Sherlock Holmes purists have long criticized how the legendary sleuth has been portrayed on screen. There have been Holmes movies since the early silent era, but for generations, most people equated the image of the detective with the 1940s Universal film series starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Scholars of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels ridiculed the series, primarily because the action had been moved to contemporary times to allow Holmes and Watson to battle the Nazis. The main criticism was that Bruce's loveable but bumbling Watson made a mockery of the sober image of the sidekick found in the novels. Now, however, those Holmes purists will likely perceive the next big screen incarnation of the stories to be the work of the evil Prof. Moriarty: Will Ferrell and Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Borat) are teaming to bring the adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Watson to the big screen in a broad comedy from the team that created Talledega Nights. Holmes stories have been fodder for satire before. Peter Cook and Dudley Moore starred in a 1960s version of The Hound of the Baskervilles (the most filmed story of all time, by the way); Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley starred in Without a Clue and George C. Scott toplined director Anthony Harvey's bittersweet comedy They Might be Giants about a man who suffers from the delusion he is the master detective. No word on specifics regarding the Ferrell/Cohen script, but when it comes to the dialogue, you can rest assured it will be elementary. For more click here

In an interview with MTV.com, Clint Eastwood discusses his involvement with Dirty Harry, confessing he only recently saw the film on the big screen again for the first time in 37 years. He also said he's only seen it one other time - ten years ago when he showed it to his wife on laser disc! He reflects on how he took over the role from Frank Sinatra, who was supposed to star in the film and how the original script had a team of snipers on the trail of the villain Scorpio. To read click here

To order the new Dirty Harry Ultimate Collector's Edition DVD set click here

By Steve Saragossi

Remakes have with us for a long, long time. Judy Garland’s A Star is Born was a remake, as were Mogambo, Ben-Hur and The Magnificent Seven. But they were all solid films in their own right; brought something new to the stories they were retelling, and didn’t besmirch the reputation of the originals.

But Hollywood today is a big fat lazy worm consuming itself on the altar of corporate profit margins. Playing it safe has never been more of a truism than it is now. The glut of remakes that clog the multiplexes is staggering, and we’re in for a hell of a lot more. In the eternal quest for voraciously chasing the ludicrously simplistic idea of the built in audience, we are soon to be greeted with remakes, sorry, reinventions, of The Day the Earth Stood Still (starring Keanu Reeves in the Michael Rennie role. Like, Klaatu Barada Nikto, dude), The Incredible Shrinking Man (as a Brett Ratner directed Eddie Murphy comedy), and soon, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.

First of all, the obvious question that springs to mind is, why remake good films? Why not remake crap ones and make them better? Industry producers will say they want to instil an echo of the good vibe that surrounded the original, but what average 16-24 year old will have even heard of Pelham, less alone be drawn to a new version of it? Ah, hoisted by my own petard you think; if they don’t know the movie then why not bring it to a whole new audience? To which I reply, why not market your back catalogue properly and pay your scriptwriters to come up with some original stories!

But no, still the remakes come, and so we’re in for Tony Scott’s new version, starring Denzel Washington in the Walter Matthau role and John Travolta filling Robert Shaw’s’ boots. Now I have nothing in particular against any of those three individuals, but I do question all of them in pressing ahead with this, as I assume they don’t need the money and assume that they all like the original. It’s very simple – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I can guarantee you this new film will be efficient, competently acted, moderately exciting, slick...and instantly forgettable.

Today’s big action movies are generally hollow experiences devoid of much substance or believability. The bangs will be big, the quips will be glib, and it will all be terribly unconvincing.

This is all the things the original Pelham was not. Not only is it one of the best urban thrillers of the 70’s (and a crowded market that was too), but its also one of the greatest New York movies too. Right up there with Dog Day Afternoon, The French Connection, Manhattan and Sweet Smell of Success.

Its palette of characters was so well delineated, scripted and portrayed; it’s amazing to me the script wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. Aside from Shaw’s genuinely menacing Mr. Blue, and Mattahu’s wisecracking, and world weary transit cop Lt. Zachary Garber, the entire cast shone. Tom Pedi as the profane and doomed Cal (“who wants to know!”)Dolowitz; Dick O’Neill as the exasperated and politically incorrect Frank Doyle (Garber: “Frank! Will ya keep it down I’m trying to save passengers lives here!” Frank: “Fuck the passengers, what do they expect for their lousy 35 cents – to live forever?”); Jerry Stiller as the bored, seen-it-all Rico Patrone (Deadpan, to a group of visiting Japanese dignitaries crowding round his desk) :“Yesterday we had a bomb scare...but it turned out to be a cantaloupe”; the perfectly cast Kenneth McMillan as the quintessentially unflappable New York-Irish Borough Commander (Cop: “The Mayors on his way”, Commander (impassively): “Terrific, tell him I’ll hold the crowd til he gets here”); and the late great Julius Harris as Inspector Daniels. Tony Roberts also pitches in with a terrifically acerbic turn as Warren, the Mayors advisor. The Mayor by the way seems to have predicted the era of Ed Koch: Mayor: “What if the hijackers start shooting at me?” Warren: “Will you stop. They have no reason to shoot at you” Mayor: “Why? D’you think they’re from outta town?” Even the Mayors wife gets some good lines. When the Mayor can’t decide if it’s a good idea to pay the $1m ransom and save the lives of the hijacked train passengers, she offers him some pithy advice: “Just think what you gonna get in return?” Mayor: “What??” “Eighteen sure votes”.

The rest of the hijackers are portrayed by Martin Balsam, surely the only sympathetic terrorist in film history, Hector Elizondo, who manages to rub everyone up the wrong way, and Earl Hindman who is possibly the only weak link in the chain.

The strong cast is one of the many reasons this film flies. To have such a good array of actors in what is essentially a genre piece helps immeasurably.

As you can see, the dialogue is sardonic and dryly witty. The early 70s New York milieu is so brilliantly captured. Nothing is sleek or shiny; it’s grimy, dented, noisy, drab...and utterly brilliant.

The set up is audacious. Four guys, under the leadership of Robert Shaw hi-jack a New York subway train, and hold the passengers to ransom for the (then) princely sum of a million dollars. It’s not the “why” that pushes the narrative along, it’s the “how”, as in how do they possibly think they can get away with this heist? The key thing here is the characters. It’s a character driven piece all the way. The cadence of the dialogue is so punchy and poetically profane it could have been written by David Mamet. Peter Stone, who did write this, was in my opinion, never better. And from the man who wrote the screenplay to Charade, Mirage, and Arabesque, that’s saying something. Its one of those scripts that you just sit back, cross your arms and smile beatifically too.

The 1974 setting of the movie is crucial to the characters motivations and reactions too. New York was on the verge of corporate bankruptcy, and needed a huge cash injection from the federal government to avoid basically going out of business. In this context, the tattered nerves of the politicians, the constant short temperedness of the transit cops and stoic unflappabilty of the New York police is entirely understandable.

In terms of narrative drive, character interplay, the setup, score, cast, and pared-down direction (no love interest here!), the film is an absolute textbook case in how to make the perfect thriller.

David Shire’s music deserves special mention, his jazzed up, muscular and highly original take on the Schoenberg 12-tone method is a vital piece in the alchemy that makes this movie such a knockout. Its bruising no-nonsense streetwise vibe powers the film along. I dread to think what a wall-to-wall bombastic piece of rent-a-score dross the remake will sport.

The director Joseph Sargent was never better than here. A competent journeyman director, mainly in TV series and TV movies, he really knocked one out the park with this one. Not to take anything away from him, working with such first class ingredients as he had here, he could barely have put a foot wrong. The odd thing is why he was never offered anything as good again. However, one instinctively knows even the maker of Jaws: The Revenge made a better film here than Tony Scott is going to produce.

It pains me to go on making these derisory comparisons, but the makers are bringing it on themselves when they have the laziness of mind to go back to classics of this nature and think they can “do it better”. They really are on a hiding to nothing. In terms of box office, yes I’m sure it’ll make a tidy return. In terms of cinema, and its legacy, this will be forgotten in a week.

As for the original? The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is exciting, thrilling, funny, wonderfully acted, brilliantly scripted, and simply one of the best movies of the 70s. If you’ve seen it before it’s like revisiting a coarse old friend. If you’ve never seen it – leave your prudishness by the door – you’re in for a helluva ride.

Click here to order the DVD discounted from Amazon

Click here to order from Amazon UK

Since the T&A quotient on Cinema Retro's site is reaching astronomical proportions, we're throwing a bone to anyone who wants to see a gratuitously sexy photo of a guy. In this case, it's Daniel Craig, looking buff for the new Bond film Quantom Of Solace which is wrapping production for an October 31 release in the UK. (The US opening is November 7) The photo was unveiled by London's Mirror, which is keeping in the tradition of the British tabloids by sensationalizing untrue rumors: in this case, implying that Bond will marry because one scene is shot in a hotel's honeymoon suite. For more click here

1776 - Boy, Do We Need it Now

By Tim McGlynn

In a few days this side of the pond will once again celebrate the Fourth of July, the 232nd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Americans will mark this historic event with parades, picnics, fireworks displays and baseball games. In addition to the aforementioned activities, our local officials in Palatine, IL have scheduled something called the Hometown Toss Corn Hole Tournament. I don’t want to know.

With extra time away from work, many of my countrymen will turn to television for sports and movies. If I may make a modest proposal, I would like to suggest a viewing of the 1972 version of 1776. If you can pull yourself away from the umpteenth airing of Independence Day on Fox Movie Channel, you will discover fascinating and humorous portrayals of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson as they struggle to convince the Continental Congress of the United Colonies to severe its ties with England.

Producer Jack Warner brought most of the cast of the 1969 Tony Award-winning musical to Hollywood and filmed the show virtually unchanged from the stage version. Featuring stand-out performances from William Daniels (St. Elsewhere, The Graduate), Ken Howard (The White Shadow, Dynasty) and former blacklisted actor Howard Da Silva (Unconquered, The Great Gatsby), director Peter H. Hunt created an entertaining historical drama that is as appropriate today as ever.

With a witty script by Peter Stone (Charade, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three) and songs by former history teacher Sherman Edwards (Wonderful, Wonderful, See You in September), 1776 manages to present the founding fathers as dedicated, flawed and occasionally funny human beings. This is a musical that men can watch without feeling their masculinity is in question.

Boring, you say? On the contrary. 1776 is hysterical, moving and spot-on with many of its barbs aimed at a government that in 1972 was deeply entrenched in an unpopular war. John Adams’ opening monologue is as timely today as it ever was as he exhorts the Continental Congress to take action.

I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God, I have had this Congress!

Benjamin Franklin slipped one past the MPAA, and later the censors at NBC, when he commented on why he objected to being called an Englishman. The English didn’t seem to mind.

Nor would I, were I given the full rights of an Englishman. But to call me one without those rights is like calling an ox a bull. He's thankful for the honor, but he'd much rather have restored what's rightfully his.

John Dickinson, played by Donald Madden (One Life to Live, Dr. Kildare), is Franklin’s nemesis and fellow representative from Pennsylvania. He doesn’t miss a beat when he responds.

When did you first notice they were missing, sir?

Roy Poole (Sometimes a Great Notion, Network), as Rhode Island delegate Stephen Hopkins, offers to print business cards with the following message in response to the antagonistic nature of the debate over independence.

Dear Sir, you are, without any doubt, a rogue, a rascal, a villain, a thief, a scoundrel and a mean, dirty, stinking, sniveling, sneaking, pimping, pocket-picking, thrice double-damned no good son-of-a-bitch.

Adams grows impatient with Jefferson, who is enjoying a conjugal visit with his wife Martha (Blythe Danner) instead of writing the Declaration document. As he expresses his frustration to Franklin, Adams is dismayed at the old scribe’s response.

You know, perhaps I should have written the Declaration. At my age there's little doubt that the pen is mightier than the sword.

The dry humor of 1776 is also apparent in the lyrics of Sherman Edwards’ songs. As the three principals argue over who shall write the Declaration in But Mr. Adams, William Daniels confides that he, like Jefferson, is lonesome for the home fires of Massachusetts as he sings.

Mr. Jefferson, dear Mr. Jefferson. I’m only forty-one, I still have my virility. And I can romp through Cupid’s grove with great agility. But life is more than sexual combustibility.

As good as the recent John Adams miniseries was on HBO, I can’t visualize Paul Giamatti singing his way around Constitution Hall in Philadelphia.

I776 has its share of dramatic scenes as well, and it is the mark of an excellent script when tension and anticipation abound in a story where the outcome is well known. As John Adams realizes that the South will never concede on the issue of slavery, he confides to his wife, Abigail (Virginia Vestoff), that the dream of American independence may never come to pass. Their exchanges, based on actual letters, are presented as imaginary conversations, an effect that works especially well when the film is viewed in its original widescreen format. Abigail comforts her husband with his own words.

Have you forgotten what you used to say to me? I haven’t. Commitment, Abby, commitment. There are only two creatures of value on the face of this earth - those with a commitment and those who require the commitment of others. Do you remember John?

I am probably in the minority, but I disagree with director Peter H. Hunt’s commentary on the 2002 DVD release. I miss the musical underscoring that originally accompanied this scene. Ray Heindorf’s quiet, yet stirring arrangement of the duet Yours, Yours, Yours added an emotional charge to this pivotal moment that I find lacking in the new edition.

The DVD corrects a major flaw of all previous versions by restoring the excised song Cool, Cool Considerate Men. Sung by John Dickinson, it celebrates the colonies’ relationship with England and the monetary advantages that a continued association with King George will have for the wealthier colonists. This song, featured in the stage version, was cut from the film at the request of President Richard Nixon, who found it offensive to conservatives. His friend, producer Jack Warner, was more than happy to comply. Luckily, since Warner was not a studio head at the time, the original negative of this deleted sequence was not destroyed.

As far as dramatic intensity is concerned, the most gut-wrenching moment occurs when the Courier, played by Stephen Nathan (Godspell, The First Nudie Musical), arrives with the latest missive from George Washington. The troops are prepared for battle and the opposition numbers 25,000 against 5,000 of the colonists. A thunderstorm rages as the message is read aloud by Congressional Secretary Charles Thomson (Ralston Hill), his voice cracking with emotion.

As I write these words, the enemy is plainly in sight beyond the river. How it will end only Providence can direct. But dear God, what brave men I shall lose . . . before this business ends.

1776 is a wonderful film filled with bigger-than-life heroes; the kind of people we can only hope will once again lead this country. Although a tremendous success on stage, the film version was not enthusiastically received in 1972. Perhaps it was a victim of the realistic cynicism that was so prevalent in movies of the time. The last lines of Adams musical soliloquy Is Anybody There? echo both the distress of the present and the hope for the future.

Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?

Singer and activist Harry Chapin borrowed this text for his 1974 ode to generational tolerance, What Made America Famous.

Along with the food, games and pageantry of the upcoming holiday, my family and I will be watching 1776 as part of our celebration. Then, we may go to the park and check out that bean bag toss tournament with the kinky name.

Click here to order the restored director's cut DVD from Amazon

(Tim McGlynn is the author of Now Playing at a Theater Near Me)

Screen legend Ernest Borgnine is in Pennsylvania starring in a new film about a troubled WWII veteran. The 91 year-old actor has a soon-to-be released autobiography, as well. In an interview with the news site Lancaster On Line, Borgnine discusses his latest movie as well as his respect for fellow tough guys John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson. To read click here

(Look for an exclusive interview with Ernest Borgnine in a future issue of Cinema Retro)

Cinema Retro has been saying it for years, and now Radar magazine agrees: the era of the true movie star is dead. A movie star has generally been review-proof. Audiences showed their loyalty by lining up for each of their new films, which is how stars like Clark Gable, Marilyn Monroe, Charlie Chaplin, Cary Grant and John Wayne became legends in their own time. Sure, even the most reliable box-office draw had their share of missteps (Wayne did play Genghis Khan, after all!), but audiences were quick to forgive. Today, however, the lack of star power is attributed to the fact that the spotlight-loving actors of today no longer have a mystique about them. We're so bored with seeing them every time we turn on the TV or glance at a magazine cover, there's no enthusiasm for paying to see them in theaters. That isn't to say that some big names don't have occasional hits. Witness Angelina Jolie, whose action film Wanted, opened this weekend to big grosses. However, this is the first hit she's had in years and there's no evidence the audience will remain loyal when her next movie, Changeling is released this fall. The star power has been further diminished by the fact that in the old days, studios controlled actor's public images. Today, we see them slovenly drunk, mistreating their lovers, giving political lectures to the unwashed masses and other offenses. There is no glamour whatsoever. Male stars showcase their lack of class by showing up at film premieres in T shirts and sneakers. Actresses are generally silicone-enhanced robots. Studios have finally awoken to the fact that paying these "superstars" huge salaries is about as smart as opening a refrigerator store in Antarctica. Consequently, paychecks are dropping and actors are being told to share the risk by accepting a percentage of the profits instead of money paid up front.

Radar magazine has an excellent article analyzing how and why the movie star is dead in modern Hollywood. Among the observations, "Face it: The movie star as we've come to know him—an actor who can reliably put butts in seats on opening weekend—is dead, finished off like one of those nubile young counselors at Camp Crystal Lake, devoured with fava beans and a fine Chianti (ssssllllurp!), gutted in the shower, blood swirling elegantly down the drain. And there's no shortage of possible culprits." To read click here

Salvador Dali's trademark surrealism was seen on film, most notably in Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound, for which the eccentric artist received $4,000 to design the famed dream sequence. However, Dali had associations with other major films and they are celebrated at an exhibit that runs through September 15 at New York's Museum of Modern Art. There are some surprising details revealed about a collaborative movie between Dali and Walt Disney that took years to plan but resulted in only 15 seconds of footage. For details click here

Laugh all you want about a musical based on Abba songs. Not only has the stage production of Mamma Mia! grossed more than $2 billion to date, but - against all odds- the movie version that just premiered in London is getting rave reviews with the Times calling it "sharp, hilarious" and giving high praise to stars Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan, despite the fact that the latter apparently can't carry a tune even if it has handles. Universal may have a big fat hit on its hand, the one alternative to a summer filled with special effects movies aimed at teenaged boys. It's also nice to see a major movie in which the leading actors don't have zits...To read the Times review click here

Coverage and premiere photos click here

For more coverage of the premiere at London's Odeon Leicester Square Theatre, click here

A nine minute interview with The Beatles from 1964 has been found in a garage in the UK and is airing on BBC 4 today and again later this week. For the story click here

To listen to portions of the interview click here

Variety reports that the new 3-D remake of Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth is shaping up as a major financial risk. The movie's producers (including star Brendan Fraser) are banking that a generation of movie fans weened on CGI effects will still be thrilled by emphasizing real action stunts in a 3-D process that mirrors the techology from the 1950s. There are only 800 theaters nationwide that can show the film in this format, limiting the producer's abilities to reap huge profits. However, we tip our hat to them for daring to go against the grain and remind viewers there was a time when real people were the driving force behind making action movies a thrill to behold. The flick opens in the USA on July 11.

Click here to visit the movie web site

For more click here

Paul Krassner, publisher of the counter-culture magazine The Realist provides a heart-felt tribute to his friend, comedian and actor George Carlin, who passed away last week. Behind the wiseguy image, Carlin was a low-key man who never turned down a fan request for a chat, a photo or an autograph. He emerged in an era when saying the wrong word on stage would result in your arrest, and developed from doing comic schtickon mainstream TV shows to creating groundbreaking standup routines in which he commented on world events and trivial thoughts such as wondering why recreational drugs aren't available in suppository form.

To read click here

MSN has premiered an exclusive teaser trailer for the new Bond film, Quantum Of Solace. After the trailer, keep watching, as there are bonus videos and interviews. To view click here

In an interview with The New York Times, George Lucas candidly- if reluctantly- defends his obsession with the Star Wars franchise and why he is developing an animated feature films and TV series based on the legendary stories. Lucas addresses criticisms that he's become a "one trick pony" by not developing a more diverse body of work. There is evidence that the franchise is becoming over-saturated and even die hard fans are questioning the wisdom of bringing so many projects to the marketplace. The Cartoon Network  had to be persuaded to buy the forthcoming animated TV series, when a few years ago the property would have initiated a bidding war. "Star Wars is a sandbox I love to play in", he says. He loves making movies and admits to hating promoting them. The article also features comments on his work and career from Steven Spielberg and Francis Ford Coppola, whose recent lack of successful films is cited by Lucas as evidence that his name alone won't bring customers in to commercially unviable projects. To read click here

The web site IGN has posted an in-depth review of the new comic book based on the Sergio Leone/Clint Eastwood Man With No Name trilogy. The bottom line: mixed results. Reviewer Dan Phillips says it's an admirable attempt to capture the essence of the series but has doubts it can be sustained over numerous issues. To read the review click here

We like Will Smith - hell, it's almost unpatriotic not to. In an era in which there are precious few genuine movie stars, he's the real thing. However, his box-office drawing power will be put to the test with the July 1 opening of Hancock, which casts Smith as a cranky, reluctant superhero who is straight out of rehab. The trailer is awful and if early reviews are any indication, so is the film. Smith can be counted on to bring in a huge opening weekend gross, but if audiences are lukewarm to the movie, they may desert it just as Arnold Schwarzenegger's fans did with his bomb, Last Action Hero. To read Variety's review click here

Pixar had a company opening day record with the release of the animated film Wall-E which took in over $23 million, beating both the previous record holders The Incredibles and Finding Nemo. Angelina Jolie finally had her first live action hit since Tomb Raider with the release of the action film Wanted which took in over $18 million on opening day. For more click here

CINEMA RETRO'S EDITOR-IN-CHIEF BRAVELY GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN AND TAKES ON THE NEW HIT MOVIE VERSION OF GET SMART

When I finally caught up with the new Get Smart feature film that is doing sensational business in its opening week, I couldn't help but think of Orson Welles and Citizen Kane. You read that right: Orson Welles and Citizen- FRICKIN'- Kane. I asked myself how Welles directed, wrote and starred in that masterpiece at age 23 while it took two screen writers and countless millions of dollars to turn out Get Smart - especially since the movie is so needlessly convoluted that within five minutes I couldn't even remember what the main aspect of the plot was about. First the good news: this isn't a disaster in the way that most other big screen adaptations of classic TV series generally turn out to be. That's about the only good news. Aside from some inspired casting choices, the film is a dud and will best be appreciated by young people with little knowledge or interest in the fact that it is based on a far superior TV series. The movie is clearly catering to the tween set, with plenty of gross-out jokes and sexual innuendos - but it only illustrates how low family film entertainment has gotten when such elements are the norm. Steve Carell plays the role of Agent 86, Maxwell Smart - a character immortalized by Don Adams. Carell is adequately cast. He looks square enough to have stepped out of a time warp but he plays the role in a deadpan, understated manner that contrasts with Adams' shrill, high profile style. The result is that Carell is overshadowed by virtually everyone else in the movie. Not helping matters is the fact that Smart is, well, too smart...There is precious little of the bumbling antics of the TV Maxwell Smart, who, in Clouseau-like manner, managed to crack every case by sheer happenstance. The TV Smart wasn't an idiot, just a klutz, but the Carell character is actually fairly competent, which deprives the film of many potential pratfalls and belly laughs. There are the cursory nods to the show's iconic images: the Cone of Silence (not nearly as funny as when utilized on the series), the telephone booth, the old shoe phone and the red Sunbeam convertible (creatively worked into the story as part of a museum exhibit). There are also several outright homages to James Bond films: a dress tearing tactic right out of Licence to Kill and an extended sky diving battle that emulates Moonraker to the point of including a villain with a remarkable resemblance to Richard Kiel's Jaws. The latter sequence is exravagant and ambitiious, but - God forgive me for actually saying these words - the scene in Moonraker was better! There is also a tasteless bathroom gag that is taken virtually verbatim from the first Austin Powers movie, but it barely works here because of the leaden direction of Peter Segal. His track record is pretty thin, but he direct the final Naked Gun film (though the weakest of the trio) and the very underrated comedy My Fellow Americans that paired Jack Lemmon and James Garner. However, he also directs Adam Sandler movies. 'Nuff said.

The one element of the film I feared most was the casting of Agent 99, but I was pleasantly surprised and impressed by Anne Hathaway's performance. She is not only sexy enough to make you (temporarily) forget the image of Barbara Feldon, but she also shows a deft ability to handle one-liners. Sadly, however, the script resorts to the oldest of cliches: it has Max and 99 meeting cute, her disdaining him then being reluctantly paired as his partner. You don't have to be Kreskin to predict what happens next: they learn to respect one another and fall in love. This concept more moss on it than a tree in a bayou swamp. 99 is presented as an Emma Peel- like heroine, adept at martial arts and a propensity for kicking guys in groin. I gave up counting after seeing this act take place five times. Memo to producers: it's time to retire the groin-kick scene. The old reliable only worked well the first time it was used - back in 1969 when Paul Newman's Butch Cassidy made history of Ted Cassidy's family jewels. Since then, it's been dragged out by every uncreative screenwriter who hopes to get a cheap reaction from guys in the audience who cringe at the sight. The cliche itself is more painful than any kick in the balls.

There are a few genuinely funny gags, thanks mostly to the inspired casting of Alan Arkin as The Chief (though no one could replace the inimitable Edward Platt, one of TV's most underrated comic actors.) Arkin is quite funny with his slow-burn approach to every crisis, but the script can't resist going over the top by having the Chief assault the vice-president. Another welcome presence is James Caan, seen far too briefly as a Bush-like American president. Having the character come across like a boob may be like picking the low-hanging fruit, but Caan's few one-liners elicited some of the biggest laughs from the audience at the screening I attended. Dwayne Johnson (aka The Rock) is cast as a CONTROL agent in conflict with Max and while Johnson proves to be an able comedic presence, his waxen appearance makes him look like an animated character from a Madame Tussaud's exhibit. There's also a potentially hilarious cameo by Bill Murray, but the scene falls entirely flat. Similarly, the producers must have felt that two CONTROL geeks, Bruce and Lloyd (played by Masi Oka and Nate Torrence) are so funny that they've received their own straight-to-video mini-movie. The actors themselves are good, but the characters are poorly developed and not very funny. It's wonderful to see old pro Terence Stamp cast as the villain Siegfried, but the role is so weakly written that he could have been playing any generic bad guy. Making matters worse, Bernie Koppel, who played the character in the original show, makes a cameo- and you feel like shouting at the screen, "Siegfried, come back!" a la Brandon de Wilde at the end of Shane.

One hates to be cranky about Get Smart - and it is better than the big screen versions of The Wild, Wild West and I Spy (faint praise, indeed). However, when it comes equally the original series, well, sorry about that, chief- they missed it by that much. - Lee Pfeiffer

I can easily name the worst movie villains in history: audience members who keep their mobile phones on in the theater. Let's face it: anyone can make a careless mistake and forget to turn their phone off. What makes my blood boil are the people who keep them on even after getting a cautionary warning, such as those given before every Broadway play. In one instance, Billy Crystal wished his audience a good night after a performance of his one-man show a few years ago. He then paused and made an exception for the audience member whose phone went off numerous times during the show, thereby disrupting his performance. Crystal embarrassed the unnamed audience member by referring to them as an expletive, to wild applause from audience members. Perhaps if everyone else treated these morons in the same manner, they will be shamed into amending their behavior - and the same goes for selfish people who decide that the movie theater is a perfect place to bring infants and toddlers, who then cry and throw tantrums while the parents sit shamelessly amidst the chaos, not caring about the dispruption they cause. There was a time this type of behavior was considered a minor irritant, but with ticket prices now costing slightly less than a fantasy vacation (in London, prices per ticket are about $20), you have to deal with these idiots in a more aggressive manner. Don't look for theater management to help out. There's no such thing as an usher and when I complained to management awhile back about a disruptive mother and child in the audience, I was told all they could do was give me my money back. Seems fear of litigation is now the driving philosophy - no matter who the management takes to task, they will inevitably say it is on the basis of some type of prejudice.

As long as I'm auditioning for a Grumpy Old Men remake, let's also let loose on theaters who have cut corners by removing such unnecessary baggage as projectionists. I remember seeing a Gone With the Wind revival only to find a large hair had been stuck on the lens that protruded over the actor's faces. When a group of us marched to the theater manager like the peasants in Frankenstein, we were introduced to "the projectionist": a pimple-faced teenager who also ran the popcorn stand! He told us that was the way the movie was supposed to look because it was "real old"! Just recently, I read comments on a blog from someone who had attended a showing of Planet of the Apes at New York's Ziegeld Theatre, the last remaining single-screen cinema in the city. He reported that the audience had to watch every other reel out of focus because the management didn't know how to work the changeover projector.

The bottom line, to quote Network's Howard Beale, we've got to shout out "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" I'm not alone in my criticisms: film critic Michael Russnow has a similarly-themed article that stops just short of calling for the death penalty for mobile phone abusers. To read click here. - Lee Pfeiffer

New York Daily News TV critic David Hinckley has an excellent analysis of why Get Smart and other vintage shows have held up remarkably well over the decades. To read click here

We don't take sides politically on this site, but when there is an amusing media development in the world of politics that relates to classic cinema, we can't resist. One of our subscribers sent us this link to You Tube that shows an official campaign ad for Sen. John McCain that uses James Bond-type graphics and audio to denote Sen. Barack Obama as Dr. No. In the interest of fair play, if the Obama campaign wants to use a classic film to malign McCain, we'll be happy to run that as well. (Don't be surprised to find McCain as Dr. Strangelove coming to a web site near you!) Click here to view

Maybe my misgivings about the new Batman film The Dark Knight are unfounded...at least I hope so. Having just seen the trailer again, I was afraid the franchise had reverted to emphasizing hardware and special effects over the human elements of the story. However, Rolling Stone's Peter Travers says the film is superb on every level - and that the late Heath Ledger gives an Oscar-worthy performance as The Joker (take that Cesar Romero!).  This is hardly the kind of praise franchise films usual get in mainstream publications. Okay, I'm psyched to see it now - to the Batpoles! - Lee Pfeiffer To read click here

Review: I Hear No Bugles By Robert Winston Mercy. (Merriam Press, 2008)

By Wesley Britton

Even in the first days of the silent movie era, film producers knew well the value of celluloid stories as propaganda. Before World War I, those opposed to America’s involvement overseas cranked out tragic tales designed to discourage any support for the then feared “Merchants of Death.” Just as quickly, once war was declared, Hollywood shifted gears and found itself a major contributor to recruitment drives. Scripts now starred small-town heroes including little girls exposing saboteurs in Grandpa’s lab and high-flying aviators shooting down fellow aces, all part of the vital effort to crush the Wiley “Huns” at home and abroad.

From that point forward, war movies resonated with the themes of valor, glory, and stoic self-sacrifice in which anyone anywhere could find themselves elevated morally and spiritually by doing their patriotic duty. Onscreen, whether battling Southern rebels, Indian tribes in the Old West, or German U-Boats, a soldier’s life was something to aspire to, yearn for, and a glorious death on the battlefield was preferable to returning home to a devoted sweetheart without having come of age in the trenches. The impact of so many films with these motifs is immeasurable, especially on the “Greatest Generation” which was moved into action as much by the gallant epics they saw in theatres as well as the newsreels shown after Pearl Harbor.

One story from these times is unique. The opening pages of a new memoir by Robert Winston Mercy, I Hear No Bugles, begins with scenes of a young American drawn into a soldier’s life due to what he had seen in moviehouses. Then, we learn about the life of a front-line infantryman in North Korea discovering just how war was never what was shown in dark auditoriums. Then, bringing his story full circle, Robert Winston Mercy came home to become first a stunt-man and then a contract player at MGM playing the very roles he’d grown up watching, only this time as military commanders in TV series like Combat!, Maverick, and Playhouse 90.

The first paragraph of I Hear No Bugles makes Mercy’s thesis clear:

“The effects of propaganda films cannot be underestimated, particularly in this era of contending political and religious dogmas that relentlessly threaten to make this century even more unimaginably bloodier than the last. Indisputably, film is second to literacy in the intellectual, philosophical and moral development of the human species. The defunct uniformed `press-gangs’ of history that `Shanghaied’ young men into military service have been supplanted by the more subtly hypnotic persuasion of TV and the movies. Every image, symbol and mode of, each delivered word is meticulously crafted to extract the desired emotional and moral support from its national audience. Those ships, planes, submarines, helicopters, tanks and the expended ammunitions of the armies of soldiers we see on the screen are freely given to the studios for that explicit purpose.”

Mishima—A Life in Four Chapters (The Criterion Collection, 2008)

Paul Schrader has always opined that Mishima—A Life in Four Chapters was his best film as a director, and I have to agree. Originally released in 1985 (and executive produced by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas), the film is a fascinating bio-pic about controversial Japanese author/actor Yukio Mishima. Schrader, a successful screenwriter who has also had an interesting hit-and-miss career as a director, co-wrote the film with his brother Leonard and filmed it in Japan with a Japanese cast and crew. Ironically, the film was banned in Japan upon its release due to the controversial nature of Mishima’s infamously public display of seppuku (suicide) in 1970. But despite Mishima’s questionable act, there is no doubt that he was a formidable novelist, poet, and artist—certainly one of his country’s greatest. Schrader’s film attempts to visualize Mishima’s life and work, and make sense of his final days in different stylistic approaches that are beautiful to behold and brilliant in conception. Philip Glass provides one of his best motion picture scores to date, John Bailey’s cinematography is absolutely gorgeous, and Eiko Ishioka’s theatrical production designs are perfectly suited to Schrader’s sensibilities. Whether or not you know anything about Yukio Mishima, you will find the picture to be an extraordinary cinematic experience.

Criterion Collection has done another outstanding job of producing a new, restored high-definition digital transfer of the director’s cut, which was supervised and approved by Schrader and Bailey. There are optional English and Japanese voiceover narrations (by Roy Scheider and Ken Ogata, respectively—the U.S. theatrical release only had the Scheider narration). There is also an audio commentary by Schrader and producer Alan Poul. A second disk contains a wealth of background and supplementary material, including the excellent 1985 BBC documentary The Strange Case of Yuko Mishima. There are vintage video interviews with Mishima himself, new segments of Mishima’s biographers and translators, Philip Glass, John Bailey, and other members of the film crew, and more. Highly recommended—one of the best DVD releases of the year so far.--Raymond Benson

CLICK HERE TO ORDER DVD FROM AMAZON

Verne Troyer, whole plays Mini Me, the pint-size sidekick of Austin powers, has sued the gossip site TMZ for leaking clips of a home made sex tape that Troyer said was stolen. However, since the guy who ended up with the tape "coincidentally" was the same person who marketed Paris Hilton's "stolen" sex video that went on to make millions, there are some cynics who wonder if the whole thing isn't just a publicity stunt. D-list celebrities who resort to making sex videos don't want to admit they are doing so overtly, thus, there are often fig leaf stories provided in which the tapes are stolen and therefore outside the domain of the people in them. Let's assume Troyer's story is 100% true - exactly what does it take to convince famous people that it might not be a good idea to film their sexcapades since there is a strong probability they will end up being seen by more people than the audience for the moon landing? What would be Troyer's motivation for making a sex video? Well, how would you like to be defined as a guy with "mini" as his nom de plume? There is no truth to the rumor the sex vid is being marketed as The Return of Little Big Man. For more click here

For a video clip click here

 

Critic Michale Giltz unleashes his venom on studio DVD marketing practices that rip-off fans of classic TV series. In some cases, in order to get a complete season of a series, you have to buy two boxed sets. In other cases, such as The Cosby Show, as incredible as it sounds, the episodes have been mastered from syndication prints, meaning they are heavily edited and truncated from their original broadcast versions. To read click here

Tom Cruise's much-troubled, oft-delayed WWII epic Valkyrie finally caught a break. A story on Slate.com  suggested United Artists had doctored historical photos of Claus von Stauffenberg to make him more resemble Cruise, who portrays the historic German officer who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler. The studio had released a profile shot of the real von Stauffenberg along with a similarly posed shot of Cruise to show the resemblance between the two men. The Slate article implied UA had engaged in some underhanded marketing hanky panky by retouching the historical photo to increase the resemblance between the two men. It cited a source that showed how the original photo varied somewhat from the one UA released. Now Slate has apologized, saying that sloppy research didn't uncover the fact that the "doctored" photo was, in fact, a totally different image! As the film's producer pointed out, trying to doctor historical photos of von Stauffenberg to make him look more like Cruise would have been an excercise in futility and, if deception had been the intent, it would have been easier to alter Cruise's looks.

For more click here

The UK-based web site MI6 is reporting that Leonardo DiCaprio is now involved as a producer of the long-planned Warner Brothers big screen biography of James Bond creator Ian Fleming. The script has already undergone rewrites and DiCaprio is said to be demanding another revision. For the record, DiCaprio is not playing Fleming, only producing. No casting or release date has been set.

For more click here.

Unless a compromise can between the Screen Actors Guild and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Televison Producers, the thesps are prepared to go on strike. This could have potentially devastating consequences to the film industry, which is still reeling from massive financial losses incurred by the recent Writers Guild of America strike. The main issues here are similar: how actors are compensated for use of film clips on web sites and other electronic media. In preparation for a worst case scenario, major productions such as Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island and the new James Bond film Quantum Of Solace are racing to complete production. Other films such as Sir Ridley Scott's Robin Hood epic, Nottingham, have been delayed for months. For more click here

Ever hear of The Decalogue? It's a 10 hour Polish film that critic John Farr cites as one of the greatest movies ever made and Stanley Kubrick referred to as the only cinematic masterpiece he'd ever seen. Made in 1988, the film looks at how modern society succeeds or fails in living up to the Ten Commandments, though it is by no stretch a religious movie in the sense of the genre as defined by Hollywood. Farr feels the film represents the kind of thought-provoking movie that is all too rare today, saying "Beyond the dumbing-down effect of reality shows and video games, we now face a nadir of film originality in this country, as we confront endless mediocre re-treads of older material which make money for the various studios, but blatantly insult the taste and intelligence of many adult viewers.Even American independent films are (with notable exceptions) starting to lose their edge, as the big players hold ever-increasing sway over their own art-house film units, set up to churn out Oscar contenders. Basically, it's getting harder to tell just when the commercial stuff ends, and the indies begin."

To read click here

To order The Decalogue discounted from Amazon click here

Every once in a while, a bold producer and film distribution company actually comes up with the financing for a film that top-lines a distinguished older actor. Such is the case with the acclaimed 2007 art house film Starting Out in the Evening which gives Frank Langella his highest profile role in years. Langella is Leonard Schiller, a staid, withdrawn author who had once written a few highly regarded novels before entering a decades-long period of writer's block, caused in part by the death of his wife and his subsequent responsibility to raise their young daughter on his own. In recent years, he putters about his Manhattan apartment attempting to finish his comeback novel, without much success. His life takes on a radical change with the unexpected arrival of a graduate student, Heather Wolfe (Lauren Ambrose) who is obsessed with his early work and who has based her master's thesis on his life and career. Schiller initially refuses her adultation, but eventually he forms a close friendship with the brilliant young woman and he grants a series of highly introspective interviews. Ultimatley, it becomes clear the pair have become smitten by each other, much to the annoyance of Schiller's daughter Ariel (Lili Taylor), who finds herself at age 40 trying to cope with an on-again, off-again relationship with her boyfriend Casey (Adrian Lester of the hit TV series Hustle). The script traces the interactions between these disparate characters but manages to avoid virtually every cliche you think is about to materialize. The greatest joy is the literate script by Fred Parnes and Andrew Wagner (who also directed). It's rare to find a full length movie that celebrates the printed word, but Starting Out in the Evening is an ode to the art of writing. The character of Heather treats Schiller as though he was a rock star, and their conversations and debates are a delight to eavesdrop on. The script takes some surprising turns when Heather and Schiller discover truths about each other that diminishes their relationship to some degree. Equally mesmerizing is the love affair between Ariel and Casey, two good people who can't overcome the age-old conflict disagreement about whether to have children. (She's racing against her biological clock while he has no interest in starting a family). The film avoids a pat, predictable ending which makes the experience all the more rewarding. The acting is uniformly excellent, but it's clearly Langella's show with a great late-career performance that should have received an Oscar nomination. Start out you evening with Starting Out in the Evening, a low-key but excellent drama that is consistently engrossing.- Lee Pfeiffer

EXTRAS: The DVD from Lionsgate features director's commentary, TV spots and trailer

Click here to order from Amazon