Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Five Star Awful
13 September 2004
Why was this movie made? Surely it was sold as a tax write-off to some sap investor. It's hard to say that a movie has NO redeeming qualities, but I certainly missed any that were here. The acting is flat. The characters are completely uninteresting. (Will poor Burroughs never get a break in the cinema world?) The story is a recycling of old Johnny Weissmuller material, and the gimmicks are just tired.

There must be a venue for Casper Van Dien somewhere, but this ain't it. He looks (all buffed and shiny) and acts like a lifeguard at some Beverly Hills hotel where pretty boys hang around hoping to be discovered and showing his girlfriend the cool place where he works. Jane March is a bore, and the villains are decidedly un-menacing. Even the Cheetah substitute is a bust. Wearing Jane's clothes, come on! How old is that? And the camera-work can't even make an interesting palette out of the most photogenic continent on the planet.

Tarzan gets some primal Vulcan eco-mind-meld from a Witch Doctor to return to Africa, and, alas, we're back into a plot involving the overused 'Atlantis' myth pushed way over the edge. (Try 'She', with the not-so-boring Ursula Andress, if you want a sort-of interesting 'lost city' movie.) The special effects are pathetic, even by 1998 standards. The apes look like refugees from the Crosby/Hope 'Road to Zanzibar.' The forty year-old effect (courtesy of Ray Harryhausen) of making soldiers out of bones suggests that the makers of this film were completely bereft of original ideas of what to do next. When Harryhausen used this device in his pioneering efforts back in the sixties, he had the stunning scores of Bernard Herrmann to back up the effect-sticks, percussion and muted brass clicking a menacing little jig as the skeletal soldiers fought Jason or Sinbad. This movie tries this trick with nothing visually or musically to underpin it. It is just sad padding.

Supposedly some of the 'violence' was removed so that younger kids could see the movie. Unless they had been raised in a cave, even they would know what would happen when the bad guy tried to sit in the throne-it happens every time the villains get their comeuppance in an Indiana Jones movie.

I regret to say I paid money to see this movie in its theatrical release. When I saw it again on cable, it was every bit as bad as I remembered, if not worse. If this is 'a new Tarzan for a new generation', then it is a generation missing a chromosome.

'Danger, Will Robinson! Avoid, Avoid!.'
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rebecca (1940)
Haunting atmospheric treasure SPOILER ALERT
2 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
It seems almost superfluous to add to the many laudatory comments this movie has received on this site, but I feel a need to lay some tribute at the altar of this wonderful piece of classic cinema.

If you haven't seen the movie, there may be a couple of SPOILERS in this review, but hopefully also some new insights in compensation.

As many have noted, the cast is uniformly excellent: the annoying social snob Edith Van Hopper(Florence Bates), Gladys Cooper's kind, sisterly Beatrice, the eerie Mrs. Danvers of Judith Anderson, Olivier's distracted yet explosive Maxim, George Sanders' snide, oily Favell and especially the oft-times underrated second (but unnamed) Mrs. DeWinter of Joan Fontaine.

Although not entirely faithful to the Daphne Du Maurier novel, the screen adaptation preserves the haunting ambiance of Du Maurier's work. Rebecca, though never seen, is clearly the central character, but we learn about her all through indirection in the dialogue of the other characters. We are allowed to create her piece by piece in our own minds, which just adds to the engrossing, I-can't-stop-watching, thrust of the movie.

The character who actually tells us the most about the real Rebecca is Mrs. Danvers. The erotic attachment of this character to Rebecca is subtle, yet unmistakable. The wonderful scene in which Judith Anderson shows Rebecca's bedroom to Joan Fontaine is breathtaking in its suggestiveness. The West Wing, 'the only room that looks down across the lawn to the sea' has become Mrs. Danvers' private temple to Rebecca. Her loving preservation of Rebecca's possessions, her sensual handling of Rebecca's underclothes, of her diaphanous negligee, of her glamorous furs and then Anderson's almost hypnotic miming of brushing Rebecca's hair as Fontaine sits at Rebecca's dressing table all make this scene an unforgettable sequence. Anderson's acting is absolutely miraculous. She achieves her character with hardly ever a change in her affect, except where a very slight contrasting up tick in energy transforms her in the West Wing scene and in the scene where she coolly suggests that Fontaine leave-by means of a precipitous drop out of the window onto the rocks. It is a performance which I doubt could ever be duplicated.

As we later learn of Rebecca's moral character, it also seems that Mrs. Danvers was as much in love with Rebecca's corruption as she was with the woman herself. 'Danny' in a way becomes the embodiment of Rebecca's cold malevolence which still lingers in the mansion.

Joan Fontaine could hardly have been better. She, of all the characters, evolves through the movie. She moves in a seamless line from the pitiful, beleaguered companion of Mrs. Van Hopper to her drowned rat arrival at Manderley to the self-assured and supportive wife Maxim wanted and needed. What I found fascinating about this transformation is the imaginative skill of the costume designer. At the beginning, Fontaine's shy little character is dressed like she made terrible selections at a Macy's basement sale. Later as she tries to fill the role of the 'great lady' she believed Rebecca to have been, her clothes always appear too big and totally out of character. Note the black evening dress with the absurdly large flowers across the front and especially the overwhelmingly outsized Garden Party gown she tries to wear to the costume ball. After she learns the truth about Rebecca from Maxim, discovering that he actually loves her as much as he hated Rebecca, Fontaine's costumes become trim, conservative and tasteful, befitting the genuine, grown-up woman she has become.

Fittingly, the final scene belongs to Anderson-the frustrated woman robbed of her goddess--who brings the movie to a thundering operatic finish.

Although Selznick and Hitchcock repeatedly clashed over this move, it remains a deathless tribute to both men. This movie never loses its fascination and bears repeated watching, each time weaving its wonderful spell anew. It is a must-see, again and again, classic.
46 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Quirky genius. quirky movie
28 August 2004
Many Objectivists (Rand called her philosophy 'Objectivism') I know cringe when this movie is mentioned. It's not hard to see why. This movie reflects many of the odd paradoxes so characteristic of the author--breakthrough genius combined with an idiosyncratic Old World conservatism.

Since Rand adapted the movie herself, one might have hoped for more. Rand knew how to condense her novel, but her sense of dialogue, as in her novels, is just weird. Although as a descriptive narrator her mastery of English (her first language was Russian) is absolutely brilliant, she always seemed to have a tin ear for idiomatic American speech. One gets that odd feeling of listening to a Greek tragedy, where every cadenced line seems to have transcendental meaning. (Listen to other women screenwriters of the day like Ruth Gordon, Dorothy Parker or Claire Booth to hear the difference.) And there is no question that adapting a novel of ideas to the demands of a movie is a daunting task. Clearly in this case it is one that Rand should have left to a more experienced and more removed screenwriter, but she was always very protective of her ideas and never really trusted them in anyone else's hands. That Rand was always so 'on message' with her script probably accounts for some of the strangeness of the movie. Nonetheless, like a bird with a broken wing, it remains a sentimental favorite for me.

In many ways the movie feels like more a reflection of Rand's personality than a dramatization of her novel. The high contrast black and white mirrors Rand's own moral absolutism as does the highly stylized dialogue. Even Franz Waxman's wonderful score seems to reflect the 'take no prisoners' atmosphere of the script. Patricia Neal's Dominique seems the complete overwrought personification of 'myself in a bad mood' as Rand once described the character. The operatic gestures, the turning on a heel exits, the intellectual one-liner put-downs, the moral outrage are all vintage Rand. I think it is all this that endears this movie to me, despite its numerous flaws.

And flaws there are. Both Cooper and Massey are too old for their parts. Rand was insistent on Cooper despite everything, even when it was obvious to her that he just didn't get her philosophy and was unable to deliver her message in an emotionally or dramatically meaningful way. Robert Douglas' Toohey is much too strong for the rest of the cast (though a tribute to this fine actor's skill). Rand had wanted Clifton Webb for the part, but the studio was afraid the role would tarnish his cranky heart-of-gold Mr. Belvedere image. (To see what his Toohey might have been like check out his performance as Elliott Templeton in 'The Razor's Edge'.) Another choice might have been George Sanders, whose sly Addison DeWitt in 'All About Eve' gives a glimpse of what his take on Toohey might been. What the movie lacks most though is a sense of Rand's evocative, descriptive storytelling (her strongest asset), which gets replaced by her relentless, stilted (maybe even corny) dialogue (her weakest).

For those who want to see one of Rand's works done well on film, find the Italian version of 'We the Living.' Made, ironically, in Mussolini's Italy where his minions thought that it was just an attack on Russian communism (Italy's enemy at the time). Italian audiences saw right through this and realized that it was as much an attack on Mussolini's fascism as it was on communism. Once Mussolini's dim-witted stooges realized this, they immediately pulled the film. The movie itself (called 'Noi Vivi') is beautifully made, telling Rand's story in an emotionally gripping way, with the young Alida Valli and Rossano Brazzi stealing your heart.

As for 'The Fountainhead', if you're interested in the story, read the book.

If you're interested in the Rand persona, then go ahead and see the movie. Oh, see it anyway! You might find its quirky charm appealing.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Misses by a mile
26 August 2004
I read Heinlein's novella years ago and thought it was a pleasing yeoman piece of work with good cinematic elements, though certainly not Heinlein's best.

What's bad? the acting! As Dorothy Parker once commented about an actress "She runs the gamut of emotions from A to B." Double ditto here! The twisted storyline and perpetually immature characters make a hash out of Heinlein's simple story. The unresisting imbecility of thinking that a fascist society could be technologically advanced. (Heinlein would be with me on this one.)

What's good? Great special effects and battle scenes. Casper Van Dien's derriere.

If you want the spirit of the Heinlein story of Space Grunts battling evil bugs see James Cameron's "Aliens." At least in that movie you actually care what happens to the characters. In "Starship Troopers" you could care less--but not much.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed