shermatz

I'm reluctant to thrust myself into the cauldron of savage "film experts" who will throw their drinks in my face if I disagree with their spittle-spewing invective about the 2011 "The Thing".

HOWEVER--this was a fine remake and fans of the 1982 version should certainly not pass it up. Let me mention that even though I had read John Campbell's "Who Goes There" (the source for all film versions) I was NOT prepared for the horror shock of the 1982 Carpenter movie. I have to admit it positively SCARED ME SPITLESS like no movie before or since.

So of course I was eager to see this 2011 "redo", my speculation being that the new CGI technology could juice up the monster terror. Indeed it did! Of course it didn't have the sting of the '82 version, where we did not know when, where or how the "Thing" would strike; but the monster jack-in-the-boxes in this new version (when they were sprung) were convincing and appropriately gruesome.

It is impossible to top Carpenter's original since he was the first to bring this level of INTENSE paranoia and fear to the screen. Again, we all knew what was coming in the new movie, so it had MUCH less impact. But still--SO well done! I for one am not going to slag this redo simply because the studio had the temerity to attempt a sequel. It's tiresome, really, the feral invective "fans" display for ANY remakes, and begs the question in my mind--given the hysterical carping they inspire--WHY would any studio WANT to attempt a remake of ANYTHING?

"Thing" 2011 will never overshadow the '82 version, but it's still a worthy (and scary) movie.

The enthusiasm of the other legions of "Laura" fans who precede me in their worship of this 1944 thriller inspire me to offer my own tribute and observations. My apologies for the tag line, it's just so hard to let go of Waldo Lydecker.

It's quibbling over trifles, but I don't really see this as a "film noir." Though it has the highly-existential b&w cinematography and the taciturn lone detective, it really doesn't have the downtrodden, rat-in-a-maze claustrophobia and desperation I truly associate with the genre. None of which of course detracts at all from our enjoyment of "Laura." No matter how we classify this highly mannered murder mystery, the best one word description is "CLASSIC." But let's say up front that logically "Laura" has a lot of problems. What police detective will question suspects then take them along as he goes to question other suspects? How did the grisly murder get cleaned up in Laura's apartment in time for McPherson (Dana Andrews) to bring Shelby (Vincent Price) and Waldo (Clifton Webb) to an immaculate and stylish crime scene the second night after Laura (Gene Tierney) was (presumably) murdered horribly there? Is it REALLY police standard procedure to call all the associates and suspects to a cocktail party so you can make a big show of the arrest? Of course you just have to ignore these little "reality-based" problems and surrender yourself to the conventions of 1940's movie magic, of which "Laura" is surely a PRIME example. It's all about entertainment, which "Laura" delivers with style.

Many have and will continue to praise the cool, elegant beauty of Gene Tierney in her absolute prime-a "Lorelai" indeed! But the movie truly belongs to Clifton Webb as Waldo Lydecker, the effete, snobbish & powerful columnist who initially snubs, then worships & sponsors Laura although (as Roger Ebert trenchantly noted) he couldn't possibly be heterosexual. The unique charm of "Laura" is in its representation of culture clash--prissy Waldo being made emotionally vulnerable by the gorgeous career gal Laura, then Waldo struggling to keep her in his orbit as his primacy is challenged by the foppish Shelby, then by the "real Man" McPherson. All the actors deliver with great brio, though I have to wonder how credible it was even for 1944 audiences to watch Shelby lunge at rival Waldo, kept apart by McPherson, who steps between them then slumps onto Laura's bed to pull out his ball-rolling pocket puzzle to vent his stress. Cue Waldo: "Will you stop dawdling with that infernal puzzle!" "Dawdling!" "Dawdling!" Calling Dr. Freud! You gotta love it!

My mom & sister introduced me to "Laura" around 2003 via a crummy VCR dub they pulled off of cable TV. Even in that degraded format its qualities were obvious, especially the stunning performance by Clifton Webb as Waldo. A memorable character and an overlooked actor, who is now surely getting some richly deserved postmortem love thanks to the excellent DVD reissues of this film and "The Razor's Edge" (also starring Gene Tierney, and also very highly recommended).

As other "Lauratics" have noted, this is a film that bears multiple viewings. You find something new to appreciate every time you see this, and at 90 minutes, it's an easy commitment to make. If you are not well versed in the conventions of 1940's black & white movies, this (or, OK, "Casablanca") are a great place to start. They truly don't get much better. Style over substance! 10 out of 10!

I was thrilled to read the (almost) unanimous praise for this FANTASTIC little movie by fellow viewers, and I must chime in with my wholehearted agreement. Every once in a while you blunder across an under-financed and straight-to-video movie that just absolutely flattens you with that rare convergence of talent, story & production, and you're reminded anew of just how powerful a film can be.

Most of the previous postings give a good outline of the plot, so I won't recap it here. "The Whole Wide World" is remarkable in all sorts of ways, but I must use my space here to further celebrate the masterful acting of the leads, Vincent D'Onfrio (as Bob Howard) and Renee (as Novalyne Price). Indeed, the skill of the portrayals completely conveys the sense of time, place and emotional temperament necessary to draw us into their worlds--and break our hearts. And yeah, you're just absolutely made of stone if you're not weeping just a little as the credits roll(or trying hard not to). It's testament to D'Onfrio's amazing talent that we can clearly see Bob's misanthropic shortcomings, but still we hope this tragic misfit of a guy can (as another fan wrote here)"meet her half way." A DEEP, insightful performance by Vincent who has quietly been doing the same in lesser roles for decades now.

And I gotta give Renee her full due as well. She was EXCELLENT, fully credible, spiky, tender, flirtatious, frustrated, and ultimately emotionally exhausted trying to figure out this neurotic but strangely charming man she tried to get close to. Seeing this movie reminds me of "Casablanca" in the sense that you can't imagine anyone else in the Bogart & Bergman roles; no doubt other actors would have given their all, but I can't see how anyone other than Vincent & Renee could have spiked our hearts so fiercely.

Who would have ever thought that such a GREAT movie could be made of the abortive love life of Robert E. Howard? Of course that's not really what makes the movie great--as Flaubert said when asked to identify Madame Bovary, he replied "I am;" and so it is with "The Whole Wide World," where we are poignantly reminded of our own failures to engage with life and love in the ways we believe they should play out.

Again, I'm THRILLED to see how many other fans recognize the unique quality of this movie. I encountered it obliquely, noting its synopsis in the New Yorker back in '96 and thinking "what a curious thing to base a movie on." For some reason my sister tracked it down and loaned me a dubbed-from-TV video cassette; crummy video and sound, but the movie still BLEW ME AWAY (and it still does--thankfully it's now available on DVD). Given Renee's star power I don't think it will ever vanish completely, but we can only hope others will take a chance on this little masterpiece so it can one day receive the acclaim its excellence deserves.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't put in a small plug here for Robert E. Howard the pulp fictioneer; it wasn't complete hyperbole for Novalyne to dub him "the best pulp fiction writer..." His writing stands up well today; plenty of brawny page-turning adventure that still delivers fabulous escapist thrills for guys. But if some of us guys can watch this movie and worship it, I'd bet at least a few of the girls can read some Robert E. Howard today and get a sense of the tough-but-hurting guy depicted in the movie. But one certainly need not read Howard to appreciate this amazing movie on its own stellar merits.

I've read with great enjoyment all the fully-warranted praise lavished on this fantastic movie and just had to throw in my own two cents worth. My only experience with Diabolique came more than 35 years ago while visiting my great aunt's home in Knoxville, IA; she would go to bed early and me and my brothers would watch late movies on TV. For whatever reason I wound up alone that night and tuned in just in time to see the lead up to and payoff of the shock scene of the movie (in the bathtub). Even making allowance for my youth (11-12 years old), this scene burned an INDELIBLE impression on me and for the rest of my life I wondered "what the heck was that movie?!?" None of the horror movies I EVER thrived on at that age packed anything close to a punch as that did! Of course I didn't recognize any of the actors, and the best I could come up with was to guess that it was Jose Ferrer playing the husband; for years I looked at plot synopses of his movies to see if I could identify it. This of course yielded me nothing--he wasn't in Diabolique. Then several months ago, on a whim, I picked up a $3 used copy of the Sharon Stone remake, and my jaw dropped when I saw the same climax re-enacted--my 35 year personal little mystery solved.

With the possible exception of last year's "The Manchurian Candidate," remakes can never equal their source material, and having seen only such a small slice of the original "Diabolique" I'm really not qualified to comment, except to say that I do NOT think the remake is as bad as it's represented by others here. Still I don't doubt that it pales in comparison with the original that shivers me still after seeing only the last reel on network TV 35 years ago.

As a devoted fan of the stellar "Gettysburg" I was first in the theater to see the prequel "Gods and Generals". Pre-release reviews for "Gods" were mixed at best, but so what; "Gettysburg" was likewise denigrated early by latte-slurping ponytail types who decried its length and the staging/casting of its historical portrayals.

Good news first: "Gods and Generals" is a BETTER production than "Gettysburg", at least in terms of its visual quality. It looks a lot more like a Major Motion Picture than a humble TV movie, which, unfortunately, I must admit "Gettysburg" frequently appeared to be. "G & G" also benefited from the earnest efforts of some highly worthy thespians including most of the original leads from the "Gettysburg" cast. "G & G" also tries hard (and mostly succeeds) in being a faithful adaptation of Jeff Shaara's novel, in the same spirit that "Gettysburg" hewed closely to Michael Shaara's "Killer Angels".

HOWEVER--I found even my most charitable predispositions sorely tested by many of the missteps of this movie. On the DVD (yes, I bought it), Director Ron Maxwell speaks of how a bad casting choice can render everything else moot; I'm standing up right now and saying for all the world to hear, STEPHEN LANG AS JACKSON WAS A BAD CASTING CHOICE! It's not that Lang is a bad actor, or that he did poorly in the role; obviously, anyone portraying a Civil War general must be a good horseman, and Lang certainly passes that threshold. I loved Lang as Pickett in "Gettysburg", and that impersonation certainly didn't do anything to help me accept him in this new role, but that's basically incidental to my objection.

What REALLY bothered me was my perception of Lang's inadequacy in capturing the Charlie Mansonesque persona of Jackson that history presents us with. I don't mean to slur Jackson by this comparison because I know millions revere him, but after all, Jackson, by his command and many eccentricities, distinguished himself with a headlong lust for combat & bloodshed that made him legendary even before his death. This is why we remember him now! The obvious contrast this savage battlefield reputation casts against the humble, pious Jackson history also reflects could have made this a career-making part for someone better suited than Lang. Let me go WAY out on a limb here and suggest another actor I believe would have been better suited in age, physique, and emotive "temperature" to play Jackson: Vincent Gallo.

Unfortunately we are all only going to get one crack at these Civil War dramatizations, and despite its flaws, I still give all Ted Turner's efforts in bringing these epics to the screen generous latitude just because he was willing to step up to the plate and make them happen. I read perhaps a year ago (in Entertainment Weekly) that the final installment in this trilogy, "The Last Full Measure" WAS going into production, with another director attached, so hopefully we can look forward to one more opportunity to "get it right". "Gettysburg" remains the single film to see, but "G & G" is a worthy extension of this dramatic movie chronicle of the Civil War, surely the only one we'll see in our lifetimes.

Before closing, I must also cast my lot with the Martin Sheen faction; I thought Sheen's portrayal of Lee was just short of sublime, and while no one can seriously slag Robert Duvall, "G & G" just didn't give him the part "Gettysburg" offered Martin Sheen. I would welcome Sheen back for "LFM" if it's indeed pending. Let me add that I would not be disappointed to see Duvall in the role again, but hopefully he'll get better than what other reviewers here have (correctly) identified as basically a cameo part.

6 out of 10, and I wish I could be more generous!

I've been reading all the other comments pro & con with great interest, and I just have to add my voice to the "pro" side for this ambitious and stirring epic. Gettysburg is indeed one of my "all time top 10" movies. I was especially curious to see it on initial theatrical release because of the casting of Martin Sheen as Lee; were I to cast a civil war movie, the name Martin Sheen would NEVER have entered my mind as an appropriate performer for this make-or-break role. To my astonishment, Sheen was MAGNIFICENT in his portrayal of Lee; in appearance, demeanor, and aura of command, Sheen COMPLETELY sold me. A stunning performance from an unexpected casting choice. I agree that "Gods & Generals" would have benefited from Sheen's re-casting, though Duvall did his best with the more limited part he was given.

Yeah, I agree that the script tended to a lot of bloviation and speechifying by the principals. I do think we need to make allowance for the fact that in this pre-technological 19th century era portrayed, people DID communicate in ways that seem artificial and awkward by our standards. This was a time when oratory, whether in churches, politics, or general discourse, was valued both as communication and entertainment. So even if the dialogue got a bit overblown, I was more than willing to cut the production some slack.

The beards were a problem for me also, especially poor Tom Berenger's. Still, he (like ALL the lead actors) transcended the limitations and delivered what resonated for me as a credible interpretation of the time and situation.

MANY details of the movie can be nit-picked, and of course, those determined to hate "Gettysburg" can always find a reason, rational or not. I was BLOWN AWAY by the quality and passion of this movie from my first theatrical viewing and it was one of the very first DVD's I purchased. After multiple viewings (all 4 hours) I'm still impressed and grateful that Ted Turner had the desire and ambition to tackle such a BIG project that would be sniped at from all corners for eternity. My goodwill extends to the much weaker (but still defensible) "Gods and Generals"; if they go ahead and produce "The Last Full Measure," I promise I'll be first in line at the movie theater AND pre-order the DVD!

10 out of 10!