Psycho (1998)

Check out the pictures above. Which of our bathers seems more scared? Janet Leigh's scream will forever live in the annals of great scenes. Anne Heche's shower looks like a holiday!

Get the point? Sometimes remakes are better than the original. Not in this case. The remake is also a fairly complete re-write. No spoiler, of course, but Mama bates and our crazy man himself play distinctly different roles in the '98 version.

Vince Vaughn is always a good creep. See Clay Pigeons for his creepiest and best performance. Yet even sneering Vince could not really get a good scare going. And Anne Heche was just too laid back to be a good scaree.

Thus: Stick with the original. Don't bother with the remake.

Grade of C for the re-do.....stale and tired and not even a tad spooky.

The Conspirator

This reviewer recently panned a film that everyone loves (Midnight in Paris), but today he will laud a film that other reviewers have panned. Is David out of step with the world?

I had the great pleasure of viewing Robert Redford's masterpiece, The Conspirator. As a Lincoln and Civil War buff (I have read many books on Honest Abe and visited most Civil War sites), I must admire the historical accuracy of this film. Redford did his homework.

The story is well-known by even the I-hate-history folks: Mary Surratt was the owner of the boarding house in which John Wilkes Booth and others gathered to plan their vicious plot. Did Mary know about it? Was she involved? Did she deserve to be the first woman to die on the gallows back in 1865? These are just some of the questions addressed in the film.

But there's a greater theme that persists: Do suspects have rights even when the country is furious and seeking vengeance? The question is still not resolved: The military today seeks to try terrorists rather than have them judged by a jury of peers in a civil court.

OK, those are the overall themes. But what really counts in the film is the fine acting: James McAvoy, a little known character actor, shines as the brave young lawyer who defends Mary Surratt. There could be an Oscar nomination forthcoming for him. Tom Wilkinson, always wonderful, again proves his mettle as the lawyer's mentor. Robin Wright is excellent as Mary Surratt, sometimes arrogant, sometimes docile, sometimes guilty, sometimes innocent, always fascinating as The Conspirator.

Go back in time to another era. The film makes you feel as if you are in 1865. It's about as authentic as period pieces can get.

I assign a grade of A. A must-see. Leave it to Redford to teach such an awesome history lesson.

Lord of War

Most viewers have stars they love to hate. My least favorite? Too many to count! However, today it's my dear spouse who takes the honors: she least likes that man shown above, Nicolas Cage. So I had to sneak this DVD on screen and watch it in the wee hours of the night!

I do not share her view of NC. I thought he was fantastic in Leaving Las Vegas. This was no doubt his best work, for which he could or should have been recognized with at least an Oscar nomination. I liked him in the recent tongue-in-cheek thriller, Drive Angry. He was great in Captain Corelli's Mandolin. But one of his best roles is as a gun runner in Lord of War.

As usual, I will not give away the story. Basically, Cage plays a regular guy from Brooklyn who has a fascination with profit-making. He finds that there's money to be made in selling guns to the highest bidder.

Guns? Yes indeed. So expect lots of gunfire and some excellent action scenes. Expect sleazy fellows who buy the guns.

But expect most of all a story that is laden with ethical shading: do people kill or do guns kill? Is our protagonist justified in being an equal-opportunity gun supplier? Is there any morality in serving mankind's violent nature? Does the U.S. arm nations with any real discrimination?

There is more to this story than meets the eye. Great sibling relationship. Great portraits of bullies. Great tale of cop chasing bad guy. Great film stuff.

I would assign a grade of A-. The minus is for some required editing that was not done. The A is for a top-notch film worth seeing.

Grind (1997)

Gotta leave the big blockbusters every now and then to discover little known, little publicized film delights. The GRIND, made back in '97 (not to be confused with a made-for-TV film in '95) is such a flick.

No spoiler from this reviewer, as usual, but I can safely describe the general setting. Younger brother Eddie has just gotten out of prison for a non-violent crime conviction. He ends up on his brother's doorstep. The two reunite and enjoy the warmth and closeness of two siblings who love each other. Soon family life gets murky: both live on the edge of the law and deep down they are competitive and mean to each other.

Nice plotline!

Now add to that taut story some great acting. Billy Crudup, who has amazed audiences with his shaded performances, plays Eddie, the long-haired, edgy, amoral ex-con who returns to the family fold. Adrienne Shelly plays the older brother's wife with exceptional deftness and sensitivity. Don't miss the introduction of a young actress in her first minor role...the one and only Amanda Peet!

The headline in the photo above, "a gritty gem," characterizes the film nicely. We viewers are caught up in a sibling mess, and we wonder throughout the movie if and when the brothers' lives will unravel and spiral into tragedy.

Although I would have preferred a better ending, this film gets a A. It's got guts and staying power.

Midnight in Paris

Everyone seems to adore the latest work from Woody Allen. Wish I could join the masses, but alas, independent thinker that I am, I must beg to differ. Midnight in Paris has some charm, but for me, it lacked a good story and depth.

Here are the positives: The shots of Paris are wonderful. The scenes of the streets, bars, monuments, and cafes take us to the grand city of Europe as only film can. The background music, light and frothy, charms. Two lovely women grace the screen, as seen above. In fact, Rachel McAdams and Marion Cotillard dazzle the male viewers! OK, overall, good aesthetics. Nice faces. Nice scenery.

Storywise? Nonsense, to be sure. The general setting of a mismatched, engaged couple staying in Paris and bickering is far from pleasant...and seems to have no redeeming plot value. The time travel element? Uh, hardly up to the standards of, say, The Time Traveler's Wife or Millenium. The meet-the-past-idols theme? Maybe acceptable for viewers who say, wow, there's that lady I think I've heard of, Gertrude Stein. For more learned viewers, the interactions with past famous people lacks any semblance of meaningful dialog.

Then there's Woody Allen's voice. I have avoided the past two decades of Allen-by-Allen films, that is, movies that reflect the neurotic, NY-ish, cloying, sickening ego of the filmmaker. Hoping to find an exception, I returned to this film. Allen was all over it. Misunderstood male, pseudo-liberalism, mock idealism....it's all there again.

So I would give the film a grade of C. Just hope my readers won't tar and feather me for being so divergent from the public that raves endlessly about this insipid piece of filmmaking.

Probably worth seeing just to decide if David is right or wrong!

Poseidon Adventure (1972)

Today's generation will say, "Hey, you mean The Titanic, with Leo and Kate, don't you?" No, I don't!

Sometimes the old goodies are so darn good we end up watching them over and over and appreciating them even more! The other night, I was channel flipping to cure a bit of insomnia, but lo and behold, when I hit the old classic, I stayed up for two more hours to watch.

No one can forget the star-studded cast: Gene Hackman, Ernest Borgnine, Red Buttons, Carol Lynley, Roddy McDowell, Stella Stevens, Shelley Winters.... My kids will ask, Who????? Sorry young folks, gotta go back to the Middle Ages, the 70's, the see a real quality flick.

What hit me this time around? Mostly that the film was a morality play. Who should take a risk? When? How? If we lose a loved one, do we persevere? What role does the Lord play in tragedies? Ah, such wonderful, old-fashioned themes.

From the moment we hear the haunting song, "There has to be a morning after....", to the last moments of rescue for the brave and lucky few, the film grabs and holds on.

So forget the Cameron epic, if you will, and venture back to the original. You will be stunned by the acting, cast, lines, visuals, and ethical shading.

Wow.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

I consider the original Planet of the Apes a great American classic in film. It is iconic, innovative, and darn fun. Mind-blowing for its day - 1968 - film-goers were amazed at how far movie technology in costume and make-up had come. I remember vividly going to see it at Cine Capri with my high school boyfriend, Bill. Each time I've seen it since (I stop what I'm doing when I come across it on t.v.), I catch more and more clever details in it, and the last scene NEVER fails to give me chills.

However---every sequel to follow was crappy, cheesy, and commercial. Until now.

I thoroughly enjoyed this newest PREQUEL, and homage, to the original. Like the first, it pushes movie-making. We are now in a new era of technology. Enter Andy Serkis (not circus). Best known for his digital Gollom in Lord of the Rings, and his King Kong, he manages to convey stunning characterization to an "altered state." [Note: Andy had his nose quite out of joint when the Academy would not consider him for acting nomination in L of R. Perhaps it's time to re-think that, or create a new category.)

James Franco and Freida Pinto's contribution? Eh. The real main character here is Caesar, the ape. Not one word of originality in story or dialogue. It also lacked the intellect of the original. But this is worth it just to watch the effects - magnificent! I adored the loving, and spare, nods to the first one that only we real fans will catch and applaud. How many did you find?

This was great fun, and I want to go back and see it again.

I leave you with an affectionate glance at what started the whole P.of the A. machine.