movie star, Jeff Bridges, and he's freaking great that he would make a film like this. He deserves a damn medal and three halves for doing this realistic stuff about REALLY IMPORTANT issues. Don't fool yourselves, people. Our country sucks when it comes to helping people get their lives together. The parole officer character was REAL, phony helpfulness, totally uncaring in the end. The system creates this screwup, where people in positions to help simply can't get anything done.

But also, the Bridges character is a hick screwup. Think about this, people. Don't just go, he's a mean mother. Think about what kind of cultural influences create people like this. I used to dig Fogerty's and Seger's etc. voices in that kind of rock music. But after seeing this film, I'll never want to hear that kind of music again, and I'm a professional musician who has played this stuff on concert stages many times. IT NEEDS TO STOP. That's all. Go home to your kids, people. Be nice. Learn to think like Jack Lemmon. Get off the crud that's messing your head up. Make it to Alaska if that's what it takes. Whatever it takes. Just do it.

as one of those old 30s children's musicals about candied immigration, is actually a post-modern farce that revels in the bitter apathy of the 70s teenage wastelands.

Everyone has a generation they're from. This is the Broadway representation of my generation, the 70s hippies who came of age after the original 60s hippies. Gene Wilder's Wonka adds the perfect smirk for the period. With more than a little bitterness and social conflicts in our laps and without a clue to address the worst of the issues (war, draft, racism etc.), a Let It Be philosophy was embraced.

Hence, the birth of the post-modern smirk. This musical semi-farce was a preamble to the comedy farce which I regard as the bible of our (early 70s) generation: Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles, also starring Wilder. When Gene cynically over-amplifies, with that far-away Wonka gleam in his eye, `He's so strict,' that pretty well sums up the tongue in cheek humor of the hyper-liberal early 70s. Wonka's one of my favorite films of all time.

(spoilers)

the music . Williams gets to stretch out and shows us the exquisite relationship between the underrated jazz-modern classical/film composing fusion style from which he hails and Khachaturian's famous mvt. from Gayane Ballet . in there is hauntingly beautiful harmonic stuff so indicative of the darkest post-WWII psychological noir and the excitement that was present among orchestras-jazz musicians-film composers-modern music composers at the turn of the 50s . just awesome music no matter how you cut it . Spielberg . his style didn't allow this subtly beautiful orchestral music to shine as much as Kubrick's achingly quiet and slow style does , or did in 2001 . but if you listen between the lines digital/pyrotechnical onslaught of audio . you will be rewarded with fine composed music . or get the soundtrack album cd . an entirely separate art form than films

narrated as Professor Allen Hobby, the Visionary (hmm...) , John Hurt tells the haunting fairy tale with Pinocchio central to theme and plot , his voice-over a combination of remorse and keen sardonic interest in this bizarre story of how robots outlive humanity

human society comes apart because greenhouse syndrome melts the polar caps sending the weather into chaos . masses of humanity perish . robots are developed in this chaotic near future where people use them for labor and companionship

the technology develops more and more sophisticated robots, with ideas of their own . then human owners discard some just like pets are presently discarded . so renegade clans of ex-employed robots roam the fringes of a decadent, semi-post-apocalyptic society ... wonderful setting

Jude Law is in his element , flaunting stage acting movement ever so perfectly as anything Ray Bolger ever burned onto film . the children . and the complimentary Kubrick *adult* children are scary . not surprising from Spielberg who's work with children is monumental . so , good casting of Spielberg as director (lol)

everything is perverse , deliciously so in this Kubrick's quietly intelligent plausible vision of humanity's demise in the near future

absolutely delightful science fiction movie

I don't know why they used a colorized photo to represent The Rifleman show on the video cover. If the video is colorized, that would be a good reason to not buy it. And I'm not particularly against colorized reprints. It's just that this show truly shined in its B&W mode.

As was demonstrated by Frankenheimer's The Train, a few cinematographers and directors reached a peak of artistic visual clarity during the late 50s-early 60s. This TV show was a good example of that artisanship. Such quality continues to be rare in TV production. You could say it's because TV production has always been a low-funded affair, but such fine art doesn't cost any more than the expensive stuff. What it takes is a highly talented cinematographer and director. That's the rarity, in both films and TV.

Viewers were certainly not jaded back then, nonetheless when a show aired on TV that was clearly well produced, in terms of b&w visual clarity, you can bet we uneducated viewers noticed it, if we weren't yet aware of why we were noticing it. The Rifleman was that kind of show. The screen of our old Zenith b&w console, not a high tech unit by any means, really lit up when this show came on. Like a musician who can take a shabby instrument and make it sing, this quality of production could somehow make our crummy old TV look better than it was worth. A real value, for free and on the air.

The opening sequence to every episode was exciting enough to suck any of us into the TV screen, with the camera dollying backwards in sinc with Connors moving forward repeatedly shooting/cocking his modified, cut-down rifle. No music yet. Nothing but bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam… `The Rifleman' the seriously over-concerned voice-over would announce. We were hooked, and the western styled orchestral music would begin to play.

What is most striking as I vividly remember this shot now almost 40 years later, is the utter smoothness of Connor's walk and steady gaze as he moved forward step by slow step. I realize it is the exact same style of strong, silent type walk which Clint Eastwood was making a trademark. Funny to think that Connors, not a highly respected actor in circles, was doing this bit just as well as Eastwood did so many times later. Hey, if it works, work it. They had similar body types, and their plain, button-down western shirts fit in the same way. These were not the heavily muscled heroes today's boys are led to appreciate. They were tall, sinewy men, and it leant their characters a certain degree of intelligence along with the brawn.

Westerns were such a solid part of Hollywood movie studios' profit revenue, that's why artistic license was allowed the directors of these independently produced film/TV productions. Leave It to Beaver, believe it or not, was another great example of intelligent writing allowed into a stagnant arena of suburban styled family serials. Just check out the difference between Beaver and Dobie Gillis, as compared to Ozzie and Harriet and Gilligan's Island. The latter were undeniably stupid, one dimensional shows, while the former brought intelligent satire into play.

As I look back, a fatherless child at the time, Connors' brave good guy/bad guy characters really worked on me. This was where I managed to develop a diverse sense of humanity, because the directors and writers were allowed to make these characters and their stories somewhat multi-dimensional. The 60s was a great time, in terms of expanding a very innocent TV audience's view of the world outside our sheltered lives (there was never anything closely resembling CNN or Howard Stern, of course).

Two years after The Rifleman finished running there started a new Chuck Connors cowboy series called Branded. Where The Rifleman was certainly the most violently provocative show on TV, Branded was even more sadistic. As kids we ate it all up. In what is now understood to be a sort of Peckinpah tradition of graphic violence, these shows were the directors' training grounds for such sadistic style. They were really pushing the envelope of censorship. My mom used to get upset when we watched these shows.

SPOILERS I've read many reviews of this film, and it appears that most critics believe the film is about music. Allow me to correct them. One thing this movie definitely is not about, and that's music. Rather, this movie is about promoting the business of antique collecting. As such, it carries the mentality of collectors, a breed of human that sits around thinking about how much more fun life could be if an old object were to jump in monetary value. There doesn't exist a train of thought more thoroughly removed from purely musical thoughts. This is why a film like this, supposedly about the virtues of musicianship, is little more than a jumble of pretentious, lying crud.

Let's take violins, for example. My uncle was a violinist/violist and he held high esteem for a finely crafted instrument. But he also owned enough honest musicianship to know that placing too much value on a fine instrument is a mistake. The greatest example of fine musicianship, as my musical elders would say, is when the musician can take a shabby instrument and make it sing. This is the sentiment of true musicianship that I'm talking about. The Red Violin makes no attempt to share this concept to its audience. Instead, it wants to sell the opposite concept, that musicians are shallow until their instruments, if they are finely made, save them from themselves and others. What a load of nonsense... we musicians say! But antique collectors, well they fully embrace such a concept, of course. Next stop: college music courses taught by antique collectors.

Antique collectors value the objects of history more than history itself. This is demonstrated in this shallow film, which craps on four periods of history while upholding the present as better than the past. But the fact is, the present state of humanity is sickeningly capitalistic compared to the past. So the story's protagonist finds a way to pilfer an auction house of the filthy rich in order to give a young girl a priceless violin. Is this the best anyone can do to set the vicious world of capitalism right? It doesn't set the vicious world of capitalism right. Such an act in the real world of auctions for the filthy rich would cause these capitalists to be that much more annoyed at thieves, thus that much more viciously competitive. Lesson: burglary as rebellion against capitalism is a failed endeavor no matter how one attempts or perceives it.

I give now a recounting of my experience watching this film, in the form of a plot summary:

A virtuous, 17th century violin maker uses his dead wife's blood to coat one of his better instruments, making it special to both musicians AND antique collectors. God forbid they should make a movie about how musicians, but not antique collectors, favor a certain instrument, then learn through their pure musicianship that it's not the instrument that counts, but the musician who plays it. Then a sickly 18th century child is given scholarship but dies before he can use it. Wasn't the old world dreadful? But the violin survives this encounter, metaphorically informing us that violins are stronger things than humans with natural music talent. Gag me….

But wait! Now we must endure a soap opera styled interpretation of musical life during the 19th century, when apparently talented musicians are so decadent that their musicianship suffers. It's a typical misrepresentation of the Romantic music culture, and entirely expected from the creative minds of 20th century capitalist bigots who think that their own century saves all. What they forget to include is the bona-fide fact that 19th century music is leagues more virtuous than any music ever created during the 20th century. Again the violin survives the musician, and now the nausea is causing the vomit to flow from my mouth. But they're not yet through with me.

First I must endure more capitalistic rhetoric when, during the 20th century in China's cultural revolution, all non-nationalistic (decadent) music is forbidden. Now the virtuous musician must sacrifice their instrument or face violent persecution. It makes for a good bit of espionage, and I'd be the first to denounce such totalitarian atrocities. Only I'm aware by now that this story is meant to serve a purpose. That is, to show us that free capitalism is better than anti-art, totalitarian socialism. Hmm. Agreed, like the lesser of two evils.

Again the violin survives the musician. Hey, this is some violin. It's indestructible! Finally, we reach the present age of technology, when real music has finally been completely obliterated by way of over analysis. A guy manages to burglarize an auction for the filthy rich, then plays Robin Hood and hands over the priceless violin to a musically aspiring young girl. Is there anything in the story explaining to us just how musically virtuous this girl is? Of course not, that's not necessary. Besides, such a digression would spoil the moments of deep sentimentality that all the would-be antique collectors in the audience are feeling towards this incredible violin. It's about the violin, you see, not musicians. If suddenly these fools in the audience were subjected to real music performance on the screen, their sensibilities would surely be twisted out of their comfortably shallow little places.

The part of the story that I sorely missed, was what happens after the ending: A few years later the girl who'd been given the priceless violin decides to quit learning the instrument and listen to some Brittany Spears with her friends instead. Since otherwise she would certainly be considered a nerd freak by her schoolmates. One must have realistic priorities these days, hmm? Hence, this film is not about music. For currently music is at a very low rung on the average citizen's list of priorities. And this movie is, after all, for the people. Finally, I pass out from exhaustion. Thank god this horrible episode of my life is over.

I wonder how many conservatives, who disqualify this fine documentary and its book, are financially poor. I wonder if they realize that their attitude supports the rich folks who are responsible for their dire financial straits.

I am not an activist. I admit that I'm a liberal because I was raised by liberals: poor, somewhat intellectual musicians; none of us, except for one sister, university graduated scholars; all libertarians, the oldest before the term was invented. We are, I believe, the common people to whom Chomsky is speaking quite directly. The ones who, because we constitute a fairly large proportion of society, could make a difference if we became activists for his described controlled anarchy, the purer democracy in which commoners would assume control of the economic, political etc. systems now concentrated within the control of a relatively small number of moneyed individuals and corporations.

What is liberal? To me, it's strongest dictionary definition is the one that describes it as ideas that wish/work for change. Most liberals are for change because: there are many things wrong with the present system. The secondary definition is more on the idea of leniency. Both are valid, and both are despised by most conservatives. The conservative rejoinder to liberal ideas: 1) don't fix what's already working, and 2) there's too much moral/ethical leniency in our society.

The irony is that many conservatives also think there are things wrong with the system, but they blame liberals for moral/ethical changes during the past few decades (what we liberals know to be minor, but what conservatives consider to be drastic) and are therefore for a return to the more distant past, say the Victorian age, as a resolve. The problem with this conservative resolve, for one perhaps prime example, is that there are several more times the population of humans alive on Earth than there were during the 19th century.

The population growth has consequences. The rules have changed drastically because of technology and population growth. Land is no longer cheaply bought nor given away; like too many cells crowded, straining against one another for survival inside a small particle, human competition for survival has become ruthlessly detailed, more aggressive than ever before. Then liberals become the perfect scapegoat, or smokescreen for denial of this tough reality, like bigotry was once utilized for denial, killing Indians in the name of a phony over-protection in the wild, uncharted west.

American and western European conservatives are central to this matter as is evident by tight European border controls and American `white flight.' One imagines today's heads of state and corporate leaders conferring on attitudinal changes for our society, one of a return to aggressiveness in the old Machiavellian manner, utilizing the new technological tools and weapons, but for the same old genocide inflicted upon `Indians,' only now in more distant lands, and for the same rearmament purposes.

What has changed little, is the economic system. The powerfully rich and their corporations are ever more powerful, mainly because there is a tremendous amount of power to be wielded by masses of laboring people. Note how difficult it would be for one extremely wealthy family, say the two Bush presidents and family, to completely buy out one relatively small town of twenty thousand people. Not possible. This is why persuasion is so vital to the powers in control of the money and ecopolitical policies. If the people were to attempt to rise up and overthrow this yoke of corporate power, which considering how few vote in presidential elections doesn't seem too crazy at first, it could certainly be done. But according to Chomsky, such a revolution is actually very difficult to achieve, and the reason is that so few common people have the will to do it.

The people's consent, to not attempt to overthrow their government's economic policies regardless how unfairly these powerful few treat the masses, has been manufactured through a number of different insidious manipulations. The mass media is controlled by the powerful corporations who, in agreement with conservative thinking, wish the economy to remain unchanged (status quo) for obvious reasons: to hang onto their money. Many other people, sometimes called yuppies, who've recently acquired, or are currently in the process of acquiring, large amounts of money also support the status quo so they don't miss the boat of riches. What puzzles is how poor conservatives, the largest of demographic groups, are also for keeping the status quo, since they stand to lose economically at almost every turn. This is one of the strangest of sociopolitical phenomenon. It's also the most important area of focused propaganda that has ever existed. Such blatantly fraudulent advertisements are what sickened me to television over the past few decades.

Basically, the economically powerful, via mass media, utilize faith based ignorance prevalent in these poor conservatives, in an insidious manipulation of these faithful to harm themselves and everyone else by promoting status quo thus allowing the super rich to pilfer money that rightfully belongs to all of us in a more equal share of funds. The very idea I put forth here, and which is at the core of Chomsky's work, is socialistic and therefore to be derided by conservative capitalists. The conservative poor have therefore allowed the rich to bite off the noses of all the poor (the middle class no longer exists) so as to spite liberal change, which they traditionally hate. And the super rich are controlling it all along, which is an old Roman military strategy: divide and conquer.

This film marks the culmination of the most prolific, popularly loved form of music that the human race ever conceived. That is, the Romantic style. You may find, for example, a CD of pianist Horowitz produced a couple of decades ago entitled "The Last Romantic" - and you might understand the sentiment behind such a title. It is a dying breed of music. Rather, it is dead. Left are museum pieces rehashed by earnest musicians who love the style, or at least the memory of it, but performed/recorded for audiences/listeners who for the most part don't understand it. For to understand it, one must absolutely not be pragmatic. And as we've all been told time and again of late, if you're not pragmatic (if you haven't gone to college, for example, in order to obtain a degree/career) you don't have a life. Few these days, not even crack dealers, are willing to trade monetary responsibility for an enhancement of their souls.

Likewise, Dudley Moore acted the lead in this film, and in doing so, he didn't create much of a life, in terms of this film being appreciated by the mainstream. But Moore was one of the funniest comedians that ever graced American film/sound stages. His improvised drunk bits rival Jackie Gleason's improvised drunks. Of course nowadays such drunk humor is politically incorrect, which marks yet one more creative form that has recently bitten the dust. Oh well, at least kids are safe from drunk drivers.

But the greatest moment in this movie was the violin battle. You see, it's a prerequisite for talented, narcissistic classical/Romantic musicians, such as Dudley Moore (pianist), to hold a dark sense of humor. It's the kind of passive resistant, anti-successful state of mind that made Charlie Brown, Woody Allen, Bartleby, John Lennon and countless negative/alternative reasoning popular during the 60s-70s. And that alternative culture, or revolution, was merely a revamping of an earlier, more formidable anti-capitalism known as the period when occurred the French and American revolutions. In music, this was the time of Beethoven's rise to fame. This style he and others (even Mozart to some extent) propounded is known as the Romantic style. And the single greatest musical influence upon these western European proponents of the Romantic style was the music emanating from the streets: Gypsy music. It's also important to remember that such Gypsy music was itself influenced by a combination of east European folk music and the traditional music of the middle east, an area of the world from which all western civilization is derived, and thereby for which all of us should have reverence, or at least respect.

Basically what we're talking about here, what was the greatest influence upon the invention and prosperity of the Romantic music style, is the harmonic minor scale, and the claiming of this scale upon the hearts of a vast majority of music lovers world wide 1750-1980. It is a scale that gave birth to Romantic styled chromaticism, the most prolific harmonic form ever. In its early stages, when Mozart and papa Haydn dabbled in it, women and other faint hearted individuals tittered. When Beethoven got hold of it, such women literally fainted in the aisles. That's how naturally such chromaticism is capable of affecting the emotions of people. It requires an open heart, however. Today such Gypsy styled music is a laugh; that's how jaded western civilization has become. The smallest of minds are bold enough to regard it as merely "Jewish music," which informs us that its demise is likely, at least partially, the result of anti-Semitism.

Such Gypsy/Jewish etc. scale's greatest instrument, or agent provocateur: the violin. Hence, the extraordinarily emotional/comedic violin battle scene in this film, a rare tribute to this dying style of music. If there are any film makers, or any creative artists, who are interested in bringing back to vitality such Romantic/Gypsy/Jewish/harmonic minor scaled music, seeing this film might give them a good start in the right direction. It should also be stated that the Gypsy music that has recently surfaced in "World Music" and in university studies of Ethnomusicology, while more authentic, has, by way of pedantically narrowing the interpretations, caused the less authentic Romantic style to be ignored in its works.

Wouldn't it be nice if a politician like Laine Hanson could exist? She looks so much like Hillary Clinton - wouldn't it be wonderful if Hillary was as virtuous as Laine? Maybe she is. I mean, what do we really know about Hillary? For all we truly know, which probably isn't much, isn't nearly as close to the truth as it should be, this film may actually be about Hillary. But, as this film so eloquently reveals, it doesn't matter what we, the public, know about our public figures and political representatives as long as we, and they, share beliefs in the right things such as freedom of choice, gender etc. equality, human dignity and the right to keep our human frailty and indiscretion private.

After a story such as this has been told, you should have this question in your mind: What is it that causes so many human beings to be fascinated by and to wallow joyfully at learning of other people's questionable behavior? One might answer simply: it is curiosity, or it makes some people feel better about their own frailty to know that others are also not perfect. But, unfortunately, these answers only apply to a small minority of interested parties. The vast majority of National Enquirer readers and Jerry Springer fans, and there are multitudes upon multitudes of this breed of human, are present for the show because they are ignorant and ruthlessly mean people. Read it and weep, folks, but it shouldn't surprise anyone that the human race has evolved little during the past millennium, since the Dark Ages. For 1000 years is, after all, but a sliver of time in evolutionary terms (hundreds of thousands - millions of years). This movie and all similar tales (and real life drama) are therefore but examples of the sadistic ability of our race - just how far we are still capable of behaving ruthlessly.

Take note, if you will, of the hero: Hanson, those frail souls within her circle of protection: her husband and son, and the one she vainly attempts to protect: the woman (Mariel Hemingway character) whose husband she had an affair with and eventually married. All the rest of the characters are ruthless. Yet certain of these ruthless characters are eventually heroic, too. By the way, when a writer and/or director gives us ruthless characters with courage and integrity to fight for the weak and suppressed, we are treated to a dichotomy that is rich with humaneness. As Shakespeare fans know, there is no greater demonstration of fine drama. This story is indeed Shakespearian in depth of morality and richness of plot, if weaker in style - the latter fault not its own device but rather a victim of its environment and time (remember, Shakespeare was also contemporary in his time, also a victim to some extent of the trappings of his contemporary language etc.).

I would like to say that "I told you so" about Jeff Bridges. I've been raving about his choice of films during the last decade; always intelligent, always controversial, always with that mark above the herd that Oscar Wilde's sad legacy owns as the founder of what is now a tradition of intelligent rebellion to the status quo. This is an extremely important point, what should be considered a high achievement to reach. Few attain it. I think of Billy Wilder, Lenny Bruce, John Lennon.

I'd love to see Bridges run for president, for real, and win. He could, you know, but probably wouldn't want to. It's too bad - we got a crummy actor and human being, Reagan, who was interested in government. Now we need a great humanitarian coupled with the charisma that actors wield which gives them the edge in the popularity contest. It would be nice, anyway.

No one except me has noticed it yet, but this film is like Spielberg's Amistad. It's about overcoming bigotry; a triumph upon the issue of gender equality as opposed to racial equality in the former film. And then it goes one better by giving us not one political speech as classic closing monologue (in Amistad by Anthony Hopkins as John Quincy Adams), but two: Hanson's closing speech to the committee and Bridges' closing speech to the press.

To me, it's all wonderful. Women's lib, abortion rights, homophobes, racial bigotry, etc. As was eloquently stated in Bridges' fantastic closing monologue, these are the most important issues for all Americans, past, present, future. They are what the United States of America was created for. They are its purpose. Don't get mired in the details. So the founders preached equality while owning slaves. So what? The important thing is the dream, the future, changing things to benefit our descendants. This is the truest, most integral part of the definition of the term "liberal." It gives us hope, and that's about all we've got. You've got to criticize what's wrong with the world today, but you've got to do it for the right reasons, you've got to do it because you believe there could be a better world.

What an incredibly beautiful, inspiring film to behold. A rare gem.

This is by far my favorite movie of all times. I'm a sucker for all Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals, and this one is the best one of all. Perhaps because I was 8 years old when it came out in 1965. My uncle played viola for musicals and I saw it before, but I always loved this movie especially. Boy, did I have a crush on Julie Andrews! Then there's the fact that I come from a musical family, so the film's theme of music overcoming Nazi Germany was a very moving point.

This is a children's, or "family" movie. I am a believer that children need music education and a respect for traditional European music culture. There are many factors that work against children receiving such cultural exposure today: elimination of traditional music education in public schools, the synthesizer revolution taking over the music world causing kids to mess with danceable synth drum tracks instead of learning an orchestral instrument (which is more difficult), emergence of non-European cultures in America creating a resentment toward white-based traditional music education, Modern (atonal) artistic music asserting itself causing more resentment of traditional (usually Romantic based) European music education, the constant emergence of new styles of popular and artistic music causing less & less room for traditional music to hold its ground, etc. etc.

I believe that this is a shame because there is a certain subtle appreciation for music that is instilled in people who are allowed exposure to Romantic Classical music. Of course, classic Broadway music owes much to such Romantic music. Nowhere is this more evident than in this film, which theme essentially asserts the importance of European classical music for children's education, and does so in a manner that makes such music education FUN! Julie Andrews style. Indeed, traditional music education techniques were being challenged at the time of the making of this musical (the emergence of 50s rock & roll). This appears to have been R & H's nostalgic statement for the cause of retaining the old musical values by way of revealing just how fun learning Solfege (Do-re-mi etc.) can be! That is, if you have a really cool governess to play games with in the gardens while you learn the tunes.

God! I wish I could go back to those days!

Read it & weep, baby.

I can tell you the exact moment when this film turns from being a great, dark-humored comedy into a typical American capitalistic piece of cow dung. It's when the Grinch gives in to being shoved around at the big party scene. Up until this point we are given some of the best anti-capitalistic monologue ever spoken on this (American) side of the Atlantic Ocean. The reason is that this character, the Grinch, is a perfect Mr. Cranky, or Scrooge, of the modern age. He is brilliant, and if nothing else this reveals just how brilliant can be some of the stock writers working in Hollywood when given the opportunity to vent their complaints against the conformed state of society, particularly Christianity, and our corrupt economic system, of which Christmas is the not-so-sacred icon.

Had the Grinch kept it up, had he held on to his real life, dirtied and lie exposing beliefs until the end, the story would have been -- well, honest. One may have been able to place it in a favorable light next to such uniquely honest films as, say The Last Exit to Brooklyn, The Electric Horseman and The Magic Christian. But Howard of course is no where near these other, more earnest fellows. He's just another typical Hollywood cop-out, a conservative American who really believes that the 50s were "happy days" and the world would be a better place if we all just forget, for example, that a Panama invasion ever happened and instead concentrate on ways to make our nation a safe place to live for wealthy and middle-class white Christians. He's a lot like our new Republican president.

And so, the cranky, brilliant Mr. Grinch is a villain, to be eradicated in the name of white consumer-capitalists with upturned noses. It is so disappointing to see him go, to watch as he gives in to being the phony-happy faced Master of Ceremonies. His unique, individualistic opinions could have been given more light instead. This would've been great wine for the Who's of Who-ville, and the rest of us Americans as well.

I agree with Ebert pretty much on this one. I was hoping for a good film with a name that harkens to the 60s Disneyland ride with the same title. I saw it on video, which is a drag, because a film like this should probably be seen in the theatre, what with all the great special FX. But the bad reviews kept me away for a while. So, when the first scene came and I was like, WHAT? - I figured this was probably going to be pretty bad. That first scene is a real let down. I watched it again after seeing the whole film, and it still is awful, just really cheesy. Cheesy, pretty much explains a lot of this film. It's too bad, because there were some great parts. Fist of all, this movie is not AT ALL like 2001. Don't even listen to that nonsense. But there is some hard sci-fi (realistic based space science) mixed in with the cheese. And a couple of really powerful scenes. A lot of people hated the ending, but I liked it, even though it was kind of cheesy, too. It reminded me much more of "Contact" than 2001. Very sweet, sentimental. Main difference being that Contact wasn't hampered as much by awful casting. Sinise is all wrong for the lead. There's something going on, I guess, like maybe brunette people with faces similar to Sinise and Nielson would like their parts, but not me. Sinise looks like he should be singing R&R in a bar, not piloting an air craft. This is the main problem with films like this: they are just star vehicles. If you're going for realism, then go for it. Use actors that look realistic. There are plenty of people who enjoy a well directed film about this subject and don't need some movie stars to be in it for them to pay the price of admission. When movies, that are realistic in this way, get pegged as cult films it doesn't do anyone any good, except the idiots who are running the casting companies with this traditional minded attitude. You know how, in the early 1980s, the Rock music business kicked everybody out and bunches of new people started working all the A&R departments etc. and the entire music business went through what we refer to as the "New Wave." Well, guess what? Yeah, the casting companies need to do the same thing. Here's to hoping for a casting revolution.

The subject matter of Cradle Will Rock leads us to the library, and then to a shelf where we find political & socioeconomic issues mixed with an historic story of the beginnings of American Off-Broadway. First lesson in hanging out with the Off-Broadway crowd: know your history – or at least have a taste for the avant garde. This is the main subject of Cradle Will Rock: an avant garde political-musical-play that apparently was ineffective in its attempt to smooth its subject matter, including some intricate socioeconomic issues, into an accessible enough Broadway libretto and tunes. Even in its own day, the original musical lacked enough talent to win audiences approval. It died in its first week, not from a witch hunt as Robbins' film suggests, but from lack of theatrical quality. This part of history was changed in order to convey how strongly all of us liberals feel about the socioeconomic events of that time and to reveal the ultimate cultural importance of the play. Funny how a relatively mediocre play with the right socioeconomic ideology became the greatest sleeper musical of the 20th century. It literally gave birth to Off-Broadway, an important sub-culture of the genre that has since provided opportunity and respect for countless talented theater play writers, songwriters, actors etc. through the years.

Whether or not you will like this film really comes down to a matter of acquired taste in two main areas: liberal politics & the avant garde style of Off-Broadway musical plays. In sparing those of us who are not Broadway inclined, Robbins spruced & edited Blitzstein's semi-atonal songs. Then fast paced film editing a la Fellini was applied, and this actually lent very well to a film based on an avant garde musical play, its economically subversive producers and corporate/political conspiracy to suppress them.

A lot of critics hated the Orson Wells character treatment. To me, his character was one of the most entertaining. My favorite line was when Wells eludes to the weakness within the concept of cutting songs into what otherwise would be a perfectly good play. Rock is filled to the brim with satire of this sort, maligning itself like only a good intellectual liberal is capable. There are layers upon layers of intelligent social criticism interlaced within a complex labyrinth of misanthropy and hypocrisy all played upon a socioeconomic backdrop. All the brightness and quick dark wit of behind the scenes Broadway production is here presented with a twist of Fellini. It's a perfect match, and it's surprising that Robbins didn't receive Academy awards for this achievement. The reason, however, may be found again in the difficulty of swallowing Blitzstein's strange musical play, particularly in how it combines sober socioeconomic issues with peppy Broadway songs. One must acquire a taste for this kind of performing art. Its intricate, often interlacing musical & dramatic applications are fascinating on their own, without the politics. For this, Blitzstein deserves historic recognition, for he veritably founded a sub-genre, if without trying. Yet such recognition would not exist without the fact of this play's political timing. The myth of its failure as a result of capitalistic suppression supersedes the truth that it was basically a weak work. This is actually appropriate, as hypocritical as it may sound. For when it comes to alternative art, politics often is more important than the actual talent of the art. Finally, there is tragedy within this twisting hypocrisy as we witness the failure of a virtuoso ventriloquist because his politics are wrong. This deeply complex & dark character study alone lifts the film to classic status. It is very rare to see a contemporary film touch on an issue so dark & deeply, complexly human. One is reminded of Bogart parts, or of Ernest Borgnine in Marty.

The liberalism, freedom fighting etc. in Rock is moving and deliciously provoking. The casting impeccable. The history lesson is enticing at least this writer into studying more on the subject, which is probably the most important element in releasing such a film into the entertainment mainstream. But far surpassing any of these fine achievements is the appearance of one of the greatest supporting parts to ever be played in the history of films. That is Bill Murray's ventriloquist. It is one of the finest casting choices of all time. Rod Serling & others discovered long ago an unique aspect of dark horror: the dramatic power that is attained by reaching into the macabre inner life of a vaudiville ventriloquist. Such a part is reserved for only the finest of character actors. Murray has revealed himself to be such an actor, and this fact is nothing short of a film revelation. As I watched Murray soak up the part with a finesse that could only be described as natural genius, I began to wish that this character was the lead. Murray's career needs such a lead part, in terms of dramatic integrity, like Jackie Gleason needed to play Gigot. I anxiously await for the day Murray's face shows up again on my local theater screen playing such a humbly sentimental, seriously dramatic & darkly ironic character, this time hopefully in a lead part. Until then, I'll have this, his Tommy Crickshaw, which literally stole the show.

On The Iron Giant video box is an excerpt from The Tuscon Citizen movie reviewer: "The best animated film of the decade...". I wholeheartedly agree. Problem is, why doesn't the rest of America? The film apparently grossed one sixth of Toy Story's gross and, as a more expensive film than Toy Story, its profits amount to far less than its cost to make - i.e. it lost money.

This film's lack of popularity is the same as the lack of popularity of Columbia Tristar's Indian in the Cupboard. The underlying cause of this is found in the fact that, unlike Toy Story, Star Wars etc., Iron Giant and Indian In the Cupboard are films with more intelligence than pizzazz, consequently causing the mainstream public to not be as interested in patronizing them into blockbusters. Neither film is difficult for any child over the age of 5 to understand. It's just that films that are even the least bit intelligent cause them to achieve the IQ of a book, and that translates to box office failure. Never mind that The Iron Giant is in a league of the greatest films ever made; it's just not cute or cool enough for profitable merchandising.

Within this fact lies the nutshell of the problem with American entertainment. That is, basically there's not enough respect for intelligence. The film industry is not to be entirely blamed, however, like junk food chains are not entirely responsible for American obesity. For if the people are too stupid to know what's good for them, one may rest assured that someone will come along selling what's bad for them, and they will promptly eat it up. America is Pinocchio and certain of Hollywood's producers are the sly fox & company who lead Pinocchio to the children's prison hiding behind a carnival front. But the Iron Giant - he thinks he's Superman, and he really is this time. That is, his movie is really a saving grace in a tide of less intelligent fare. In terms of Pinocchio, this 100 foot robot is America's fairy queen.

That said, I should say what's so good about this film. Problem is, there's so much that I don't know where to begin. This is one of those animation films, like Cats Don't Dance, that uses animation's strengths - such as that it doesn't have to rely on live actors, sets, lighting etc. - to its greatest potential. There isn't a single second of dead space in the entire film. Moreover, the script is impeccable and, as the opening page reviewer eloquently stated (read it; it's a fine, poignant review), what's left out of the story line is a boon for the audience's imagination. This only works if the script is good & adequately performed. It is, with exceptional attention payed to timing and witty dramatic effects. Not special effects, mind you - this is animation, and it doesn't need those. I'm talking dramatic effects, such as hints at plot twists, perfectly hip slapstick set-ups that aren't dumb & dumber like so many Jim Carrey bits, intelligent jokes & asides on religion, morality, nationalism, the beatnik culture, the science fiction comic strip genre so popular in the 50s (which is the setting for the movie), and many characterizations, all perfectly realized and all of which entertain & bring the audience into the action and keep us happily interested and wondering what's next. This is a definition of fine drama; it works in any of the dramatic genres, and it is undeniably what every intelligent human being desires from dramatic entertainment. In my humble opinion, the producers of this film thus understand the most basic, important elements of drama, and are therefore rare geniuses of dramatic production, on the level with Shakespeare, Rogers & Hart, you name it; even the music was as finely orchestrated and whimsically placed in cues as Bernstein, Copland & Stravinsky would have accomplished.

Indeed, everything in this film was better than anything one should have expected from a children's animation feature. This apparent mis-match was surely its death warrant at the box office. But once again, time will reveal the true genius from the flash in the pan. The Iron Giant is a supreme classic, the product of film making geniuses. Its sentimentality made me cry, its fable made me rejoice, its subtle slapstick left me grinning and, perhaps most importantly, it allowed me to attend a film, and later many video replays, with my young son without having to feel that I was taking my son to some tawdry carnival that would lower his intelligence & impress upon him low expectations of humanity. If all American children's films were this good, America would truly be the great nation it is cracked up to be.

During the early 1970s British educators & students were founding new ways of approaching and teaching literature & other liberal arts. These new educational ideas rose in popularity parallel to the liberal counter culture (the hippies) in both Europe & U.S. The 1990s PBS production Shining Time Station & other PBS children's programs were consummate developments of this 70s liberal arts movement founded in Britain. Hence, S.T. Station's liberal arts style and the continuation of its liberal arts production style & attitude in this new feature film, Thomas & the Magic Railway.

The film is filled with references to this liberal culture, from the appearances of liberal advocate Peter Fonda & Olglala/Lakota Sioux Indian Russell Means (famous for his 1972 standoff with the US government at Wounded Knee & his involvement with the U.S. Libertarian Party) to its low-keyed, anti-hype directing style. Magic Railway never sways from this style & attitude. Like PBS's S.T. Station production values & other British production, there are moments in Railway when it could be a stage play; there's that much open space, that many quiet, lightly-produced moments. The presence of Didi Conn & Alec Baldwin also bring a stage play feeling to the scenes, as did Ms. Conn in her lead part on S.T. Station. But most of all, there is a feeling that one is in the presence of intelligent people, of readers of liberal arts books, of imaginative and open-minded people of the baby-boom generation. This is not a show for Newt Gingrich & followers, or other conservative or Republican Americans, and it is likewise easy to suspect that reviews against this film are thus sociopolitically biased, perhaps without even being aware that they are so.

The focus of all the Thomas the Tank Engine productions has been the three dimensional animation. The making of this unique type of animation is based on miniature railway hobbyists. The connection between such hobbyists and educational institutions such as museums of science & industry reveals the impetus for an educational program such as Shining Time Station. Like the PBS series, the movie's intentions appear to be educational. Its morals include usefulness, responsibility & punctuality while its intelligence is revealed, according with British form, in the fact that there isn't an improper grammatical sentence in the entire script. But most striking in this film is the focus upon an imaginative intellectuality, which includes a plot that manages to both enthrall the little ones - including a magic railway buffer, mysterious rail route & ghost train - while engaging the minds of their more intelligent babysitters with complex mystery, clues and interweaving twists. The appearance of quiet, dark eyed Mara Wilson along with other amiable adolescents Michael Rogers & Cody McMains also helps this broadening demographic effect, and Fonda's turnabout character, from depressed father to bravely excitable hero, gives the story a nice melodramatic flare.

The 70s was a time when many directors experimented with slow paced editing, often including sequences so uneventful, even ethereal, that common, faster paced films appear too quickly paced & tawdry in comparison. Taste for such slower paced films is acquired through patience, appealing to the thinkers among us. Those nostalgic for films made with this style of directing & underlying intellectual attitude may appreciate Magic Railway all the more. The Magic Railway adds to this no-action pace a stage-play feel, giving it an unique appearance. Certainly there is no other film currently released that is anything like this one, which probably accounts for why my son & I were the only people in the theater audience. In fact, the only film that nearly reaches the innocent, stage-play-like charm of Magic Railway is Milo & Otis, a Japanese children's film that reached hilarious proportions once it was dubbed by comic Dudley Moore for its U.S. release.

There is a scene early on in Magic Railway where Fonda is childishly playing pretend with his toy train named Lady. In these few shots the expression on Fonda's face is effeminate and innocently child-like, reminiscent of the 70s uni-sex movement, when childishly boyish, effeminate behavior in men was tolerated far more than it has been since or was before. To me, this is one of the most significant issues of the counter-culture & its revolt against bigotry and sexism. This scene & others like it in Magic Railway are therefore highly poignant and, rare as they are, represent some of the finest visual art as social criticism that has ever been created.

No matter how innocent (or, insignificantly only for children) this film may appear on the surface, one may rest assured that there are serious social implications within it thereby making it film literature (art), not just film entertainment. Like much of PBS programming, there is within Magic Railway an important social statement promoting intellectual and otherwise imaginative & open-minded (liberal) values, especially considering the lack of such films in mass release today. It is, nevertheless, wrapped in an adventurous entertainment package for children, and therefore resembles the classic novels of Twain, Melville & Stevenson.

If only there was more of this type of film available in English for Americans. From the first moment of the excellent opening sequence until the last fade to white, I was completely engrossed in this wonderful, intelligent & classy horror film. Then, it stayed with me and GREW. Like a great novel that you can't wait to talk about with your friends, this relatively minor piece of entertainment (what the director considers it) inspired me to figure out its open, unexplained ends. As I did so I became even more frightened than I was while watching the film. Maybe it's me, but I just love this kind of European styled filming in a classic satanic thriller.

The more I thought about it, the more it reminded me of the famous Nordic folk tale Peer Gynt. Peer Gynt was about a protagonist whose weakness was greed, among other moral depravity, and he travels abroad in a sort of test of his integrity. In that tale there were trolls & wizards & other characters appropriate for the age, whereas in The Ninth Gate (based on Arturo Pérez Reverte's novel, El Club Dumas) there was a legend of Lucifer & a particularly alluring devil's apprentice, played by the lovely Emmanuelle Seigner, Polansky's wife. But the protagonist, played by Johnny Depp, does travel to exotic places abroad and is at the mercy of his own greed.

What made the movie so entertaining was Polansky's classy, European styled directing, including many location shots in Spain, Portugal & France that allowed the director to flaunt this style with grace & panache. His affection for Siegner, who played in his 1988 thriller Frantic with Harrison Ford & played the leading part in the 1992 movie Lunes de fiel, is understandable. Her mysterious beauty is utilized wonderfully here as a pivotal character in the quixotic plot. So wonderfully that, at least to this reviewer, she steals the show.

My only criticism of this film is for Mr. Depp, and it is only a minor criticism. It's that certain of his lines lacked emotional strength. The director stated in an interview that he was thoroughly impressed with Depp's ability to make the most of every line. I'm afraid I disagree. True, it was in character to remain apathetic and hardened to the others surrounding Corso. But it seems that his character could have been more hard-boiled, something that Depp's rounded face is not easily capable of achieving. And when frightened, there was also a lack of emotion. He didn't seem REALLY frightened. A few angled close-ups might have engaged the distressed scenes a bit more, but this would have been a departure from the director's unaffected style. That kind of thing is Hitchcockian, not Polanskian. That is, Hitchcock used it more often, whereas Polanski saves, saves & saves until the end for the stylishly angled close-ups, if then. Hitchcock's was a bold directing style; Polanski's is a reserved directing style. The combination of this and Depp's round, pretty face makes for a reservedness that borders on the dispassionate, at least for this character study.

In the end, however, the story itself offers enough of an intelligent and adventurous mystery to overcome the above weakness. And Polanski's quiet scenes of detailed, yet natural & almost impoverished beauty - the kind that makes a European scene so delicious - works perfectly with the macabre story line. There were cliches, to be sure. This kind of thing is to be expected from such a film. And the director admitted that the movie was not meant to be serious, but instead merely entertainment fun. That it certainly was, and then some. I give it a 10, but with a reserve for the fact that it makes me wish there were more 70s style movie directors still around to compete with him.

Artistic composer Glenn Holland says: `I don't wanna be a studio musician.' Though it was 5 years ago, I still remember that I was the only person in the theater who laughed at this line. Why is it funny? Imagine a trained Shakespearian actor auditioning for Scooby Doo voice-overs. This is the sentiment behind Holland's subtly sardonic line.

Though Opus tries to be serious concerning the struggles of America's artistic musicians, its lack of musical authenticity (the lack of truly artistic music within it) directs its voice towards non-musicians. This may well have been deliberate since much of the funding for musical art must come from such lay people. The underlying issue, however, reveals the fact that most Americans clearly are not in the least bit interested in serious music nor traditional (classical) music education. Most Americans prefer non-serious music.

Nevertheless, Opus was made by producers who apparently wish to use the film's melodramatic chutzpah to interest the nation in music education & its funding needs. There is irony in the fact that many of today's popular music artists are much less musically devoted than they are well versed in the business of music. Here is where music entertainment, not music art, is revealed as America's predominant music culture. Aside from the line above, the film doesn't address this issue. What it does address is the related issue of public school music education. It is related because many of America's artistic musicians make their livings as music educators.

There are reviewers below who disliked Opus while others are perplexed since they liked the film. The latter are correct; there is nothing wrong with a melodramatic film that is more melodramatic than it is faithful to musical ideology. But the fact that this melodramatic film with little insight into serious educational music was made into a political statement in defense of our nation's music education causes some of the musically faithful to call "foul." Those offended are apparently unaware of the misrepresentation sometimes necessary in political attempts to influence people who need to be pushed into helping the needy & high minded.

Everything about Opus is like a liberal campaign with the best of intentions & the ability to connive its way into the hearts of taxpaying citizens. The film was made not by devoted artistic/educational musicians but by experienced film businessmen. These entertainment industry men hired The Seattle Symphony Orchestra & The Young Musicians Foundation Orchestra so as obviously to make themselves appear affiliated with artistic and educational music culture. The film was ostensibly about a frustrated, unemployed music composer, but all of the actual music in the film was composed by a successful music businessman whose achievements include the "Die Hard" film soundtracks. A few die-hard purist musicians get upset (reviews below) over these inconsistencies. Yet the more upset they get, the more they may be biting the hands that are attempting to feed them.

As I watched Dreyfuss making his speech on music education at the Oscars, I thought: That's an actor. What does he know about music? I had the same thoughts as I watched this film. This is the problem with being a musician who likes films. It's like being an astrophysicist trying to appreciate Star Wars.

Clearly, Opus is not a film easily digested by us serious musicians, despite the fact that its political aspirations are an attempt to aid us. The ironies abound in this situation. Such musicians are apt to disagree with its tagline: `It's not about the direction you take. It's about the direction you give.' It's the individualism found amongst serious classical music composers that is at odds with this very American morale. Couple this dispute with our current "we" generation, its distaste for egocentricity, and we find such serious composers veritable outsiders, indeed degenerates, in the opinions of mainstream Americans. It is not a pretty place to live, and the first few scenes of Opus illustrate this hardship. Holland also said: "I don't wanna be a music teacher," but he became one and in the end the community said "no thanks, we don't want a music teacher." Pretty tough stuff.

For the political campaign to aid artistic & educational music, by all means see this film & afterwards contribute what you can to the cause. However, for real artistic & educational music, I recommend "Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts" & other such videos containing real artistic & educational music, many of which may be found listed here at IMDb.

Star Wars, now one of our classic science-fantasy melodramas, having been criticized for some valid reasons (too much tawdry merchandising) also takes a lot of unnecessary flack from critics who fail to recognize that they are criticizing elements inherent to the adventure-melodrama. Probably the most significant feature of this film, Lucas' great space-fantasy epic, is that it gave baby-boomers & later generations a chance to have our very own Flash Gordon styled film series. To understand the quality of episodic, Wagnerian opera and to realize how rarely this excellent dramatic form has been attempted through the last 12 decades, is to begin to understand the value of this gift. There are obvious similarities, such as how the musical themes are boldly attached to the characters' entrances. But a lesser recognized relation between Wagnerian opera and adventure-melodrama films is the simple-minded character studies (i.e. under-developed characters) and the accompanying simple-minded sentimentality that in both genres is enhanced by highly sentimental music.

The extreme popularity of such films as the Flash Gordon and Star Wars series is manifest in how melodramatic & otherwise sentimental scenes are utilized effectively within an adventurous environment. This reveals an improtant psychological factor in popular adventure films: melodrama & its inherent sentimentality sells. This fact may appear to be at odds with the current "tough love" styled psychological climate & the hard-edged adventure films that are currently popular. Nevertheless, sentimentality is integral to many films as it enhances emotional elements. It should not be underestimated. Some commented that Star Wars is nothing more than a kid's movie. Well, maybe it's time we grown-ups took a lesson from the little folks.

Star Wars is a veritable test of the filmgoing public's ability to innocently appreciate a movie, to play dumb and allow ourselves to re-experience the awe that is missing in today's jaded environment. All four films of the saga so far have equally tempted us to experience this element of human frailty so necessary in retaining our humaneness. And of course, many viewers have passed these tests with flying colors. But this original Star Wars film is by far the most operatic in style, thus it is the most innocent & sentimental. This stands to reason - the relative innocence of the film makers & their corporations before high success set in, less merchandising chutzpah intimidating the magic etc.

Though all four films have marvelous Wagnerian styled operatic music, with John Williams' themes playing timely and subtly upon each character's entrance etc., this first film introduces the characters' musical themes most dramatically and with the most sentimentality. The Princess's theme, Luke's theme, Obi-Wan Kenobi's theme, the theme of the Force are all extremely sentimental and moving, while the Empire's theme is dastardly and ominous. These musical elements, and other dramatic elements, are what serve to make this one of the most innocently sentimental films in the last 30 years. This sentimentality supersedes any dramatic weakpoints in the film, and there are many, at least as many as one may easily find in earlier melodramas. But it's the audience's responsibility, while viewing a melodrama, to overlook them and groove on the simple, sentimental moment at hand. Critics that overlook this point are foolish, indeed.

If, however, the viewer is having difficulty finding the warm sentiment in such melodramatic entertainment, I might offer a bit of advice on locating one's inner sentimentality. That is, perhaps the viewer might try to reach inside and find a place of vulnerable frailty. For example, as a person who lost his father at a young age, I am susceptible to warm father figures on film, such as Robert Young in TVs "Father Knows Best" & Hugh Beaumont in "Leave it to Beaver." That's why Alec Guinness, who plays Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi, is my favorite part. I have a young son and have therefore watched Star Wars dozens of times on our VCR, not to mention the several times I saw it in the theater when I was 21 years old. But I could watch this movie a thousand times, and each & every time I would get choked up, as I still do, over the Ben Kenobi scenes.

Hunter S. Thompson's book was, partly, a figure of its time & place. Like Ken Kesey's "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" it described the lives of California hippies, bikers etc. during the late 60s & 70s. But it also included political and social criticisms that were not only fashionable during the hippie revolution, but are valid for all humanity at all times that conformity of thought rears its ugly face. This is the chief problem with making a film of such a book today: the heros are mistaken for silly stoners. For much of the novel's social criticism, acted out through desperate drug abuse by those poor, immature individuals who were unfortunate enough to become involved in the revolution, who were indeed the brash, young heros against conformity known as hippies, is today mistaken for irresponsible behavior, or worse, the silly & humorous and ultimately inconsequential behavior of the stoner.

Was the behavior of the hippies entirely inconsequential? Or do we indeed have more freedom of speech and behavior today than we did in the 1960s? Of course the latter is the truth. But many neo-conservatives today wish to suppress this fact and are thus involved in painting such social criticism as nothing more than a fashion of the 60s-70s, the silly misadventures of stoned-out kids. This is the most dangerous aspect of political satire today; that is, when it makes light of such serious issues and thus demeans them. I suspect that director Gilliam, originally a comedian, has more of a mind to make fun of, than take seriously, the issues of fear, loathing and social repression. His "Monty Python" styled satire goes over the top in the case of this film and finally serves to detract from the original novel's subtle social criticism.

The terms "fear" & "loathing" in the title of Thompson's novel describe the life of the social/political subversive. The hippies, who are represented by main characters Duke & Gonzo, stood for freedom of expression against the tyranny of such conformity, otherwise known as the "establishment" of "rednecks," "blockheads" and other conservatives who were sexist, had crew haircuts (ironically popular today) and believed that Americans should "Love it or Leave it" (meaning: love your country and a Christian god at the expense of thinking for yourself). Such conservative thinking overpowered and suppressed alternative, or liberal, thought in America and had been increasingly doing so since the second world war as liberals gradually were substantiating civil rights and other liberal conduct.

The movie didn't explore these social criticisms very much, not nearly as much as Thompson's novel did (though it should be stated that much of the novel's social criticism was subtly portrayed within a veil of satire). Instead, what little social criticism can be found in the film is more thoroughly hidden within dialogue that is itself so sketchy that making sense of it is too difficult for today's average viewer. Meanwhile the rest of the production concentrated on the satire of being stoned on illegal drugs (as if that is a satire, which it isn't), with the silly-stoney camera angles, stoned characters etc. Consequently the gist of the novel, found in its title which suggests a socially subversive experience, was completely lost. This is why Hunter's novel is a satire AND an important social criticism, while this movie is simply a satire, and a silly one at that.

As for Las Vegas, I can tell you from personal experience that little has changed since the time that this novel was written. I've often worked there (I'm a jazz musician) and every time I leave, I breathe a sigh of relief from its middle American, redneck, fenced-in-security-landscaping-for-$1,000-a-yard mentality. Gated communities may be desirable to some folks, but to an ex-hippie they are a particularly poignant nightmare to behold. Also, we mustn't forget Nevada's state motto: "Born to Fight," itself a testament that all outsiders must heed and tread in fear & loathing. Just one shot of an automobile license plate displaying this motto would have convinced me that Gilliam was familiar with the social criticism at hand. But there was no hint of it, and therefore I give this movie a zero.

As a serious classical musician, I am an elitist. As a lover of old films and literature, not, but far from today's mainstream. That's why my opinion of this movie is different than most. Everbody talked about (and awarded) the art direction, visuals, style etc. But even though I was as mesmerized as anyone with how the film looked, how it looked wasn't what caused me to truly love this film, which I do.

The reason is that looks aren't everything. That is, the director succeded excellently with the extremely stylish/satirical film, Edward Scissorshands; but when I heard Burton was making Sleepy Hallow I thought, Hmmmmm... here's going to be a challenge. For this is a classic 19th century horror tale, therefore traditional methods of approach and application are necessary to accomplish respect for the story and attitudes of the period. In fact, the real satire here is reading the opinions of idiots who went to see Scissorshands II and were disappointed, as if a director should stay true to a narrow form in order to please the narrowminded of his fans.

This would be true if the director wasn't capable of broadening. But in Burton's case, he has proven himself quite capable of leaving the cult behind and achieving greater horizons. It's a matter of shedding one's stylistic trappings and allowing the rest of the crew, in this case the writers & actors, to shine. This was done and well to the director's credit.

But, there were moments when it was questionable if this was going to be achieved. That's why I frown when repeatedly hearing of the perfect fog effects, set designs etc. We have to pay respect to the director's special talent, but in this film we should also pay respect to how the director has evolved. In Burton's case here, it is a losing of contemporary jadedness/cynicism and a converse gaining of respect for traditional drama, literature and humane optimism.

We may wonder why the story was never before made in to a film? (perhaps it was, but never released) It certainly was worthy of the kind of treatment Yagher and Walker gave it here. On the other side of the muse, however, was a musical soundtrack that lacked the depth of earlier 20th century film compositions. Though Elfman is an extremely talented orchestral composer, one wishes for music more keenly related to Rachmaninoff's deeply subtle chromaticism, from which much of film music is derived. Indeed, the lack of a more deeply Hitchcockian psychological noir/drama is what keeps this film from reaching higher levels of dramatic quality.

The result is a combination of all the beautiful visuals of modern cinematography with a somewhat overly fast moving old English/New England styled horror/mystery story. That said, the question remains: Do we get the wonderful romantic/optimistic/intelligent characters so necessary to this old genre? Yes, we do! But most importantly, do we get the "feeling" that the detective is an intelligent hero such as Sherlock Holmes? Yes, again! Wonderfully cast, Depp draws us to his intelligence, human imperfections, rebellious/romantic verve, all the emotions that made the period such a wonderfully important time and place to be a scientific liberal, as in H.G. Wells, Thomas Huxley, Shaw etc. These names are from a later time, but that makes it even more exciting: In this story, Ichabod Crane is one of the first! For this was the dawn of the Romantic age, that spawned the great 19th century novel, the detective mystery, and of course Darwin. All of this is about to become the world while the superstition still haunted the age. It seems it was Crane's (Depp's) charge to lead in stamping out the old ignorance while bringing in the new intelligence. Meanwhile, it appears to have been Burton's job to constantly remind us that satanic evil persists; and all the while you're thinking, yes, those stick-like, black & white horror drawings of the period (the "Dear Dead Days" stuff) is what I love most about Burton's visual personality.

All of the great, intricate plotting of a classic mystery was utilized well and Crane/Depp became the kind of Sherlock Holmes detective hero that makes you want to see a sequel. I love the period, the detective mystery, the classic literature - but most of all I loved the scene when Crane says to Young Nesbath upon entering New York City (circa 1800) "You'll get your bearings soon enough. All you need to remember is that the Bronx is up, the Battery is down, and home is THIS WAY." That's the kind of hospitable homecoming we all need after a fortnight of head butchering.

How about an animated story with animal subversives as out of work actors/musicians rising up against a repressive Hollywood movie-mogul dynasty by way of performing the hippest, swingingest dance number. Think it'll work?

Only if the story is realistic enough.

I haven't had this warm and swingin' a feeling watching an animated feature since, well, the last time I watched Tom O'Malley and Duchess (Phil Harris and Eva Gabor's voices) in the movie The Aristocats.

If you haven't seen this animated musical yet and you've been yearning to see a new cartoon feature that is produced the way they used to make 'em, this one's for you. Besides satisfying a craving for 30s/deco styled cartoons, the writing also toys with some deeper themes reminiscent of that era. It's a funny combination because we usually expect cartoons to never dig deeper than surface humor as there's never enough time for character development. However, some very witty writing (there were 10 writers listed in the credits) manages to take this story well into subject matter that is almost downright noir! That's saying a lot for a cartoon musical, and to top it all off we get Randy Newman songs composed apparently during an especially fertile period of this already extremely talented songwriter and Steve Goldstein's Broadway flair adds up to a wallop of absolutely top-notch songs.

"Big & Loud" has an arrangement that Mancini undoubtedly would have been very proud to have written and is belted to perfection by vocalist Lindsay Ridgeway. The female cat character is as jaded and sultry as Michelle Pfeiffer was in Baker Boys, and is sung by Natalie Cole who we all know is one of the most incredible female swing vocalists who has ever lived. This film really has it all. A rare gem, especially for a cartoon.

My favorite character is Woolie Mammoth, a cynical elephant pianist that immediately reminds me of Brahms, only he's a ragtime genius on the keys. In fact, there is not one (NOTE: NOT ONE) weak character in the whole cast. That is, every single supporting wiseacre line in this fast moving musical romp is written & executed perfectly. Of course, when you're writing classic 30s shtick there's plenty of tried & tested winning material and timing (timing, timing, timing!!!) to draw from and it's therefore easier than trying to make a gargoyle or a sea turtle funny. That's exactly where this flick excels, and there's no shame in that.

The most amazing thing about this movie is how it wasn't a blockbuster success from the tee-off. That's okay; there's nothing wrong with being a sleeper success. Absolutely unbelievable that Malkin panned this filck has bad as he did, considering how good it is and the quality of music etc. In the recent rush of animation features vying to break out of the children's film mold during the past few years, it seems you need a stylish techno look to get noticed. But in the long run, the real talent will eventually outshine the rest. Cats Don't Dance is one that should easily hold its place on the video collectors shelf. But to me, well... there are only a few movies that can make me cry. The Sound of Music is one that always "gets me right here." There are certain places in Cats Don't Dance that are very touching, too. Okay, I admit it. I'm a sentimental old fool. Fortunately for me, movies & sentimentality go together like cookies & milk.

I lean toward liking this movie, even though it's a cartoon and rather cliche. But the reasons I do (see below) are what make this one of the best Science Fiction films ever released.

There's been a lot of hullabaloo about its "amazing animation." I guess I should be more animation grateful since it is such a tedious art form & requires so much hard work etc., but as an average jaded viewer I've seen so much "amazing" animation recently that it just doesn't wow me anymore. I look for something more, and I believe I am speaking here for many.

Here is where the film/sound editor professions usually pop in to make the difference between what is considered an A+ and an A- action thriller. That is, quick editing shifts accompanied with Boom! Bam! soundtracks is what we've been getting to make us believe that this or that film is just a cut (pun intended) above the rest. Problem is, such sound/film editing techniques have recently been getting cliche, too. Today they're common on TV dramas, which translates to saturation - i.e. I've been there & I'm looking for what's next?

What's cool, however, about Titan A.E. is that apparently there was little effort made to edit this film in any "extraordinary" manner. There are plenty of quick shifts and loud booms, but these kind of edits have not been made the priority, have not been allowed to short-change the plot and the extension of ideas. This is what is otherwise annoying in other films - you know, that quick-shift bit where we are suddenly clobbered over the head with 16 simultaneously over-dubbed & amplified bass drums and jolted into another area of the plot - as if we like being shoved around the book. I don't. To its advantage, Titan A.E. spares us this sadistic treatment.

Funny thing, most of the pro critics, whether they admit it or not, are criticizing this movie for this very "weakness" (to them, quality to me). It lacks, for this reason, what they would call style. Then they criticize it for lack of story depth. Hmmm... I agree that there are many cliches, one-liners to make you gag etc. Those I hate, too. But the other criticism, that the story is shallow and typical is something I believe we should leave well enough alone.

This is where vanguardism (the mantra of all artistic criticism) goes too far and bites itself on the #$%*#. No pro critic ever complains about a cliche plot when a classic novel is made into a new movie. They know better than to criticize "art" and jeopardize their career (which is what keeps them from complete honesty and makes forums such as this sometimes a better place to learn about a film).

Here is an example of what I mean: Many pro film critics bashed this movie for its shallow story, but did one of them see the relation between the ring in Titan A.E. and The Ring from the Nordic Legend of the Nibelungen? I believe Richard Wagner would have loved this film for its story (not for much of its music, though). In fact, with Wagner composing the soundtrack, this could have been a really, really wonderful film experience. Incidentally, this is why Star Wars movies are so good, but we already know that.

Has anyone been to Disneyland, California lately? Are you old enough to remember what a novel joy Disneyland used to be? I feel sorry for kids today. Personally, I refuse to return to Disneyland ever again. It's way, way too crowded. But there's something else - sinister, about the place. It was always there hidden beneath the wonderful fantasy and charm. I think you know what I mean. Every attraction was sponsored by a corporation. This was fine when it was subtly presented. Even though current Disney executives are certainly intelligent enough and capable of exhibiting subtlety, they do not exercise it. This may have something to do with the rampant commercialization of society today - i.e. people not only do not expect subtlety, they firmly do not want it as we are in an age of "hard realities." Whatever it is, Disneyland has been ruined by it. Dinosaur is but one more example of such commercial interests having overwhelmed any semblance of charm and fantasy in Disney's current fare.

This is why I feel sorry for many of today's kids. Kids SHOULD have sweet, charming stories either read or presented in some other way to them. Remember Danny Kaye singing "The Ugly Duckling?" Today Elton John sings a ballad and we adults are supposed to appreciate the similarity, the apparent notion that Disney is carrying on a tradition of sentimentality. But something has changed in the interim. The Kaye tune heard by kids today would likely be rejected as too sweet. There is an edge that Rock grooves present that Swing tunes comparably do not have. It has something to do with the heavy backbeat. Then there's the intelligence quotient factor which, believe it or not, is directly related to one's ability (or not) to feel and appreciate deeper, grander and more delicately sentimental entertainment. Which leads us to Dinosaur and why this film was made.

Some saw Walking with Dinosaurs, a documentary film recently produced with identical state-of-the-art animation techniques as Dinosaur. In fact, Dinosaur is the mainstream commercial feature presentation of this new, cutting edge animation technique while Walking with Dinosaurs was the original, experimental and more intelligent documentary feature presentation. I suppose we should feel lucky to have even received Walking with Dinosaurs; we could have got only Dinosaur.

The fact that Walking.. was a documentary feature reflects, at least to some extent, the old Disneyland, pre-Rock culture, before we became sophisticated enought to expect "more" from film and television entertainment (Remember Sunday nights with those old Disney docu-movies on wildlife?). Nowadays, when those old wildlife films are occasionally rerun on TV, those too young to remember scoff and ridicule them, criticizing their lack of finesse. This is what I mean about a society too jaded to appreciate subtle, intelligent entertainment. We have allowed our corporations to de-sensitize and overly stimulate and sophisticate our children. Like I said, I always sensed something sinister about those corporation signs next to the Disneyland attractions.

As far as Dinosaur is concerned, there were absolutely wonderful moments and sequences of this film. The introductory sequence is a marvel on the level of classic. This is, of course before the creatures start talking and the Rock beat starts playing. The scene where the Pterodactyl flies over the terrain is completely engrossing, so promising of something marvelous to come. But, as has been lamented over and again in this forum, that marvel never comes. Instead we get wise cracking monkey-mother-in-laws and other cheap dialogue.

Still, there were a number of beautifully photographed/animated sequences sporadically presented throughout the movie. It was like there was a battle of priorities going on between the modern jaded mentality on one side, which apparently believes that it is responsible for presenting standard bad humor for kids, and the more seriously visual beauty that this marvelous new animation so obviously is demanding to be made in order to show us its gorgeous, shining self.

In the end, it's an old Hollywood behind-the-scenes story revamped. Great sweeping cinematography with grandiose vistas a great Western (or in this case, a great pre-historic epic) make. But then we have to remember that this is still just Hollywood, where somebody's tasteless son-in-law is the executive producer (or something equivalent) and he says "We gotta have humor in this picture!" Etc. etc. etc.

When the big wig critics such as Ebert (and many others) hate the plot you think twice about the quality of a film. In this case they're wrong though. Good thing I saw it before I read their captious criticism, though I probably wouldn't have skipped it anyway since J. Bridges is my hero (anyone who plays a character like Jack Baker, from "The Fabulous Baker Boys," is a hero in my book: I'm a Jazz musician). In Road what was more important than the acting was the story - the very thing the picky critics hated. Most people didn't understand Baker Boys either. That makes two J. Bridges noir films that have transcended the critics. That's a good thing. Oscar Wilde - who said an artist is in accordance with himself (is creating good art) if his work creates controversy - would have been proud! This film is like The Spanish Prisoner. Though Prisoner wasn't noir (the good guys win in the end) its plot is an intricate criminal maze that requires the viewer to do alot of figuring. Road's detractors say the intricate plot doesn't pan out, but that's only because these critics aren't stretching their noggins enough. The key clue was when Robbins tells Bridges there are millions of them and suggests a very capable and organized conspiracy. With such a conspiracy all the loose ends could have been keenly monitored and plans could have been alternated according to whatever the key target's actions did next - just like Prisoner. This was the basic premise of the film: an extremely well organized criminal conspiracy. Why so many have difficulty recognizing this obvious feature (I'm no genius and I saw it right away) probably has something to do with how certain types of people are so busy being picky they forget to open their minds. Forget them and watch Road a second and third time. I did and liked it more each time. Highly recommended movie!

Two things went through my mind as I watched this film (which I have seen thrice, and would happily see it again). One: This is a quality science fiction story. Two: Will the style and violence overwhelm the story? - as too often occurs with potentially great sci-fi films inevitably by way of cheap scriptwriting. It is the nature of blockbuster type Hollywood films to screw up a good sci-fi thing by allowing the action to prioritize-to-death the story. As one might expect from an action film featuring Keanu Reeves, the dialogue tends toward the short-witted and stylish and there is plenty of gratuitous violence. But Hollywood has recently been on to this valid criticism of itself, and it appears to have been making some progress in this area.

Matrix is an example of producers with an ear to those of us who want more than just ignorant dialogue and fast, violent action from our science fiction films. On one hand, they have basically a stylized kung-fu flick with an African-American heavily supporting a white lead, lots of black leather and overcoats, guns, action, state-of-the-art effects, futuristic "space"ships etc. On the other, they have a sci-fi story that at first sounds typical but then unfolds into a well crafted tour of a potential futuristic human existence visualized through the context of what currently stands as cutting edge technology (virtual reality). This makes the idea "hard" science fiction, as in Arthur Clarke's Odyssey novels/films which used NASA technology as their premise. There is also a biblical slant to the plot and names of characters and props.

If I was to be picky, I might say that less gratuitous violence in exchange for more plot discerning dialogue would have improved the film. It would have made it more like a sci-fi book. But maybe I should just go and read the book for that (most blockbuster films nowadays have a book released along with them - Star Wars has several). Anyway, I hope there is a good book made from this story, because I would read it as avidly as any favorite sci-fi novel: the plot idea is that good.

Incidentally, the sequels to this film, typically are trash in comparison to the original. Very much disappointed, I had to realize that the producers/director were far more involved in the stylization and special effects than the plot. Too bad.

On the other hand, finding time to read books is becoming increasingly difficult these days, which says a lot in relation to the moral within Matrix. Which leads us to the duality present in a moral film such as Matrix: Should we watch it again and forget about the world's problems, or think twice and do something to improve our society, to increase our independence and freedom? In the end, we may be victims of our own device, for we seek entertainment to help us forget about the drudgery of our lives. Our man-made systems, systems that were originally created to enhance independence from menial labor, may be creating a new form of slavery.

It's a creepy thought. But maybe it's just fantasy. Maybe Matrix is just an entertaining movie. Despite its inherent short-witted weaknesses, its clichéd fashion statements, I was thoroughly entertained. It says something about me and the kind of viewers that like this stuff. We are dreamers more than we are fixers and doers. Our detractors, the fixers and doers who come out on this forum to criticize us, are probably right that we should be spending more of our time servicing our society. But then, that wouldn't be freedom for us, would it?

I consider Baker Boys the best film on music because it is one of the finest noir stories ever written on the subject. It is an important film because of the subject matter: an expose of musical art married to entertainment. It is a subject rarely revealed in American media.

Most people think of "musical art" as something found at the classical music concert or the college music department. The other stuff we hear is entertainment, right? Well, sometimes it just isn't that simple. Baker Boys is a story based on those cases of mixed marriage when the talented artist finds himself locked into an employment situation that hampers his artistic ability. It may come as a surprise to Jazz and commercial music lovers that such music artists really do exist beneath the glamorous facade of their favorite music acts (not to mention films). The story of Jack Baker means to reveal this dark underbelly of the entertainment business.

It is well for the public to understand how and why such musicians exist. The distribution of a film such as Baker Boys is but one step toward this end. While most people saw the film as a romance involving the swing music genre, what they didn't seem to recognize is the more important underlying contextual theme. This issue - of undiscovered musical talent - is not popular. Unfortunately the average layperson is not familiar enough with music to understand or care about why a musician would be unhappy with his job. It is easy to see why most people avoided this, the main theme of the film - it's too dark - and instead focused on the romance and the style.

In the end, Baker Boys is a story of one Jack Baker, an entertainer who was finally bold enough to make the transition to Jazz artist. It is a story of passive resistance to what Blake Edwards immortalized as that "other" part of the entertainment industry known behind the scenes as S.O.B. (Standard Operating Bullshit). It is but one fictional story that represents many, many similar true-life cases of successful failure.