Reviews

There are many joys in this movie, not least seeing three great actors, Price, Lorre, and Karloff, playing comedy as comedy should be played -- with finesse and wit.

But the most interesting thing for me is that this seems to be the best looking of Corman's Poe films before he went to England to shoot "Masque of the Red Death" and "The Tomb of Ligeia".

The superficial explanation is one that Corman himself offers in his autobiography, where he says that every set from a previous scene was augmented by the budget for the following film: in other words, it was a simple matter of "home improvement".

But there is more than that. Corman seems to have rediscovered his joie de vivre in film-making. The irreverence of this film re- awakened his rebel maverick instincts. He is ending himself up.

"Inside Man" proves that Spike Lee doesn't need controversy to be a superb filmmaker. He takes a tight, twisty, genre screenplay and gives it at once a weight and a lightness that shows him to be a consummate storyteller. He brings an attention to detail, a focus and a knowledge of film convention tinged with both reverence and a sense of humor that he puts into service of the story to great effect. The film reeks of the joy of storytelling.

He has the benefit of an A-List cast -- Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Willem Dafoe, Christopher Plummer -- that not for a moment seem to be slumming in a "heist movie". They exude a love of acting without a trace of self indulgence.

The film does lose pace after the release of the hostages, but that is in some ways inescapable, given the plotting (which I don't go into because playing along with the puzzle is one of the joys of the film).

The negative criticism of this movie seems to me to miss the point of what the movie is: a game that draws the viewer in, not through violence, although there is some, but through the threat of violence.

In earlier films, Lee showed his skill at the display of technique; here he proves equally adept at hiding it.

An incredibly stylish and bizarre film noir. The use of art deco as a symbol of cold sterility makes this a wonderful example of visual design as dramatic statement -- murder and intrigue played out against an antiseptic background, contrasted with the more humanistic settings of the pawnshop, the bar where one can find "anything", etc. In addition, one of the most interesting things about this movie is the undercurrent of homosexuality that infuses it. Watch the scene where Laughton confesses the murder to George Macready. His protective reaction goes beyond a sycophant toadying to his powerful employer. And there's the encoded statement where Rita Johnson, referring to the check she has received from Laughton for "music lessons", tells Ray Milland that neither Hagen, Macready's character, nor Janoth, Laughton's character, likes music, thereby tying the two characters together. A fascinating and ingenious circumvention of the Hays code.

Frederic March! Basil Rathbone! Maxwell Anderson! Bernard Herrman! Charles Dickens! I certainly hope they got paid well. (With Dickens, I suppose, it didn't matter.)

A denatured adaptation of one of the quirkiest, wittiest, richest stories ever, the majority of the screen time is taken up with over-orchestrated, lyrically clichéd and underwritten pastiche carols and folk songs (although Herrman's music has some lovely melodic and harmonic passages), and with "heartwarming" live commercials for 1956 Chryslers.

March's Scrooge is saddled with an incredibly fake nose, right up there with Alec Guiness's in "Lawrence of Arabia". Worse, March is forced to show redemption and emotion in endless close-ups that show him reacting to the aforementioned songs. Still, fine actor that he is, he does manage to show some moments of humanity.

Rathbone, as Marley, is robbed of 90% of the terrific dialogue originally in Dickens, but he too is able to infuse his character with some pathos and horror.

A fascinating look at what the majority of live TV drama was like in the 50's. Bad as TV can be now, if anyone pines for the good old days, make them watch this.

I haven't laughed this hard since I first saw "Airplane!" Not only is this hysterically funny, but you learn more about the art of comedy (and human nature) in 90 minutes than you could from years of reading and study. A remarkable cross-section of comics (when's the last time you saw Chuck McCann?) and styles. Highlights and surprises include a mime who' s actually funny, Sara Silverman, the "Aristocrats" card trick, Wendy Liebman and her "clean" version, Larry Storch (!!), the rendition by Eric Cartman, Bob Saget, the Hefner roast, Whoopi Goldberg and the foreskins . . . in fact everything scores in some way. (Even Andy Dick!) AND STAY TILL THE VERY END! Very highly recommended (but not for everybody).

Ronald Colman and Basil Rathbone, two wonderful actors having the time of their careers playing wittily written opposites who are also spiritual soulmates -- Francois Villon, the poetic rebel, born into poverty with a noble soul, and Louis XI, King of France, born into privilege but with a rebel's iconoclasm. Add a witty script by that poetic comedic rebel Preston Sturges, who hits all the crowd-pleasing buttons without condescension and no-nonsense direction by Frank Lloyd, and you have a top Hollywood product -- a crowd pleaser with intelligence.

Rathbone is a particular delight. Pre-Holmes, he revels in playing an unprepossessing cynic to whom everyone must bow because he happens to be the king. Colman is doing what he does best, playing an intelligent, superior man, without losing the common touch. A delight all the way around.

This is one of the great films about politics, in that it's not really about politics, but about human triumphs and follies. It grounds its satire and commentary in its sympathy for the characters, more like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington than Wag the Dog and All the President's men. It's not a polemic. Rather, the satire is not overdone, the commentary is subtle, and the humanity is overwhelming. Seriously now --don't we need more people like Fred Tuttle in government? I'd certainly vote for him! Because if Fred Tuttle can make it, then there is hope for this country in these dark times.

"House of Wax" is one of the only films in which the 3-D process is

actually an organic part of the visual scheme, rather than a

gimmick grafted on to the narrative. Andre de Toth, who only had

one eye, was a champion of the process and wrote theoretically

about the use of the process to tell a story, and you can see his

theories put in to practice in the way he stages and shoots his

sequences, his use of back, middle and foreground, and his use

of camera pivots and dollies. In fact, the most effective 3-D work,

comes not in tossing things into the camera (although he does

that, minimally), but rather in the chase scene with Price and Kirk

through the fog-shrouded streets of old New York. See this in 3-D

if you can!

This is about the "legend" of western figures, vs. the reality.

(Remember "Unforgiven", and the way the gunfighter has a dime

novelist following him around?"

The two "shouters", Stubby Kaye and Nat "King" Cole, make it very

clear that the legend of Cat Ballou is NOT the truth: she is not, for

example, as the ballad has it, "evil through and through".

This commentary is given a meta-fictional air by the fact the Lee

Marvin (who won the Oscar for the same reason that Bogart won

for "African Queen": he played against type) is cast to play both an

ultra Lee Marvin (Strawn) and an anti-Lee Marvin (Shelleen).

A very clever charming film, and also way ahead of its

dramaturgical time.

It is ironically Chris Guest's misfortune to have begun his career in "mockumentary" (a term Guest hates) with the Gold Standard of the form, "This is Spinal Tap" (which Guest did NOT direct; Rob Reiner did, so the tone of that film may be laid largely at his feet.) His subsequent efforts, "Guffman", "Best in Show", and now "A Mighty Wind", have naturally been measured against "Tap". But they are VERY DIFFERENT PICTURES! "Tap" was a true satire, in that it was meant to cut, to poke fun at, to criticize. Guest's films are full of affection for the human foibles of his characters. He may be the only dramatic artist working today who walks firmly in the footsteps of Chekhov, whose humor (yes HUMOR) stems from his characters delusions, denials, and obsessions, which can also be recognizable as ours.

"A Mighty Wind" is not as comical as "Tap", but it is more humanly moving. Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara as Mitch and Mickey are the emotional center, and I think Levy for the first time lets the actor break the shell of the caricaturist. His Mitch is complex, hilarious, moving and TRUE. I think the kiss at the concert should get at least a nomination at the MTV Movie Awards. The rest of the cast is just as detailed, funny and TRUE.

Go and watch Guest's (and Levy's) films again -- and try to forget "Tap" for a few hours.

Some people miss the point here -- this is not really about Richard III. Rather it is an attempt to communicate (and it does so with amazing clarity and passion) the joy, frustrations, rewards, and sheer hard work of the act of theatrical creation! YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE AN ACTOR (OR ANY CREATIVE PERFORMER) THIS FILM WILL CONVEY IT!

I don't know of any serious Sherlockian who would have any use for this abhorred mess! I have absolutely nothing good to say -- it wastes a lot of time, talent and money. And now Matt Frewer is doing sequels! The mind boggles!

By the way, what kind of dog did they use in this version? Looked like a skipperdee!

Clooney's line, "What did we do here?" is the key to understanding this movie. "Three Kings" is a satire on the motives for war, on the effects of war, and on America's jaundiced view of what we stand for when we go to war. (And please remember, although this film has comedic elements, satire does not necessarily mean comedy.) This film is a marvelously tough-minded shot at the ugly underpinnings of war.