Reviews

See "The Last Married Couple in America" with "Serial" (released around the same time...) and you get a good idea of what ideas were floating around during the late 70s and early 80s.

Though both films are not very good and they are horribly dated (in a fun way) they reflect a post 60s hangover attitude that's interesting in light of what occurred in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan.

Many thought that the 60s was going to usher in a whole new perspective and enlightenment to the masses. The use of drugs and free love was supposed to push all people's barriers down and out and a new world was to be created. Most people may not have completely shared in that feeling but there was a strong feeling of new and better things were going to happen.

But of course it didn't. People were burned out in the 70s and reality settled in: drugs, free love...it didn't change much at all. And in some cases, it made things worse by making it all so confusing. People who thought that the 60s were going to make everything better were disillusioned to find that nothing fundamental had really changed at all.

That's where "The Last Married Couple in America" and "Serial" take their cues. Both movies start off by trying to be "risky", "edgy" and "daring" by using a lot of four letter words and pseudo-risqué sex scenes (all pretty conventional, actually). The jokes are just sitcom material spiced up with "naughty" words.

In the end, both movies end with a very comfortable reaffirmation of the family/marriage unit and a rejection of the sexual revolution.

OK...so there might be some ripe material made out of this. But neither of these two is it, especially "The Last Married Couple in America". It's another one of those lame 70s comedies like "Silver Bears" with Cybil Shepherd. These are the types of films that even when they were released, I couldn't figure out who would pay money to see them.

"Ragtime" is a very mixed bag. On paper, virtually everything about it seems right. The production values are absolutely first rate, the cast is excellent. Can't fault the direction either.

But...something's missing.

Though it's hardly a bore, there's something about Foreman's "Ragtime" that simply doesn't ring and feel true. It all feels so staged and deliberate. It simply lacks a feeling of reality. It reminds me of one of those stodgy historical films I was made to sit through in grade school in the 1970s when the Bicentennial was the rage. Those films showing America's progress were entertaining but never believable for even an minute. That's Foreman's "Ragtime". Rather than feel anything for any of the characters, the film is made out like some kind of historical pageant. Maybe that was Foreman's point but it doesn't work as drama and it never pulls the viewer completely into it's world.

"Starting Over" works very well because it's a film made for and by adults. And it's got some very funny moments.

Yes, it's got all the trappings of a typical "ROMCOM" but back in 1979, the ROMCOM formula had not developed into the hackneyed, tiresome concept that it became. By the late 90's, the style that "Starting Over" began seems to have expired (it arguably reached it's zenith circa 1994 with "Sleeping in Seattle". Whether one liked that movie or not, all the trappings of the stylized ROMCOM formula were firmly and grossly used in that one.) But I digress.

"Starting Over" works so well because of Pakula's typical very low keyed direction which allows James L. Brooks' screenplay to shine. But this film would be nothing without the cast. Clayburgh is fine but of the three leads, she's the least appealing. Don't get me wrong. She's an engaging presence in the film and it's quite understandable why Reynolds is attracted to her (except for a shower scene in which, to me, she over reacts). The hands down winners in this film are Reynolds and especially Bergen. Bergen tapped into a completely unexpected flair for comedy as a royally flaky song writing ex-wife of Reynolds. She's a gas especially in an hysterical scene when she begins singing a disco ditty ("Better Than Ever") in a hotel room while trying to reconcile with Reynolds.

Reynolds is a complete revelation. Gone is his trademark mustache and cockiness and it works to marvelous effect. He's mature, low key and completely likable. It would've been so easy for Reynolds to play down the part to the point where he appears to be sleepwalking (ala William Hurt in "The Accidental Tourist"). But here, though he's depressed, he's also alive. He's just a guy going through something that he wishes he didn't have to. He loves/likes his ex-wife and can't understand why he's the odd man out.

From a plot and structural standpoint, "Starting Over" isn't much. It's setup and resolution are standard and completely unremarkable. Aside from the wonderful cast and good writing, the film is photographed beautifully by Sven Nyquist. This Swede (who was Ingmar Bergman's chief Director of Photography) knows how to film chilly northern environments and he gives Boston in winter an appealing glow.

Oh, boy.

It's sometimes seems too easy a shot to hit a movie like "An Unmarried Woman" almost thirty (30!!!) years after it's release and on the grounds that it depicts a charmed life that is hit with a crisis like the one depicted here. But that's my case. I don't have an issue with some of the dialog which others have stated seems so "70s". I lived through that era so maybe it doesn't seem or sound so archaic to me. "An Unmarried Woman" was a BIG movie back in 1978. It received almost universal praise and Clayburgh's performance catapulted her out of her supporting roles and in into the realm of 1st rate actresses like Fonda. A lot of the praise for her is deserved.

What gets me is the depiction of her crisis while living in a pretty awesome upper east side Manhattan apartment. I'm not saying that people in the upper middle class don't have problems and issues but their depiction in a movie that is supposed to have some universal value seems superficial and ignorant. What are we supposed to think? "Awwww, the poor dear...her husband's run off and left her?" Well, she still has the great apartment, the sensitive, intellectually aware daughter for support as well as a swell gaggle of female friends to hang and bitch with. Sorry, but the movie simply doesn't cut it as tragedy at all. This woman is still able to do a lot of things AND go to therapy! And I haven't even gotten to the BIG BEAR of an artist she ends up with and then turns down his proposal! Oye, does SHE have problems that most people would kill to have! How about a movie about an unmarried woman trying to make ends meet in a lower class neighborhood in Brooklyn? Too downbeat, right? Betcha that woman won't have time to hang with her friends and do therapy. OK, how about a working class woman from New Jersery? No? Not enough fabulousness in a split ranch or cape code home? That's why it's so tricky doing a drama about people "finding" themselves amidst a personal or emotional crisis. You cannot show one person as an example of all experiences. And Hollywood tends to go to ones like these where the people are way, way better off financially than most people in these situation. The reality is that it's much easier to overcome these kinds of emotional issues when you've got $$$ as "An Unmarried Woman" so acutely demonstrates. But what it fails to realize is how narrow their view is. We're supposed to see how great it is to find oneself but the feeling I got was "yeah, it's great to find yourself when your life after the separation really wasn't that bad." The narrow mindedness of this film is almost infuriating if it weren't for the fluid direction and the good acting by everyone.

"Rachel, Rachel" received a lot of praise and recognition upon it's release in 1968. This was primarily due to the then powerhouse couple "du-jour", Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward. He directed, she starred in this character study of a 35 year old second grade school teacher (Woodward) who realizes at the beginning of the summer season that she's middle aged and, in her words, it's all downhill into the grave from here.

We've seen this kind of character study before, most notably in David Lean's splendid "Summertime" with Katherine Hepburn. Like Woodward's character here in "Rachel, Rachel", Hepburns character was middle aged (more far along that Woodward's character is to boot), a school teacher and a spinster (read: virgin) looking, maybe, JUST maybe to find love at last. The two heroines do find love in men who are amorous and good looking but alas, not available. But while Hepburn's affair was pure romance and the mood was one of sheer beauty and joy, Woodward's character experiences it as yet another painful event in a life spent too cautiously. Her Rachel is controlled and allows herself to be controlled by others, especially her shrill, domineering and demanding Mother.

What most likely made "Rachel, Rachel" seem extraordinary back in 1968 was the "frank" and "adult" themes and the composition of some of the shots. For example, the film has a full on lesbian kissing scene. It's a nicely done bit of business that must've seen way out in the late 60's when progressive film making was just making inroads in American film making. In addition, the film has what for the times must've been fairly explicit sex scenes between Woodward and James Olsen. Nothing beyond a bare back is shown but the raciness must've seemed very daring. By today's standards, "Rachel, Rachel" would barely warrant a very tepid PG-13 rating.

One gets the feeling after watching "Rachel, Rachel" that the creators felt that the character of Rachel was compelling in and of itself. It's not. The fact that she's inhabited by Ms. Woodward does make the character a lot more interesting and believable than the material warrants. Woodward is superb here. You immediately understand her character and she gets our sympathies with little or no effort. The problem is that she's such a pleasant and pretty woman that it's difficult to understand why she's so lonely or has allowed herself to withdraw so completely.

As for the rest of the small cast, Estelle Parsons plays her only friend and fellow school teacher who might be hiding more than she's letting on. She's fine but in that peculiar and "unique" Parsons way that can be both irritating (as she was at times in "Bonnie & Clyde) and endearing at times as she is here. James Olson is perfectly fine as Nick Kazlik, Rachel's first lover. He's comes across both sexually charged and adventurous. You have no problem believing that Rachel would be held spellbound by his attentions and heartbroken when she learns his true intentions. Her Mother is played by Kate Harrington who is so shrill and one dimensional that you cannot understand why Rachel would put up with her. And there's baffling turn at the very end when Rachel finally confronts the Mother to say she's going to move away to Oregon and she asks the Mother to come along with her. It's a strange and inconsistent development because up until this point, we've been made to feel that it's the Mother who has held Rachel back and it would be best to get AWAY from her.

Donald Moffat plays Rachel's undertaker father, only in flashbacks. These scenes are of little consequence because they tell us next to nothing about how their relationship possibly effected Rachel in any way. They're like extra flourishes that serve no purpose at all.

There are so many elements that are left unexplained and unexamined in "Rachel, Rachel" that despite the nice camera-work and cinematography, the film feels incomplete. Does Rachel have a fascination with death because she lived with it for so long? And if so, how is this effecting her outlook on life? Who was in the photograph that Nick showed her? Was it his son? Why did Estelle Parson's character seek God in the church? Was she feeling guilty about her sexuality? And as mentioned above, why did Rachel choose to take the Mother with her to Oregon? Was it only the small town that held her back? "Rachel, Rachel" is nicely directed by Paul Newman in an unobtrusive style. He doesn't go into any big camera effects. The problems with he film lie in the basic storyline and the sketchy characterizations. It must've seemed very modern, adult and cutting edge upon it's release. But seen nearly 40 years later, it feels very quaint, slender and inconsequential despite the fine performance of Joanne Woodward.

Worst Movies of ALL Time! Saw this twice in the early 80's on some dinky, weird station that my local Cablevision company had (channel 10) on LI.

There's just so much about this movie that's atrocious. It's a hoot all the way as the girl goes from HS renegade to killer. The sex scenes are not erotic, the "acting" is riotously bad and the music! No idea who the hell threw this crapola thing together but we should be grateful it's around.

Why more people who like BAD movies don't know about this one is beyond me!

Sometimes actors and directors work with a white hot passion that the screen almost melts in response. That's what "Thérèse Raquin", an extraordinary mini series aired in the US around 1980 or 81, has. The two leads sexual appetites are so openly displayed and animal like that everything that follows seems absolutely correct and plausible. There's such a carnality in their sex that it's breathless. When the plot thickens and murder enters the scene, it's with a sickened heart that you know all are doomed.

This is not for the faint hearted or easily offended. Yep, it's a "Masterpiece Theater" presentation but DO NOT expect the normally stuffy, stiff upper lipped Brit presented. This is more akin to "Body Heat" or "The Postman Always Rings Twice".

See it. You will not forget it.

"Scarlett Street" isn't the best looking movie around. Yes, it's "film noir" and all but it's black and white photography is very muddy and it's staged like a silent film. In other words, the scenes are kind of stagy and static.

But...it moves. The characters are vividly drawn and well played by all involved. Robinson plays a hen pecked husband who fancies himself an artist. His works are rather bad but he enjoys them. Remember that...it will payoff in the end. He meets up with Bennett and her nasty boyfriend, Duryea. It's potboiler noir all the way as Robinson gets in over his head thinking that Bennett is in love with him. Misunderstandings and criss crosses abound until someone is murdered and...well...see the movie.

It's got a neato, kicker ending that positively KILLS, it's so subtle.

I'm a big fan of John Cheever and these "3 by Cheever" episodes which played on PBS in the late 70's/early 80's were the ones that made me start reading him. OK, I was like only 14 or so but these stuck in my mind until my 20's when I began to read his stories.

Of the three ("The Sorrows of Gin" and "Oh Youth and Beauty" are the other two) "The 5:48" is the best. It's probably due to the morbid tone of the story. It involves a selfish man who carries on an affair with a woman he knows is mentally unstable. He then cruelly dismisses her from her job (she's his secretary) and acts as if he can simply dismiss her. But she will have none of it. She very deliberately stalks him one evening onto the 5:48 train home where she produces a revolver. What does she want? What does she do? Not going to tell you but I'm not sure if these "3" are even on video anywhere. If you want find out, check out the story in Cheever's SUPERB collection of short stories.

This mini-movie made of Cheever's short story is successful because it doesn't attempt to adhere precisely to every plot point in Cheever's story. Like any good adaptation, it creates it's own mood and feeling while remaining fundamentally true to it's source. That's true for all "3" of these adaptations. The same can also be said of the very, very fine adaptation of Cheever's "The Swimmer" with Burt Lancaster.

What's interesting to me about Cheever's stories is that the cliché about them being about spoiled, pampered, solidly middle class whites is pretty much completely accurate. What isn't mentioned is how these stories, and the people in them, are often macabre, very dark and at times, deeply disturbed and disturbing. These people live privileged lives but are still torn apart by passions and cruelties that have an air of savagery to them. Some of the stories are so disturbing that they feel like they'd fit into one of those old Alfred Hitchcock collections of stories. The stories are surprisingly melodramatic and never dull.

"Shattered Glass" is a tight little film that is engrossing from beginning to end. The director wisely doesn't try to pump up the story line with any histrionics or fancy camera-work. He tells the story plainly and clearly and we get the point very nicely. The cast is uniformly excellent with Hayden Christensen and Peter Sarsgaard standing out. Sarsgaard starts off wary. We're not sure if he's likable or not because he underplays him. But as the story begins to unfold, we see how decent and level headed he is and he wins us over. Christensen has the more difficult task. Play a character that, in the end at least, is reprehensible. But he also has to make it clear that there is something likable about the guy. If this wasn't the case, then the character would not have been able to get away with everything he did.

A lot of critics responded to this film by saying about the subject "so what's the big deal? Reporters lie all the time". I think they missed the point and the appeal of a film like this. Haven't we all known or worked for or with someone that gets a lot of respect and admiration but that we know (or think) is secretly B.S.-ing a lot of people? And it's somewhat gratifying to watch them fall when they're finally caught? That's the curious sensation you get from "Shattered Glass". OK, it's not the most admirable of emotions but it's the core of what's appealing about melodrama.

And that is what this film is: melodrama. And a fine one at that.

If it hasn't already happened, I anticipate it will: "The Emperor's New Groove" will become a cult hit. It's spectacularly funny. Why so? Jeez, take your pick: David Spade, Eartha Kitt and Patrick Warburton do unbelievable voice jobs. And the animators have out done themselves with the gags that just keep coming. So many of them in fact that even if you've seen it once or twice, look closely. You'll see more like the NO LLAMAS sign as Kuzco and Pacha exit the restaurant.

An absolute classic that is right up there with the BEST of the old Warner Brothers set. Those expecting "uplifting" Disney fare ala "The Lion King" will be sorely disappointed. All others will get a very unexpected and welcome surprise.

"From Russia with Love" is, arguably the best of the Bonds. What clearly sets it apart from the rest is the story line. The plot is not only coherent and clever, it makes sense and involves the viewer without going over the top like many of the later ones did (i.e. "Thunderball"). I won't go into the plot specifics. If you're a Bond fan, you know what it's about.

If not, just sit down and watch the movie and you will get sucked into very quickly.

What also raises this one above the rest is the casting. Lotte Lenya is sensational as the former Russian agent turned SPECTRE "employee". And of course there's Robert Shaw, virtually speechless and the BIG SPECTRE agent sent out to kill Bond. There's also an abundant amount of SEX in the film, though it's early 60's subtle. But check out the VERY erotic scene where Bond (draped only in a bath towel) finds Tatiana Romanov on the bed. They begin to make out while the camera reveals they are being photographed. Though the scene ends there, the implication is very erotically charged. Very daring for the early 60's.

Another poster "stole" the one line summary I wanted to use: "Match me, Sidney." Damn. It's one of the best lines in the movie. Oh, well.

"Sweet Smell of Success" is a great, wildly entertaining movie. It reminds me of "Dangerous Liasons" in both it's subject ("bad" people making life worse for more decent folk) and how swiftly and imaginatively directed it is. It's juicy from beginning to end. Burt Lancaster is once again terrific as J.J. Hunsecker, Walter Winchell-esque writer of a "society" column which is more of a tool of destruction for those who cross his path.

But it's Tony Curtis who holds the movie together. Always scheming and plotting and never letting a decent human emotion take precedence over his drive to succeed at any cost. He's Marvelous and was never again to achieve what he did here.

But there's a third star to this production and it's New York City itself. The on location photography is stunning. What is amazing is that at the time the movie was made (1957) on location filming was just becoming "in vogue". For a film like this, it HAD to filmed on location or else it's power would be substantially diluted. I work in Manhattan near where a lot of this film was made (J.J. lives in the Brill Building which is on Broadway between 49th and 50th Streets, right around the corner from me). To see what the neighborhood looked like over 40 years ago is amazing. Surprisingly, it's the astonishing on site photography that prevents the film from really feeling dated. Also, the themes in the film are timeless as well.

"Sweet Smell of Success" is a classic from top to bottom.

Glorious. That's all that can be said about "Bad Santa" or, better yet, it's more subversive "Badder Santa" on DVD. Yes, the film has it's weak moments, but they are more than compensated for scenes like the one quoted in my one line summary wherein Billy Bob Thornton screams at a soccer Mom who dares to bring her bright eyed little boy to see Santa eating lunch in the mall's food court only to be rudely (to put it mildly) berated. Everything about the film reeks of foul moods. It cuts through the bull quite effectively even when it's moving toward a suprisingly emotional ending/payoff.

Thornton has, in some of his last movies such as "Monster's Ball" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" seemed so blank as to be almost non-existant. In both of those films, it COULD be argued that he was trying for a feeling of disillusionment but the actual effect was a reticence bordering on nothingness. Here, in "Bad Santa" he's totally ON, totally ALIVE and totally GREAT. Best Performance by any actor I've seen all year. This is one film that is BOUND to be a classic.

I've read through nearly all the user comments on this film and I notice a pattern that I detected I would see after I saw this movie. People are either going to "get-it" and love it or they're going to loathe the movie so completely that they're going to feel impelled to warn others to stay away lest they get infected by it's unseemliness. Go see it for yourself and judge it for yourself.

Great cast, some of whom are wasted such as Ritter in all too brief role as a prissy (though not gay) department store manager and Cloris Leachman (doing next to nothing) in a thankless role.

I'm happy and impressed by not only the amount of comments for this film but also by the length of those who have written about "The Swimmer".

John Cheever's short story was very brief. It's amazing how Frank Perry and his wife expanded on such a short story. And what's more amazing is how intact they've kept Cheever's melancholy tone and deepened it.

When I first saw this movie it was on a rainy, dreary Sunday during the late afternoon. The mood could not have been more perfect. The overall effect after I saw it was of sadness. This is a film about a man who, in the beginning, feels all happy and full of sunshine. He seems eternally optimistic. Like those around him at the first pool, they all seem so happy to see him but sense (like us) that something is amiss. He begins to think about when he was younger and how strong and virile he was and what a good swimmer he was. Then Ned realizes some crazy idea that he can swim all the way home using his neighbors swimming pools to get there. And before anyone can stop him or get him to explain himself, he's off. And as he passes from one pool to another, we begin to see that this man is a shattered form of himself. He's suffering a nervous breakdown. His wife and children have left him and his house is apparently no longer his and is broken down and in disrepair.

The movie only uses the short story as a sort of a shell to setup the plot. Most of the scenes in the film are not in the story. The best of these is the final confrontation at the public swimming pool where Ned is harrassed by the working class families. One man who owns some kind of grocery store, begins by being friendly enough but casually begins to make snide remarks in reference to the fact the Ned's family has not paid all their bills. But the man's wife doesn't hold back and begins to openly and painfully berate Ned. Finally Neds breaks down and violently pushes her aside.

A very underrated and great film that will make you feel very uneasy. Not a pleasant film to sit through but remarkable nonetheless.

Growing up in the New York area as a kid, channel 11 (WPIX) used to show the Abbott and Costello movies every Sunday at 11:30 AM. I got to see virtually all of them. Some were OK (Buck Privates) while others were barely watchable (the later ones that start with "Abbott & Costello Meet [INSERT HORROR CHARACTER NAME]).

BUT...I have always noticed that "The Time of Their Lives" is definately very, very different from all of their other films. First of all it has a cohesive, discernable plot that isn't just about hanging the gags on. All of the comedic moments arise from and because of the plot and they work very well. And the resolution of the ghost's predicament (they were wrongly executed) is very satisfying.

It would be interesting to find out how and why this film was made because it differs so radically from the other Abbott & Costello films. Was it a fluke? Did the team seek better material? Did it simply come their way?

See this film. It's very good indeed.

`Interiors' is making the rounds on cable again so I've had the opportunity to see it once again.

Even upon my first viewing back in 1986, I found certain elements of the film over simplistic. First is Maureen Stapleton's persona a LIFE FORCE. Yes, Ms. Stapleton is more than fine in her performance. She's so natural and nice, that you know that if you were stuck hanging around this rather creepy, morbid over intellectual family, you would be delighted to have her company. But to overstate this fact by having her dress in bright red dresses and then to emphatically state things like how she thinks E.G. Marshall's house is `so pale' and then bring out a tray of hot dog franks and meat balls, everything about the role positively screams `FUN, LIFE AFFIRMING! VIBRANT!'. Ok, ok…we get it. And to top it all off, SHE is the one who literally, LITERALLY breathes life back into Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) at the end. Oye. Couldn't Allen have given his audience the credit for being able to use their brains? The second thing I found is not really over simplistic but rather underwritten. It's the character of Flynn played by Kristin Griffith. To say her role is underwritten is an understatement. It's hard to determine exactly why her character is even in the movie to begin with. She's not on screen much at all and her character really doesn't do much in terms of establishing anything related to how the family dynamic works (or doesn't work, actually) as the other two sisters, Joey and Renata, do. And worst of all is the incomprehensible scene near the end where she's nearly raped by Frederick. The whole scene is out of place. Is this the reason why her character was created? It's not a titillating scene or anything but it doesn't make much sense except to make the character of Frederick appear even more reprehensible than he already is.

Despite these two flaws, overall, `Interiors' is a fine film. It's not great but there are moments that have emotional power. It doesn't really ever draw the viewer in enough for us to feel enough sympathy for most of the characters. And though this chilliness is most likely intended, it's not necessary. I don't think Allen's film would've suffered even the slightest if just one scene of comfort and `semi' joy was seen. The closest we get is some tenderness between Hurt's Joey and Waterston's Mike in bed after she's told him she's pregnant. There's a scene between Renata and Frederick after she's had a moment that can best be described as realization of her body and soul that I feel should've been played with more tenderness. Instead the characters are forced apart by their dialogue and their supposed disdain for each other that is driving their marriage apart.

The two elements that hold the film together are the performances of Mary Beth Hurt and, most especially, Geraldine Page.

First Ms. Hurt. You could feel how pitiful she was. But more importantly, you could see how pitiful SHE thought she was. This is a person who is all too aware of their faults and failings but feels helpless to change them. As a character, Joey can be infuriating but I think most people have known someone like her: the over intellectualized person who is brainy but incapable of making any choices at all for fear of making the `wrong' choice. Ms. Hurt is very fine here because she doesn't try and make Joey easier to take. There's no softening of the character and in the end, despite it all, you feel sympathy for her. She's trapped and all too aware of it.

Secondly, there is Ms. Page. Possibly her performance is the sole reason to even see this film. Her portrayal of the deeply troubled matron of the family is staggering. Like Ms. Hurt's Joey, you might feel some contempt for her but in the end, she has your sympathies. This is a woman who through her troubled actions has kept her family in a state of turmoil for years. There is nothing more heartbreaking than realizing that someone you love is also the reason (or at least part of the reason) why you are so miserable. Ms. Pages and the film's finest moment comes in the pivotal scene where her husband, Arthur (E.G. Marshall, adequate and capable in another underwritten role) goes to a church with her and there, tells her of his desire to finalize their divorce. Ms. Page slowly allows Eve's reaction to simmer and eventually boil up to the surface. You can see her trying her best to control and conceal her emotions. As she sits in pew and he's trying to gently explain the situation, Eve's eyes dart all over the place. It's in the eyes where Ms. Page's performance lies. Her eyes look dead but it's there where you can see everything she's feeling: the hope when Arthur sends a dozen white roses on her birthday, the despair when he visits her and he gives her only a small kiss on her forehead or the torment in that church scene.

The scene in the church is so well played that I wished Allen hadn't cut it off when he did. It would have been interesting to see how the whole scene played out. But, this being a `tasteful' film, Allen ends it too soon.

`Interiors' is far from perfect but it is memorable and does have moments of real power and emotion underneath all the more shallow trappings.

This astonishing program is basically for geeks/lovers of the subject of the Eastern Roman Empire aka the Byzantine Empire. If you are just coming into this subject, a lot of what is presented will be somewhat lost on you. Mr. Romer does not elaborate on a lot of things. He tells the story of Byzantium in a fragmented way piecing bits of stories with architectural analysis and such. For example, he doesn't dwell very long or in much detail on the pivotal sack of Constantinople by the Venetians (and others) in the so called "Fourth Crusade" in 1204. The events leading up to this tragic event are long and he doesn't delve into the whys-and-wherefores so the viewer may be caught dumbstruck as to why this occurred.

What Mr. Romer DOES do well is imbue this documentary with his own sense of passion for the Empire and what it's loss meant to historians. You can tell by the way he describes the Golden Gate and the Emperor's palace that he truly loves the subject. His hand movements alone convey such a passion for the subject that he actually becomes part of the story. And he's got a great, soothing speaking voice.

If you want to know more about Byzantium, read John Julius Norwich's trilogy on the subject or the condensed version of the subject called "A Short History of Byzantium." When you watch this documentary after reading them, it will open your eyes and your senses to a whole new seemingly undiscovered world!

A great, small, simple comedy that works because of the terrific cast. And it's not only Glenda Jackson and Walter Matthau but Art Carney and Richard Benjamin. And the story actually works because all the characters are involved. There isn't any arbitrary stories. Matthau meets Jackson because she's made to wear a ridiculous head bandage provided by Carney and Matthau removes it and performs surgery on her. Carney becomes angry/upset over this and blackmails Matthau into supporting him for Chief Resident even though Carney's obviously "crack pot". Jackson and Matthau become lovers but she eventually becomes angry with him for (among other things) not standing up to Carney. That's what makes this an almost perfect film comedy: the characters, plot and situations all seem to spring naturally from the events in the plot. There's nothing forced. And the actors seem to be having a ball.

Matthau and Jackson are superb together.

Another poster had the following heading for their review of "Private Parts":

A self-serving and unrealistic look at a funny man

And I totally agree. I like Howard Stern. I don't love or idolize him like many of his fans do but I think he fills a necessary niche for people.

But this movie reeked of self promotion and an attempt to win over people (mostly women) who didn't or don't like him. This was confirmed when my wife (who hated Stern) turned to me after the movie was over and said "he's so nice...I liked it!" Oye. The kiss of death.

This movie was a big hit in it's opening weekend but quickly fizzled out. I know why. His true, core fans flocked to see it the first weekend and were put off by it's "nice" moments (all the cuddly stuff with his wife and kids...the sorrowful, thoughtful look he gets before he hits it big..etc.) This movie is NOT what hardcore Stern fans want or were looking for. Oh, yes...there's the nudity and the "naughty" Stern behavior. But for some reason, despite some of it being taken directly from the original airings, these scenes have a cleaned/scrubbed feeling to it which zaps them of their spark, fun and originality. The scenes are simply NOT funny, daring or in the slightest way dirty or daring. It does not push the envelope at all.

After the opening weekend, most non Stern fans would not go near it because they feared (incorrectly) that the movie was near pornographic and anarchic. So the film fell into a void between the (disappointed )hardcore Stern fans and the non fans.

What the film could've been is something along the lines of a Monty Python film. It needed an edge or some zippy editing to move it along.

What's amazing about the film is how completely, shockingly CONVENTIONAL it is.

"Petulia" is one of the best American films of all time. It should be ranked with "Citizen Kane" and I'm not being sarcastic.

The beauty of the film is how dated it is. Some films that "define" or capture a certain period of time very well often appear very dated later on and lose their effectiveness because of it. But because "Petulia" is so definately set in it's time period, it's like watching a time capsule. There are films which are made today that take place in the late 60's and try for that "mod" feel. But they're removed from that time and therefore can't capture the true feeling of that tumultuous time. "Petulia" captures it beautifully and integrates the 60's experience into it's storyline and structure. For example, when Archie returns from a day out with his sons and returns to his apartment, on TV there is a newscast about Vietnam. It's not overplayed or anything. It's just there as it would have been on any TV in 1968. It's carefully woven into the structure of the film.

Lester has been praised for his editing in this film and it's pretty ingenious. But overall, I found it at times a little too much. There is a LOT of jumping around in time. We learn the story of Petulia and her abusive husband and the little Mexican boy very slowly over the course of the film. It's only in the final moments of the film where we get the gyst of Petulia's neediness and of Archie's as well. I will never forget the final moment where Petulia softly says Archie's name before being putt under gas to have her baby.

A VERY 60's film. Anyone with an interest in the times and how they might've felt should see this film. One of the most underrated films of all time. Lester shows his true genius here. And like the film, he's the most underrated director. Too bad he's not making films anymore.

A very fine, smashingly entertaining film about love and intrigue in pre revolution era France. Great costumes and swift direction keep the pace fast but not overly so. We get a chance to savor everything laid out for us but not so much as to make it seem pompous as is the case with so many other "costume" dramas. The film can be enjoyed on so many levels: as comedy, drama, sex drama and tragedy that it seems to be able to please everyone.

The cast is excellent overall. Despite being rather odd looking, John Malkovich is perfect and you can clearly understand why he would be so taken with the lovely Michelle Pfeiffer whose sweet gentility hides an unbridled passion. There are plenty of men who use their style and will to compensate for their looks and manage to bed any number of fine women.

As for Glenn Close as the Marquise de Merteuil, she's perfect when she's being conniving and manipulative especially in the early scenes with Malkovich. The two have smary smart aleck behavior of school children who think they know better than everyone else. Their snobbery is both repellent and a joy to watch. The problem with Close's performance comes later when Valmont comes to claim his `reward' which is to have sex with Merteuil. Close has never presented well as a sex object even when she tries very hard to do so in films like `Fatal Attraction'. There's always this recognition that she's too smart-too intellectual-to truly give in fully and with abandon to carnal passion. And here, that lustiness is what is supposed to drive Valmont on to conquer Pfeiffer's Madame de Tourvel and eventually lead to his (and everyone else's) destruction. When he comes to claim his prize and is incensed to be rejected, you can't help but feel thankful that he won't be able to and you can't understand why he's so furious over it. The character of Marquse de Merteuil requires an actress who is both very hot and very smart. Unfortunately, Close isn't it. There aren't many actresses who truly present both. The way her character is represented in the original novel is that of an unbelievably beautiful sexy woman who uses her sex to manipulate men into getting what she wants. Her beauty and, more importantly, her sexuality and her freedom with it, is her greatest weapon. With Close in the role, it creates a vacuum because she simply doesn't project that. As odd as it would seem, the role calls for someone along the lines of Raquel Welch. As limited an actress as Ms. Welch is (or was) visually and suggestively, she's more in line with the source material than Ms. Close is. With someone like Welch, you could perfectly understand Valmont's feelings when he's rejected. What heterosexual man wouldn't want to get it on with someone like Raquel. Though a lesser version of the same material, the film `Valmont' has Annette Bening in the role of Merteuil and she's at least visually more appropriate for the role.

Stephen Frears direction is flawless. He knows just how to pace the movie throughout. It's brisk and fun in the beginning and engrossing and melancholy near the end. He stages Marteuil's humiliation at the opera perfectly and here Close is very fine as she recedes from her box trying to maintain a level of dignity and every so slightly stumbling on the way out.

In hindsight, the late 80's were Woody Allen's golden years. Even though I don't really care for "Hannah and Her Sisters" the movie has moments of great insight such as the scene where Sam Waterston, Carrie Fisher and Dianne Wiest have to decide who gets dropped off first after their tour of the architecture of New York.

Then there's "September" and "Another Woman", two of his most least seen but underrated films, especially "September".

But his crowning achievement is "Crimes and Misdemeanors." It nearly accomplishes all of his ideas and concepts of life, death and the meaning of it all with a nearly perfect balance between comedy and drama. I say nearly because, like all great art, it's not a perfect movie. Taken as a whole, it's a remarkably consistent, mature work.

Sadly, nothing in the 90's or in the 00's has even come close and Mr. Allen is nearly on the verge of being irrelevant.

I think that Ms. Farrow may have had something to do with Allen's great work during this period. She appears to be a warm and generous person (albeit a little kooky and odd) and she may have provided him with some measure of comfort and stability which enabled or freed him to grow as an artist.

Interestingly, since the debacle of his failed relationship with Farrow and the ensuing one with Ms. Previn, his work as faltered greatly.

Yep, this movie is a real stinker. For those that like it, I can only imagine what other movies they thought were good. It's not the vulgar situations that make the movie bad. It's how it's made. Poorly shot and the lame setups have no momentum to build up the potential comedic situations. It's lazy filmmaking at it's worst. Probably the most painful scene in the movie is the ludicrous musical number about a guys dick being too big. It goes on for what seems like forever. I was so embarrassed watching it that I actually closed my eyes. I did this a lot during the movie. It's painful to watch three decent actresses trash themselves in a movie like this.

But I will say this. I strongly believe that time will be somewhat kinder to this movie as it seeps into camp classic-land. In 20 years this will be the kind of movie that will be shown to define the times. People will snicker at it because it's so bad.

And what the Hell was Selma Blair thinking? Or her agent? My only guess is that she thought that some comedy would help her career. Big mistake.

This is one of the WORST movie's I have ever seen.