BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (1969) ****

The first pairing of Redford and Newman and quite possibly the best "buddy" film ever made.

It's a highly fictionalized account of the leaders of the "Hole-In-The-Wall" gang of bank robbers, on the run from lawmen, both in the US and South America.

It co-stars Katharine Ross, of THE GRADUATE, who was both beautiful and sensational in this film. I really can't understand why she didn't do much after taking part in two classics.

At any rate, this is a top-notch, comedy-western-buddy film that you shouldn't miss.

Rain drops keep falling on my head....

We watched The Transporter last night, about an ex-Army man who "transports" packages for bad guys, no questions asked. Until one day, he breaks his own rule and looks in the package, only to discover a pretty Asian woman. Naturally, all hell breaks loose soon after.

It started out well enough as an amusing action flick with a good car chase. As the movie progressed, the plot became sillier and more unbelievable. The chase scenes were good and the fight scenes were well-choreographed, but the storyline was stupid and full of holes.

Yeah, the plot for TRANSPORTER is garbage, and the caucasian villain....he couldn't act his way out of a bag of Doritos.

That said, the reason to watch TRANSPORTER is for Jason fuckin Statham. His fights are so awesome, and he has such masculine charisma, he (nearly) carries this movie by himself.

Yes, I agree. I liked him, and was disappointed that he wasn't given more to work with. "Wall Street"? What the hell kind of name is that for a villain?

For more from Jason Statham, check out TRANSPORTER 2 and CRANK!

Good question - it's not easy to answer, and certainly changes from director to director (as it does country to country, and year to year).

The director is the creative drive behind a film, the final funnel through which all other individual aesthetic responsibilities are filtered; the director is responsible for communicating his vision to the experts in their particular field - costume design, editing film together, lighting, etc.

Jay Rabinowitz is credited with "film editing" on Requeim. What this means is the technicality of splicing together reels of film, but also the overall rhythm of a narrative (what goes where), which involves the inclusion and omission of scenes and shots. He'll be guided by Aronofsky, who, as director, is responsible for communicating what he wants to those around him.

Martin Scorsese and regular editor Thelma Schoonmaker are a good example of a director/editor partnership; they'll both know, by now, how the other works - Thelma will know what Marty wants, Marty will trust Thelma to best get his vision across.

It isn't just editing that this applies to. Cinematographers, too, who are doubly responsible for a) listening to how the director thinks it best to shoot the film (and putting their own input in as required), and b) choosing the right lighting system to make that happen; oh, and c) communicating what the director wants to the people operating the actual cameras (if it isn't the cinematographer him/herself).

Some directors like to do everything themselves - writing, directing, shooting, editing, even writing the musical score for the film (Charlie Chaplin, for the most part, was like this). Others will fully embrace the collaborative nature of filmmaking and somehow still get their authorship stamp into the work (Hitchcock, anyone?).

EDIT: Also, I think it's interesting to note that more and more films are being shot on cheaper material now, with the move toward digital and away from actual celluloid. Film stock is expensive, and very difficult to develop and expose just right; but now that DV and HD are much cheaper, filmmakers are able to film with a lot more flexibility. In some ways, it might be argued that there's a trend now that hints at the emergence of the editor and the dampening of the cinematographer... for certain sorts of films, anyway.

But I think the holy trinity for a great film comprises of the director, the editor and the cinematographer.

(The producer, for me, lies outside the creative bounds of a film; he's more of the financial spearhead.)

Not the case, though, in which the producer controls final cut. They'll (instead of the directors) work with the editors or have the power to "make" the director follow their directions. Still prevalent now not just in studio filmmaking, but in independent filmmaking.

Agreed. Good point (you've actually brought this up before with me). Would you say it's more frequent now, though, that the director has final cut?

IMO, Transporter 2 is quite crappy. First of all, he doesn't transport anything in this movie and secondly there are a lot of ludicrous scenes in the name of action. I liked Jason Statham in Transporter and Snatch.

Thanks for the detailed answer.


Why is the screenwriter never included as a major part of the film's success? I know they have awards for them but they don't seem to get much recognition. I find it interesting that my favorite directors also write their own screenplay (Wes Anderson, the Coen Bros., Tarantino.) I think that is important because the early creative process of writing translates better to the big screen because the director knows exactly what each written scene is supposed to look like.

With aspirations to be a screenwriter myself I feel like the writers don't get much credit. Harumph.

I enjoyed it as a popcorn flick, nothing more. But CRANK and SNATCH are his best movies by far

Oh, come on! When do you enjoy something as anything more than a popcorn flick?


Many people do, and perhaps I should too. Hitchcock himself said the three most important things for a film are the script, the script and the script.

As much as I have in the past ranted and raved about how a story is secondary to the visual and audio aesthetic in which it is presented, I can never fully enjoy a film if its dialogue is shit or if the plot isn't written well.

So yeah, you're probably right. I was probably off base even saying there was a holy trinity to a film's success in the first place. Ignore that comment.

I thought he was pretty good in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Also a good movie.

AMISTAD 1/2
(First Viewing)

Rather a disappointment from Senor Spielbergo. I think what this film lacked the most was Spielberg's passion for the story. This is probably the most evident in films like SCHINDLER'S LIST or MUNICH, however, while at times I did feel for the characters, as a whole the movie was rather flat and not one actor really stood out to me.

THE ENGLISH PATIENT
(First Viewing)

How this film ever won 9 Oscars I'll never know. I haven't been this board through a 2+ hour film that takes place in the desert since I saw LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Although director Anthony Minghella did bore me again years later with COLD MOUNTAIN. I can see Elaine's point of view from SEINFELD now because I remember her hating this film too.

JUST DIE!

I hated this movie.

Glad to see I'm not alone PB

I think that it's one of those movies that you're supposed to feel guilty for not liking, as if it makes you uncivilized. FWIW, I hated it, too.

As for Amistad, you weren't at all impressed by any of a cast that included Morgan Freeman, Sir Anthony Hopkins and Djimon Honsou??

Surprisingly, nope

No question about his role in The French Connection.

While he did a really good job as Lex Luthor, I don't know that I would say that it was one of two of his BEST roles. I can list many other roles before his Lex Luthor character:


The Conversation. Defintiely One of his best.

Prime Cut.

The Poseidon Adventure.

Scarecrow. One of my favorite roles for him.

Bonnie and Clyde.

The guy was even wonderful in Get Shorty!

And how about Hoosiers?

In my opinion the man is one of the most brilliant actors out there. Definitely underated. I don't know that I can say that I've ever disliked him in any role that I've seen him play, even if the movie itself sucked.


Perhaps you feel that way because you haven't seen him in any of the movies that I mentioned above?

I disliked this movie as well. I watched it for the first time last year only because it was widely acclaimed. I thought I was missing something.

I wanted to change the channel so badly, but tried to force myself to the end, and I don't remember if I made it. In fact, I couldn't tell you how it ended, or if it ended, for that matter. The only part I remember is the Indian bomb specialist swinging that woman with a torch on a big rope with pulleys. That was fun to watch. But I can't remember the details of the plot.

You remember, Peterman wanted Elaine to see the movie...

Oh, never mind.

DC, What about The Quick and The Dead?? He's just evil personified in that film.

IRON EAGLE (1986) - **1/2

If I wrote in my review for THE LAST STARFIGHTER that the movie perfectly recreated the fantasy of the kid playing the arcade console becoming savior of the world, one quarter at a time, then IRON EAGLE is virtually an arcade video game, for better or for worse.

Back in the 1980s, when the U.S. Airforce had several real encursions with Libyan fighter planes, an American pilot is shot down over the Meditteranean Sea and is taken captive. He's tried before a kangaroo court, and is given a death sentence. As diplomatic and military hands are tied back home, and time running out, his son decides to mount his own rescue operation.

What proceeds is practically the big-screen adaptation of 1942, that awesome classic Capcom WW2 video game about a lone American fighter plane who destroys the entire Japanese airfleet, regardless of fuel or ammunition supplies.

See as a kid fly a F-16 and shames his military elders by blowing up a Libyan airbase, blast away several bogies, able to land his plane, rescue his pops, all by himself! Why did the AirForce Academy turn down his application? Maybe they simply hate Queen fans.

If we had this teenager enlisted now, I'm sure America would have the Iranian nuclear "question" solved within a week.

What surprised me though was how similar the plots for IRON EAGLE and STARFIGHTER are: A young guy who wants to escape from home to greater glories, but initially denied until they're forced upon a quest to fulfill the destiny of their heroic potential.

If Robert Preston was the wiseman in STARFIGHTER, then Louis Gossett Jr. is the meaner, grouchier, and more badass mentor. He's Ernie Hudson, but with an attitude. Oddly enough, both seem to get killed but somehow return to life by the finale.

The main difference though is that STARFIGHTER wasn't bogged down by contrived nonsense. From the whole annoyingly pointless bully angle that I'm sure inspired the emo angle in TRANSFORMERS to what the hero's friends do to make his mission happen, I rolled my eyes. I was reminded of another kids-save-parents picture from the Reagan Decade in THE RESCUE, where North Korea jobbed out this side of Val Venus.

That said, despite those problems and some scenes of the hero being a bitch with Gossett, I actually was sorta enjoying the movie. Then the immaculate rescue and ass-kicking occurs, and I lost interest. I threw up my hands when to top it all off, the kid shoots down the dictator himself.

Now some of you might remark, why be so critical with EAGLE and not so with STARFIGHTER? The difference between both fantasy concepts is, STARFIGHTER had the sci-fi escape clause. Considering the pivotal tie-in of the macguffin with the arcade machine, the hero pulling a Death Star is in lines with the arcade fantasy, which I was compelled by.

With EAGLE, its grounded in reality down on Earth and its just plain silly.

Though I have to say, its a watchable cartoon of its time...which I can't say for another goofy-aerial action flick released in the same year.

But TOP GUN will get blown out of the sky soon enough....

John Herod! Evil personified is a kind term!

He's really some actor.

Even the role as the millionare that he played in a really stupid movie called "Heartbreakers" was hilarious.

I always enjoy The Quick and The Dead. Only Sharon Stone could look that dusty and sexy at the same time. I wouldn't go so far as to name it one of my favorite films, yet I find myself watching it every time I happen to stumble on it while flipping channels.

True. I've seen BONNIE & CLYDE and most of HOOSIERS but that's about it.

SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET
(First Viewing)

I wanted to see this film in theaters but was unable to find the time to do so. For being a Tim Burton film and a musical, I quite enjoyed it. The city of London that Burton creates is quite eye catching with its use of black and gray colors. As usual, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman all shine in their respective roles.

Just seen There Will Be Blood for the third time in the cinema.

Greatest American film of the decade. It's a shame none of you like movies, though!

I'm seeing There Will Be Blood this weekend. I'm excited to see how it compares to No Country For Old Men. From reviews it sounds like it is even better, and I loved NCFOM! So I can't wait.