mmkennedy

It is wonderful to be able to view yet another film featuring Murray Head albeit that I live in Canada where French-speaking films are well accepted. Too bad for pure Anglophones that his body of work is mostly in the French language. Yet, language is hardly a barrier in enjoying this talented artist's work as I barely needed to read the subtitles to appreciate this fine film. It's an intriguing love story that has all manner of psychological undertones. Not your Hollywood love story to say the least. I relish the fact that this is the same actor who played "the American" in Chess. Very different...yet...the same. I highly recommend this film for all those tired of the usual formula films.

This film is a "dumbed-down" version of Manhunter the 1986 original film with Hannibal Lecter screenplay by Thomas Harris and stylishly directed by Michael Mann. Unlike Red Dragon it is a suspenseful, subtle, psychological thriller. Wonderful acting by William Petersen, Tom Noonan, Joan Allen and the rest of the cast.

In Red Dragon every detail, even when unnecessary, was spelled out for the viewer. Weak acting by almost all of the actors. None of the characters is very sympathetic or even interesting. Anthony Hopkins is becoming shameless in his now campy portrayal of Lecter.

Honestly, see Manhunter to get the real masterpiece of all the Hannibal Lecter films. You won't regret it!

I sat through portions of this film on two occasions. I couldn't watch it all in one sitting because Monica Lewinsky is exceedingly annoying and now has even become boring by repeating, repeating, repeating the details of her flirtations and sexual encounters with former President Clinton. She has a singular point of view: that she is a victim. But the victim of what? In this dismal little documentary she laughingly admitted that she was young and stupid but seems to have gained no insight whatsoever as to the seriousness of the situation that in part her behavior caused. Somehow she still believes that she was equal to the President of the USA. I found that weird four years ago and still do. But Monica doesn't and that's why her continual recounting of this story from her perspective is really no longer interesting. I say, Monica: Tell it to the hand!

This film was so bad that I could only watch and HEAR it for one hour. Then it was promptly returned to the video store.

I figured if Paul Thomas Anderson were half as talented as his father Ernie Anderson was it would be a very interesting movie. But I knew there were problems at the beginning when the great "Three Dog Night" song, "One is the Loneliest Number" droned on and on and on for minutes that seemed like hours. But, as I mentioned that was only the beginning! For one very long hour I tried to engage with this film but found it impossible with all the loud, seemingly unrelated, incessant background music. It all seemed to be building to some kind of climax which it never accomplished. Seems to me in an hour of a film something should happen when it's full of background music that suggests such a build up.

The cast was great but their scenes were much too long and some were quite miscast. I was beginning to like Tom Cruise after seeing him in "Eyes Wide Shut" but, please, he was not at all convincing as his character in this one.

Don't get me wrong. I am a film afficionado. I like good movies and even enjoy seeing the bad ones. They can be fun too! But this one considerably offended my senses, emotions and brainpower. To Paul Thomas Anderson I say: This wasn't any "Boom Boom"!

Perhaps this excellent film could not easily be appreciated in its time. I was one of the few people I know of who thought this film was terrific when it was first released. I first saw it in at the Dallas Film Festival in 1984; then in 1999 on cable TV. Fifteen years later I realized it was even better than I had originally thought!

Viewing it in 1984, I saw it as a breakthrough film depicting a view of the dark side of the new young, hip culture of its time. The values and attitudes that are now emblematic of the 80s are all well-represented in this film.

But wait! That's not all that this film is about. In retrospect, it's a coming of age film that very subtly reflects the transition from the 1970s to the 1980s. We see the freewheeling spirit of the 70s while at the same time a longing for meaning and depth that being a free spirit alone cannot bring. Interestingly, the primary relationship is between two people who are seeking true friendship.

"Heartbreakers": Whose hearts are breaking? Mine for one. I am so disappointed that it took 15 years to be able to see this film again. The upside is that with so many new TV venues it's likely to be screened now more than ever so no one has to miss it for as long as I did. If you're a Peter Coyote fan, don't miss this one!

P.S. I wish this film would be released in video so it could be even more accessible.

Ron Howard got it right. Human beings are essentially voyeurs and exhibitionists at heart all the way to our own demise, given the opportunity. This film presents a believable view of the evolution of tv programming over time. Real people have been depicted on television since its inception, sometimes erudite and sometimes ridiculous. What was different in the distant past was that the interaction was basically one way. We were mainly voyeurs and the viewer could simply turn off the tube when no longer interested. More recently it has become apparent that the medium has a tremendous capacity for being interactive. Now we can be exhibitionists as well! Taken too far, however, our use of the medium is self-destructive.

Hollywood and just about everyone else got it all wrong. This was the "real mccoy". It is too bad that it was released just a few months after the Truman Show, a much weaker film that relied on a far-fetched premise to evoke our sentimentality.

And, hey, Edtv proved that Matthew McConaughey can actually act!