mrow Reviews

The Aviator (2004)

Slick & modern but animation effects were over the top.

[8/10 · 27 December 2004]

Today we saw The Aviator, in a full house. I liked it. I knew it would be long, though I did not warn my wife about that or she would not have gone (don't tell). The story moves right along for the most part - - the cutting is very good (as expected) but I feel Mr. Scorsese could have lost 15 or 20 minutes easily, with no loss of story. I also appreciate the reluctance to do so. I am, however, a little frayed with overly used digital special effects, and I do wonder how an old school Scorsese-type would be persuaded to choose this path during the storyboard process. I feel we are now crossing the line, with directors choosing this method over other available effects. The process is just not 100% right. The impossible "camera" angles are distracting (to my taste, irritating), violating all sorts of physics laws which causes an observant person to instantly question the process of placing animations in serious films, and it therefore becomes a dead giveaway: he knows he is viewing a cartoon. It reminds me of the early days of S-T-E-R-E-O, very few younger people would understand this concept. I think James Cameron gets it but who knows for sure. Digital animations were probably required for this; I am suggesting that some moderation of it and additional use of models might make sense.

This would be my prime criticism then, that the effects are in your face; they are anything but subtle in certain scenes. This was true with the other film I saw this weekend (The Flight of The Phoenix), there's relatively little in the way of special effects differences between them. I am witnessing this on an increasing level. All that said, The Aviator visuals are nonetheless impressive (some great plane crashes), and the storytelling, though very good, is artsy. I give the effort a must-see, on balance. This film looks very modern but handles the period feel with brilliance; it is indeed slick. The score and adaptations (Howard Shore) are fitting but not something I'd want to own beyond a possible DVD of the film itself, later on. And you have this: after seeing the film, there is little doubt in your mind who Hughes was, or what sorts of things cranked his gear. -- Don Forbes

How the West Was Won (1962)

HTWWW at the Cinerama Dome in Los Angeles

[9/10 · 19 September 2003]

It was a good payoff; the print was as perfect as could be expected and the Pacific Cinerama theater is in top form. Seating was fine (it's reserved, so you know ahead where you'll be. Because you're looking at three separate 35mm projections, the sum total of the three result in a very large, clear and bright picture, just as good as a 70mm film, and perhaps better in some respects. The prints were vivid and sharp.

At the Dome, a theater executive came out to discuss the film and the theater history with the audience just prior to the start of the picture; he spoke for 10-15 minutes discussing the pros and cons of the process, why it wasn't practical to continue making films this way etc. One of the plus aspects is that with the small lenses they used, the focus was fixed and any object from 2 ft to infinity was always in focus (therefore, all the scenery was sharp except for certain single-camera and process shots). One of the downside aspects is that extreme closeups are not possible in Cinerama, and he said that the directors hated that. Then he tells inside trivia about the film, how it includes about a minute of footage from two other films (one was The Alamo) because the scenes fit perfectly in the storyline. He also mentioned that back in the 1960's it took 5 people to run the show: three projectors, the 35mm sound projector and one master projectionist - total of 5. The gentleman said that today, with all the modern technological improvements, they were now able to produce the identical result -- with just 5 projectionists! In other words, nothing had changed. Another reason the process could not survive. Got a big laugh. He then introduced each projectionist to the audience.

Anyway, the whole thing came off without a hitch and I had forgotten much of the film's vivid details and incredible scenery, so it was very much like seeing it for the first time. I had not seen it in Cinerama ever, and when I did see a blended 35mm print in a local Edwards theater back in '64, it was somewhat of a disappointment. The magnetic 6-track sound was on still another 35mm film strip, so 4 separate strips are actually required to comprise the presentation). The sound was fine - clear and sharp - with lots of separation in the six channels, but it was not as boomy as the sound we hear in today's pics. For anyone interested in what it might have been like to see a state-of-the-art presentation in the early 1960's, this presents a magnificent opportunity, and the film is a trip. --- DFR

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

To re-visit your childhood

[10 September 2003]

I first saw the film at age 15 in Pacific's Cinerama Dome (Hollywood) along with many others about my age, I'm sure. The film premiered there. I had never seen anything like it but later when I recounted the experience to friends who did not have the opportunity of seeing it in that grand theater and the 70mm state-of-the-art presentation but rather in the local 35mm movie house (the best Orange County had to offer at the time), much of the impact was lost. I am sure my hapless storytelling ability didn't help. Anyway, this is definitely a film that needs the big screen presentation for the larger than life stars and storyline. Now finally, IAMMMMW has been restored and so has the Cinerama Dome - better than ever, so they say - and the two are once again going to be brought together (this October), including the long missing yet infamous police-calls intermission. Yes, the film is slapstick and corny and maybe some of the shtick won't quite work in today's truly Mad Mad world but I'm still betting audiences will once again roll in the aisle as they did for a brief time in Hollywood, 1963. I will send in a report.

The Truth About Charlie (2002)

A surprising treat

[10/10 · 19 July 2003]

We Rented The Truth About Charley on DVD. The flip side of the DVD is a clean bright copy of Charade, so you get two for the price of one.

I liked the film, and would recommend it. The reviews were unnecessarily harsh. The Portman score was original and although not my kind of music, it worked very well for the film, and very nicely showcases Portman's versatility. The cast was fine, even Wahlberg who is not my favorite lead, is good in the film. Tim Robbins is just great as Bartholomew (with a wonderful "end"), and the other players seem well up to the task. To judge the film, one must simply set aside the original and concentrate on whether this film works or not. I think it works ok. Am sorry we didn't see it on the big screen, but the DVD isn't bad. Some terriffic shots of Paris in it, a bonus. Demme gives the flick some flair and the overall "look" is original enough, I'd say. The mini-documentary about the making of the film is entertaining and not too long. I also viewed about 25 mins of Charade to re-familiarize myself with the material, and though I had also recently seen the film on AMC this version was more pleasing, of course. The players in the original are mostly legends of course (both the black hats as well as the whites) and I suspect that the comparisons were maybe too intense, I dunno. There were enough storyline changes to keep it interesting, including a French actress (Christine Boisson) as the police Comandant instead of a male lead and Lisa Gay Hamilton as one of the villains. I was not sure at first about Thandie Newton in the lead role but this also was probably a good call. The insertion of Charles Aznavour as himself is rather clever and seems successful enough as a musical bridge of sorts. Others might disagree. There is so much junk out there in film-land these days, this flick was a pleasant surprise.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

An entertaining film

[8/10 · 29 December 2002]

Just a short piece about "Catch Me.." (no spoilers here). I think Leonardo C was correctly cast. They needed someone who could pass for age 18 but also who was pretending to be 8 or 10 years older, as the featured main-character/con artist. He does look awfully young, but I think it came off ok. The understated score was by Williams (no surprise) but was very different from other works he has done, and generally works well for the film. It is as unlike the score for Harry Potter as night and day, and does demonstrate Williams' versatility (although Schindler's List has long since put any concerns in that area to rest). I was not able to identify the composer prior to seeing his name, momentarily wondering if it might possibly be Dave Grusin or perhaps J. N. Howard or even Howard Shore. The director is an excellent storyteller, but I am left wondering how others might have handled certain treatments. There was good audience reaction and I would imagine it will continue to do well at the box office. I would like to find out what the budget was, but for dart-throwing fun I would guess it at $75mil. Tom Hanks as the hapless FBI agent-in-charge is entertaining as well, and Christopher Walken also has a good part in this. I would imagine that I will see this film again, sometime.

Red Dragon (2002)

Entertaining film, but I think Norton might have been miscast.

[7/10 · 27 October 2002]

Since my only reference point for this film was "Silence of the Lambs" (I did not see the original "Manhunter")I felt that it would provide a good overall film fix and it did. Oddly, although I enjoy Ed Norton's work, I didn't think he was right for this particular part of Special Agent Graham. There are a number of male leads who could have done it more convincingly and to me he just seemed unnatural in the role. Even his reading seemed stilted. Conversely, Feinnes was excellent as Dolarhyde (Oscar stuff) and I was wondering if the roles should have been switched, as I believe Feinnes could have done equally well in the opposing role. Feinnes would probably disagree. I usually do not have a bone to pick with casting; the people who do it are usually quite able.

Other than hearing the brief remarks of Ebert and Roeper, I have not read any real reviews of the film and do not know if this was noted by anyone else. The film itself was fine and worked just as it should. Anthony Hopkins seemed to be enjoying the part a little too much but I would have to go back and compare his earlier versions of Lechter to verify this. I had to laugh when, in one particular scene, Feinnes' cleft-lip prosthesis appeared as though he had a very bad head-cold. In other scenes, it was completely convincing. Nitpicking aside, this was an entertaining thriller and I would recommend it on that basis alone.

Lewis & Clark: Great Journey West (2002)

Wonderful adventure

[9/10 · 21 September 2002]

You get a sense of the adventure watching this 70mm presentation, I felt I had a small feeling of what it may have been like to participate in it. The narration is excellent and it is beautifully photographed. The print I saw, at a Regal (formerly an Imax) theatre, was worn and jittery and for this I paid $9 but it was still a great adventure.

Windtalkers (2002)

I was disappointed

[23 July 2002]

Just a brief review. I expected more of this film, and I fault Woo's direction for not giving us more. There is such a story to tell about the Windtalkers, and he hardly told anything. The action was convincing enough but I wondered about some of the characterizations. Actually this was just an ordinary action film under the guise of telling the story of the Windtalkers. I guess I was just expecting more of a story, and a little less of the noisy action.

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)

A far more plausible "Red October"

[9/10 · 21 July 2002]

I found a world of difference between the more plausible rush-to-launch K-19 and the finely-honed state-of-the-art Red October in the fictional Clancy novel/screenplay. It's Das Boot, updated and with a Soviet bent. I felt there were excellent performances by all concerned; I could not find fault with any of them, nor with the direction. Some of the cinematography was downright clever, helped along I suppose by newer, lighter camera designs. However, digital water abounds.

Nicely made, but it would have benefitted (sorry, just my opinion) from a more prominent mainstream composer like Horner or Zimmer. But the Klaus Badelt score works acceptably well, if slightly aimless in the early scenes. Few would have noticed, but the Soviet National Anthem is conspicuously missing (there was a scene where it definitely should have played, at the launching of K-19) and I am wondering about some sort of political disagreement with regard to a sign-off on that. The title music is patterned after the anthem, and most likely that is no accident. I did not realize permission was required to use an anthem, so am quite curious as to the nature of the back story. I cannot think of a good reason why the melody would not have been used.

This is a suspenseful film which I feel finds balance in most if not all aspects of the storytelling. Factual, but "some of the names were changed to protect the innocent" sort-of-thing. Certainly there will be disagreement, as the subject matter is so charged with political issues and personal feelings. The portrayal of this incident fits well with all that I know of the facts so far, and of the Soviet military and economic system in general and the politics of the day. Years ago, scenes could not easily be filmed in Russia. That has changed, and the result is refreshing. One of the best films I've seen this year.

The Time Machine (2002)

First half is best

[7/10 · 2 April 2002]

I especially enjoyed the early scenes and treatments in the film. But it does seem as though a different, less maniacal re-write of the latter part of the story might have made for a more enjoyable experience overall. Certain aspects of this effort are very clever and overall I'd recommend seeing the film, and particularly in a theater rather than on video.

The Majestic (2001)

A film you can see, as compared with some you shouldn't

[6/10 · 25 December 2001]

I almost skipped the film altogether since Kenneth Turan had given it a pretty bad review, and I don't care for Jim Carrey all that much anyway. Turned out it was O.K., fortunately Ebert and his buddy had reviewed it as well and both given it a "Thumbs Up." It's pretty clear to me now that Turan does not get it, I think he kind of misses the point of it all.

There are a lot of really bad films out there, this was not one of them. I am no Carrey fan by any means, I tend to avoid his films although I am still curious about "Grinch" and eventually might like to view it, who knows. But Carrey did not bring any harm to this film, that is the point I wanted to make. His part could have been played by any number of currently-available male leads; he played it about more-or-less the same as any of the others would have. The rest of the film works reasonably well, Rifkin & Holbrook (in the McCarthy-esque hearings-backdrop) have decent parts in it and Landau has a more significant role which he carries off competently. It was nice to see James Whitmore as well.

I just don't get it with Mr. Turan. Seems like his standard is awfully darned high if you ask me. Seems to me his job is to help me get to a weekend film I can be OK with, not to one where I walk out shaking my head, saying, "why did I bother?." Regarding the storyline in the film, I'd bet most of the younger audience has no concept whatsoever of the McCarthy era, and at the very least this thing serves as a vehicle to introduce their vacant minds to it (Mom, what's a communist?). Regarding trains used in the film, there are a couple of errors, kind of amusing.

I can understand Mr. Turan's criticisms in a broad sense, some of the individual points he makes are valid. Still, he seems to discourage the movie-goer and I just feel that it was a worthwhile film-fix for the most part. ----- Mrow

Midnight Run (1988)

A real gem

[10/10 · 23 November 2000]

An excellent Robert DeNiro comedy is Midnight Run and it makes my own top ten list for action-comedies. Midnight Run is one of the very few films which I have seen several times. Whenever it's on television, I usually see several minutes of it just to see the acting again. It's also a gem for admirers of Yaphet Kotto, John Ashton and Dennis Farina. Maybe it will not hit you the way it did me, but I just loved it. Seeing the uncut version beats the commercial broadcast version, big difference.

The Contender (2000)

Am surprised it was made!

[9/10 · 16 October 2000]

Thank goodness, finally a film which doesn't appeal to the Jerry Bruckheimer crowd. A terrific political drama, well-crafted and acted. A faster pace would have been welcome but all in all this is the kind of film I wish we could see more often. I was a little surprised it was even made, given the climate we have in Hollywood.