lippp-1

Watching "Anatomy of a Murder" is as intriguing as watching "Anatomy of a Traffic Ticket". I wanted to like this film. After all it has a great cast based on a provocative novel at the time. The problem is it's slow, illogical, and no twist and turns to make the two plus hours invested worthwhile. It ends on a whimper with the only response that is appropriate is "huh?" or "Is that all there is?". Lee Remick is perfect as the horny slutty wife of military man, Ben Gazaarra. He also is well cast. George C. Scoot fares better as a member of the prosecution team than Jimmey Stewart does as the poor as a church mouse defense attorney. Jimmy does his "Mr. Smith Goes to Wasington" act and it gets very close to over the top at times. And the verdict simply does not pass the smell test. As piece of nostalgia this certainly is of interest. After all, it was a time when the word "panties" was risqué' in films. Yet when all is said and done it is a pedantic court room drama with lots of court room and little drama.

Most of the major actors here do their best with not much to work with. The plot is nonsensical and way over the top. The dialogue seemed to be written by an amateur even though Peter Bogdanovich actually wrote it. This is supposed to be a romantic comedy. If so it's a comedy without any comedy and not much romance. The saving grace here is the nostalgic factor. Watching Audrey Hepburn and Ben Gazarra is a pleasure and in a different movie they may have further contributed to their impressive careers. In this mess, their scenes are impressive to watch precisely for their skill but what their characters do defies logic and you simply just don't buy it. John Ritter is very good and Dorothy Stratton holds her own because all she really has to do is look gorgeous. Collen Camp is, at best, mediocre and the weakest link in this cast. This film is only for film buffs who want to relive an era and marvel at the grace and charm of Ms. Hepburn. They may have all laughed but they weren't watching this movie when they did!!!

When a film leaves you thinking about it hours after you viewed it, you know you have watched something worthwhile. Such is this little gem that has apparently been maligned by most critics. On a superficial level this is about a psychologically disturbed character. On another,it is about how dangerous disenfranchisement and low self esteem can be. How the impersonalization of city life can lead to destruction. How the horror of 9/11 can impact some beyond reason. How stereotyping can be the seeds of scapegoating and injustice. Robin Wright Penn does some of her best work here leading an impressive cast. The plot is unpredictable. Some have opined the last third is unbelievable. I say to the contrary. The denouement is jolting and unexpected. It is a logical conclusion to what the main character has been planning and much more believable than the behavior of Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction" which was favorably received as well as generally very popular with the critics. I guess when you mix the thriller genre with some thought provoking material it is not acceptable. Far better to not challenge the movie goer, heaven forbid!

Wow! Sex, drugs, rock 'n roll plus murder all taking place in the sixties with hooters - what more do you need? Russ Meyer, father of legitimizing soft porn, makes his debut ( and last) big budget studio movie. And Roger Ebert, of all people, wrote the script. The production values are above par. None of the plot is very credible, but somehow manages to capture the spirit of the swinging sixties, the sexual revolution and the beginning of the demise of this era a la Manson type tragedy. The amateur actors are best served by Russ Meyer's editing so you don't really see how unskilled they are. This whole thing somehow works especially now in retrospect. In sum it's a comedy, a parody - an over the top spoof. So sit back, maybe take a toke and enjoy this hoot with hooters.

Sometimes reviews assume lives of their own. That seems to be the most plausible reason this film has received so much praise. Yes, it is very visual at times. At other times not so impressive. For example the fire in the castle could have been drawn by a talented fourth grader. But the real elephant in room everyone seems to be overlooking is this film has a very confused, hard to follow plot. In fact the director, Hayao Miyazaki, has as much said he agrees. So why do people sit through a film they really can't make heads or tails of and sing it's praise? Well, probably because you're supposed to. Slapp on the artsy title of animie and Miyazaki's name and you have critics falling over themselves to sing it's praise. I suspect the average movie goer will not be happy with Howl's Moving Castle. When you pay almost $10.00 per ticket you don't really care about credentials, you want to be entertained. And watching visuals just goes so far before you know you've been snookered. Instead, rent "The Triplets of Belleville" if you want to see creative animation at it's best.

Munich wants to be an important film. It uses the tragedy of the Munich Olympics to explore the effects of hatred and revenge on all involved parties especially the avengers. So I really wanted to feel moved and challenged by this cinematic dissertation on the subject much like I was with Spielberg's "Schindler's List". I wasn't. That's not to say Munich is not worth watching. It is. Just be prepared for a sophisticated version of "Death Wish" except here it's based on a true story with more depth. Perhaps that is a trivialization of a film that does engage. But I was getting weary of the main characters finding different ways to blow up their targets. I wanted more about the clash and conflict of terrorists on both sides. Spielberg attempts to be objective and he is to a point. But both sides here have their justifications of what they did and why. No doubt neither side are purely evil or completely vindicated. What drives these people to the desperation resulting in such horrific actions is really what we should be attempting to understand. Instead Munich shows us how Israel got even and why that was tough on the avengers generating more violence. I suppose the music score should include a track titled "It's hard out there for an avenger"! The acting is good across the board. Technically the film is well done. But Spileberg's direction, while competent, seems almost clinical in the depiction of this very relevant and timely subject.