Reviews

Everybody has heard of the Great Gatsby. Quite a few people have read the book, which is not long and still somehow intriguing even though it is nearly a hundred years old.

There are at least five movie versions, I think, maybe more. I've just seen this one. The story line is utterly plausible, even common. Gatsby, in his younger days, meets Daisy, a young woman at a function while they are in their youth. Gatsby is infatuated, she as well, but Daisy is always infatuated we learn over time. Unfortunately, Gatsby lacks the money to marry her and asks Daisy to wait, while he goes off and makes his fortune. After a few years, Gatsby has his dough and returns to collect his prize, and the movie begins. Regrettably Daisy is married to Tom, her wealthy and philandering abusive and arrogant husband. Gatsby seeks to win her back with an ostentatious show of wealth, huge house, gorgeous cars, great clothes, fabulous parties. At first it works and he recreates their original bliss, which he tries to make permanent, but then Daisy hesitates and eventually abandons Gatsby to stay with her husband, even though he cheats on her and is abusive.

No one is surprised by this conclusion, leaving only the question of the resolution of the scorned lover. Gatsby could simply disappear, he could find someone else, but neither of those options fit the tone of the story, and suicide is not acceptable, the hero would not do that.

Instead, he is murdered by the husband of another woman that is having an affair with Tom, because the husband thinks Gatsby ran his wife over on the road in a careless rush to get home, not knowing she died trying to reach Tom. In that little subplot, Gatsby the other lover and her husband and whatever respect we might have for Tom or Daisy are eradicated.

The story resonates for everyone who thinks of the person from their youth "who got away" who was beloved but for whatever reason did not last. The irony is that Tom, Daisy and Gatsby are all shallow self centred idiots who value money above all else, and associate a persons worth with their bank balance. We find out that Gatsby made his money as a bootlegger. We are never quite clear how Tom made his money but we know it wasn't by being a nice guy. Daisy, as played by Mia Farrow, is so stupid she is irritating, making us struggle to figure out what Gatsby, played by Robert Redford, could possibly see in her. At first I though casting Farrow in the role was a mistake, but it's ultimately brilliant, the ultimate Irony. Gatsby blows his entire life trying to win over this utter moron and in the end she just abandons him without a moments hesitation. Her worthless husband can't even be bothered to kill Garsby himself, he cons the husband of his lover into doing it. And in the end, everybody on the Gatsby side is either dead of damaged and Tom and Daisy head out on a cruise to "fix things up". Money can do that. Not a perfect movie but an epic one in my view.

This is such a weird movie.

I rewatched the original Exorcist recently, after the death of William Friedkin, and it still rocks. A day or so later, I came across DVD copies of the Heretic and Exorcist III at my favourite used DVD shop and grabbed both for a rewatch, thinking it was clearly a sign, as you never see those movies in the bins.

Most people bomb this movie, but there are a number of people (including, apparently, Martin Scorcese) who think it has merit. I'm in the middle on it.

I saw it originally when it came out and remember being disappointed. Rewatching it, I rememberd the locust imagery and the rather B Movie "synchronizer" or whatever they called the hypnosis machine. There are many scenes, including the climax that bordered the ridiculous, but I think there are also some scenes that are quite effective.

The cast is interesting. Note that other than Max von Sydow. Linda Blair and Kitty Winn, none of the original cast is present. Instead we get Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher, Paul Henreid, James Earl Jones and Ned Beatty. They all do the best that they can with the material but they are interesting choices in their own right.

Paul Henreid has been working for ten years when he did Casablanca 35 years prior to this movie, so casting him as the Cardinal who has apparently seen everything works. Richard Burton was a burnt out alcoholic with multiple divorces and many lousy films on his resume when he made this, and he looks older than the 52 he was when he made this. But that's why he's a brilliant choice, the pain and weariness in his face as he tries to keep his sanity and dignity through the film feel totally real. Plus only someone with Burton's delivery could manage some of the lines he has to say.

Louise Fletcher plays yet another medical type in a weird situation/overbearing matron as she did in One Flew over the Cuckoos nest and Brainstorm and she did that well. Her ambivalence between following the book and dealing with a weird truth are an easy fit for her.

Ned Beatty is there just for fun and he steals his brief scenes, Max von Sydow, the consumate professional, does his job again, giving the impression, as he almost always does in every role, that he knows more than anybody else about what is really going on. Kitty Wells, as in the original, represents the eyes of the audience, not ever sure what is going on, but knowing that something is.

James Earl Jones lends his huge presence to a strange role, and balances out Burton's burn out by being this robust character who is the light at the end of the tunnel.

And then finally, Linda Blair, who by this time, has matured from the inflicted young girl to comely confident young woman, a fact emphasized by endless shots of her breasts in various outfits, often virginal white, and she is trapped in the role that made her famous (quick, can you think of another Linda Blair Movie?) That's her true demon. And she does her best, bless her, but she's no Meryl Streep and was never going to be. Still, for all time, she will be Regan.

One thing this film did share with the original was the flipping back and forth between modern technology, the Catholic Church and ancient times. Similar to Deliverance, Boorman may have been trying to show how thin our civilized veneer truly is.

Finally, one of the recurring motifs in this film that may not have been noted particularly frequently is the image of the maze. It occurs again and again. The South American Slum that Father Lamont traverses to do the exorcism in the start of the film, the weird office lay out of Dr. Tuskins office with its strange glass walls, the strange layout of Regan's apartment with its mirrors and the balcony that seems to have two openings to walk through in a rather low guard rail that just drop twenty stories, the crevasses of the Ethiopian Church, the strange village where Lamont finally meets Kokumo, and finally Georgetown itself at the end and the original house, its always uncertain, exactly where you are.

Which pretty much sums up the Heretic, you never know exactly where you are, and that's not entirely a bad thing.

He shows up in every scene and tries to do his job, spouts the ridiculous dialogue and generally conducts himself professionally as though he were in a serious movie. I'm sure he regrets it and I hope he got paid well for it. Same comments for the rest of the cast, who do their best with this turkey.

We all keep hoping there is another "Sixth Sense" that Shyamalan will make, but it never happens.

I actually found this movie easier to watch than most of Mr. Shyamalan's.movies. I laughed out loud a number of times and some of the scenes actually had some dramatic tension which is more than you can say about Unbreakable, the Village and the Lady in the water. I wasn't checking my watch anywhere near as much as I did in those movies.

So I give it six stars because I believe in being generous and to encourage the director to make shorter films so that they are over faster.

At the same time, under all this pretentious badly executed made for TV style movie, there is an interesting idea. What if the planet did fight back against the damage human beings have done to it?

With various earthquakes, storms, pandemics and the like that we have experienced lately, maybe there is worthwhile film that would explore that idea. This isn't it. This is the equivalent spoof of end of the world movies that Airplane! Was for disaster movies,

I'm a fan of Roland Emmerich, and have copies of Independence Day, 2012, Day after Tomorrow and. Star Gate. He's a great visualist and very inventive. His plots are often (okay, usually) ridiculous, but that's alright with me. I'm there for what he shows me in his weird movie dreams.

I recently watched Midway and was impressed with that as well. Then I saw a copy of this movie in the used bin and grabbed it, I figured it had to be worth at least a watch. Nope.

I couldn't finish it. I was hitting the time check on my DVD remote after 20 minutes and after 40, I just bailed and put something else on.

I give it three stars because I didn't watch it all and there's a possibility that there was an ultimate payoff (although none of the other reviews suggest that), and because most of the scenery shots are gorgeous. In addition, the mastodon stampede is a fun few minutes, and the saber tooth tiger is kind of, sort of scary, a bit, not much. There are some huge ostrich type dinosaurish birds who show up and again, the film is alive while they are running around, but that ends too and then it's back to the wooden characters who are supposed to be ten thousand years old, but who talk with an assortment of modern accents using modern language. And the characters just do not engage you. Am I supposed to relate to them? Be fascinated by them? He could have got away with the silliness of thinking neanderthals or whatever they were supposed to be looked like Hollywood actors if he made me care about them, but I didn't and so you just look at the stupid makeup and the mugging actors with perfect teeth and skin and reach for the remote and hit the "eject" button..

In the end I had one question, why did he make this movie? Why? What was the point?

The film begins with a number of school children watching in amusement as a hill of ants consume two scorpions, one of the cleverest foreshadowing devices ever.

I recently rewatched this for the third or fourth time and I still love it. It is the only Peckinpah movie that I've watched repeatedly, I think it was his masterpiece. It has elements of every western ever made, but also has its own unique additions to the canon.

If you were to compare it to any film, the Magnificent Seven (1960) is the obvious similar, both movies involve a group of gunslingers going up against an even nastier opponent, but the difference between the two is in the tone. The Magnificent Seven is ultimately about redemption, and rescuing the villagers seems to save the souls of the seven cynical gunslingers, whereas the Wild Bunch is more fatalistic, the bunch know they are doomed and just say, screw it, let's do it.

And when you compare the two groups, I found William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, Ben Johnson and Warren Oates to be a lot scarier and more realistic characters than the super cool group of Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, James Coborn, Robert Vaughan et al in the Magnificent Seven.

In fairness, the movie world had changed between 1960 and 1969, as had the real world and that resulted in the darker tones of the Wild Bunch, but it was also the vision of Peckinpah, who seemed to understand the human taste for violence.

Bo Hopkins deserves special mention in the Wild Bunch for creating a lovely, totally psychotic character in very little time, but it is William Holden who is the outstanding presence. When he gives that cold hard stare, he out does the similar efforts of both John Wayne and Clint Eastwood in my humble opinion. Borgnine does a little bit crazy as only he can, Ben Johnson and Warren Oates seem to handle guns and horses as if they really did it for a living. Edmund O'Brien and Robert Ryan provide the secondary characters who help explain the main characters while also providing their own addition to the film.

The use of laughter in this dark movie is brilliant. Repeatedly, the group goes from a moment where they seem ready to start shooting each other, to laughing their heads off. Its all a dark joke ultimate, perhaps.

Strother Martin does the ultimate Strother Martin. There's a reason he's in so many good westerns of that era always providing his unique contribution.

The photography and editing are sublime, the opening and final shoot outs are still world class examples of total mayhem committed to film. And in the end, you are left with a film that both satisfies you and leaves you pondering its various implications.

What is good and what is evil anyway? Just a matter of degree?

Anybody who was anybody in TV comedy in 1963 was in this movie. It created the template for the road movie (lots of stunts and problems) and for the ensemble cast (everybody gets at least ten minutes to be funny). Its as dated as the cars and wardrobe, but still makes you laugh. The climactic scene with the fire truck ladders was inspired, even though now it seems as crude as a fifties sci fi movie vis a vis the way the stunts were done. Finally, as you watch it, you realize how many ideas in this movie were reused in a bunch of other films (ie the final scene is exactly the same as the Dirty Dozen). A hall of famer for sure.

I wasn't crazy about this movie the first time I watched it, but given its huge reputation, I decided to give it a second chance. I would have originally scored it with a six, but it's moved up a notch:

First the good, Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Oliver Reed and Ridley Scott and the rest of the cast and crew are all pros. The sets are gorgeous. The plot is an entertaining riff on the Count of Monte Cristo idea of the wronged nobleman returning to correct an injustice. A regular guy, like you know, Spartacus, wouldn't have the skill set.

Second, the bad. The plot is often utterly implausible. Somehow Russell goes from Germany to maybe the middle east somewhere and then to Rome all in the first thirty minutes of the movie. I hope he got some frequent flyer points. And then Russell dominates the whole coliseum sports line up after one appearance? Typical Aussie...and finally Joaquin comes up with a totally implausible plot to get rid of Russell instead of just, you know, killing him? It doesn't fall into Nicholas Cage regions of ridiculousness, but it's thinking about it.

And the ugly. Oliver Reed died during the making of this movie, and he was a treasure. Raving alcoholic, sure, but what a screen presence. I'm not sure it was a good trade for this film.

But yes, I was entertained....

Recently found a DVD copy of this is in a second hand store and decided to watch it again, not having seen it since it came out in 1981 or whenever. It's an amazing cast, but they are all slumming and mugging shamelessly. The jokes are sexist, racist and generally stupid. The stunts are so so by today's standards. Still, any movie that features Dom Deluise, Burt Reynolds, Jack Elam and Farrah Fawcett as two fake ambulance attendants, a fake doctor and fake patient trying to win a race in an ambulance is worth a watch. Poor Farrah, she was gorgeous and actually very funny, but the director should have either provided her with a bra or turned the heat up on set based on most of her individual shots. Either the best or worst of road race movies, depending on your point of view. The funniest scenes in my opinion are shown during the final credits, the outtakes suggest that the whole cast was either half wasted, or just having a really good time or maybe both.

They spent a lot of money on this, nice sets, CGI generally well done.

Problem is, they forgot to buy a decent script. In the opening credits, the screen writer's name shows up in white text on a white background, you can't really read it. Once you watch the movie, you will understand why they would want to hide their name.

For two hours, we watch George Clooney, apparently dying of cancer and in a hideously harsh climate, some how find an inexplicably located observatory, so he can warn people on a space ship not to return to earth, that is now toast for some reason (they couldn't even think up a cause of our demise) because somehow he is related to the mission and the crew. He is accompanied by a ghost, or hallucination who somehow helps pull him from freezing water so his clothes can magically dry in the 60 mile an hour winds.

In addition to the ridiculous scenes, the editing and pacing is bizarre. They flip back repeatedly to a couple who we suppose to be younger version of George's character (because he too has a beard, but otherwise bears no resemblance to Mr. Clooney whatsoever and sure doesn't have that voice) and the mood is all regret and lost love, but other than that, no idea what they are there for.

Five astronauts who have been in space for presumably years, but still have nice hair cuts and are clean shaven, join into a rousing version of "Sweet Caroline" after their ship is severely damaged in a meteor shower and three members are hanging on to the edge of the ship trying to fix it. Seriously?

It goes on and on. Every time a bit of tension builds, it gets short circuited by some irrelevant lengthy conversation between some of the actors. George Clooney is one our most beloved performers, which is the only reason his career will survive this dog. I feel most for his friends. What do you say to the guy? For this you risked your health?

This is a film for the die-hard Clooney/Soderbergh fans, its a typical vehicle for these guys, full of George looking preoccupied and full of angst (but still clean shaven and his hair is always perfect) while the atmosphere drips with the corruption and hypocrisy of corporate types and people try to kill him. Etc etc. Yawn. Its Syriana without Arabs.

Any lawyer will tell you that the idea that a law firm would employ a special someone to go around "fixing" the odd shady deal is complete horse feathers. All lawyers are equipped to do that, you don't need a specialist. And the idea that a lawyer would jump ship to go work for the other side in a law suit is also not happening. Firstly, you aren't allowed to do that. Secondly, no one is changing clients when you already have the one with the most money.

And if George is so good at keeping things under control, why can't he control his own relationship with the law firm? Why has he been getting shafted for all these years by these guys? Not so smart and tough after all, I guess.

From a structural point of view, the movie jumps around which is confusing and adds nothing in my opinion. But it does distract you from the fact that the whole thing is formulaic and doesn't make a lot of sense.

And why did he stop to talk to the horses anyway? Is that the best they could come up with to avoid his car troubles? Overrated film in my view. Best picture material? Hardly.

Go watch the verdict with Paul Newman or even Erin Brokovich for the better play on these issues.

This movie is starting to show its age a bit, and, let's face it, some of the stuff that goes down in the film strains one's credulity, but on the whole it's a terrific movie.

Stallone manages to straddle his two basic character roles in this film, the first being the ultra tough guy (see Rocky and Rambo) and the other being the regular guy put into a weird situation and trying to deal with it (see Stop or my mother will shoot). Apart from a few early scenes where he is moping around, you mostly get the tough guy and that, of course, is our preferred Stallone format.

John Lithgow is also in fine form as the villain of the piece.

The plot line is clear, understandable and plausible. The scenery is incredible, the suspense and tension consistently keeping you on edge.

Apparently Sly did a lot of his own stunts and he's in fine form.

My only complaint about the entire film is the opening sequence where Stallone and his crew of forest rangers are rescuing another ranger and a novice climber off a mountain peak. Now, on the whole, the scene is intense and works well, but the underlying premise is ridiculous. We are expected to believe that a novice climber would find herself, with no visible equipment, on top of an extremely difficult rock climb and that an experienced ranger would take her there. Then we are asked to accept that they would choose to rescue her by tethering a helicopter to the mountain with a metal cable and letting her traverse to the helicopter in a kind of bosun's chair with safety cable, all of which would then inexplicably and utterly fail. It's preposterous.

This initial scene sets up an apparent identity crisis/tension with the other forest rangers and Stallone, but the thing is, that after the first reel, there is really no reference to it at all and you wonder why they bothered. But that's a small complaint, enjoy the movie, its 90 minutes of pure escapism.

Two thumbs up from this critic.

I like John Cusack. Once upon a time, I liked Stephen King. I really like Samuel Jackson and Tony Shalub who are very competent character actors. So despite, the fact that there were stacks of copies piled up at the local video store, I decided to give this a try even though the reviews were less than stellar.

I am a human being, and therefore fallible and therefore capable of mistakes and I accept that and I accept that I made one when I paid five bucks to watch this thing. Then I made another when I actually watched it. So, to make amends for my error, and like Samuel Jackson, I am here to warn you to stay in another hotel room, do not go into 1408.

I haven't read the original story, but the thing bears enough resemblance to the Shining (which in turn was a clone of Richard Matheson's Hell House) that one can now conclude that Mr. King is now "recycling" himself instead of previous horror writers.

John Cusack is perversely fascinating to watch. He looks pudgy and burned out and apathetic throughout and that in turn is truly a horrifying thing to see for a guy who had such early promise. He is truly the haunted man searching for his lost career. I kept calling out to the screen, John, John, run.... run... get out of the movie now....

As for the visuals, no horror movie standby goes unused. Its all there, spooky noises, ghosts, the protagonist who does not believe in this stuff, blood and other gruesome stuff flowing inexplicably from nowhere, collapsing walls, weird hotel personnel, the long history of terrible events in the room and on and on and on until you completely lose track and ultimately, interest. If there was a point to it all, it got lost in the special effects.

I agree with the film's promotional material, you don't want to visit room 1408.

I caught this film on television recently and was pulled in and had to watch to the end again. I have probably seen it twice before.

"Missing" is a powerful, fascinating movie that captures the hypocrisy and hubris of certain elements of US foreign policy and the reaction of the innocent public who get run over by such policies with searing clarity.

Jack Lemmon was never better in a dramatic role than in this film, to my mind. The neurotic tics and flip outs that he typically used in a dramatic role are restrained or non existent and his performance is perfect as the upstanding citizen who slowly comes to the realization that his own country, which he loves profoundly, likely had a hand in the death of his only son. Very, very impressive performance from an old pro.

Sissy Spacek as his daughter in law is also very good. I find her utterly believable in her role. She exudes a complex blend of strength, kindness, love and cynicism without ever having a false note. Very good as well.

The two leads are important, well casted and well acted, but the movie wouldn't work without the assorted cast members who play the US embassy officials. Exuding exactly the right amount of bureaucratic indifference disguised with polite helpfulness, shady sleaze wrapped in procedural rituals and ultimately, blatant ruthless expediency, all while making casual jokes, this collection of good old boys do a perfect job and are a chilling bunch.

I note as well that the film has aged very well. The styles are 70s but the film has taken on more of a documentary feel with the passage of time instead of that 70s flashback feel you get from other thrillers set in that period.

In addition, the direction is more focused and the story telling better than in some other films of a similar nature (I am thinking in particular of Syriana).

Bravo. A great film. Watch it. And then wonder if anyone has learned anything in the 35 years since the events documented went down.