Tony-114 Reviews

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

How to Ruin a Good Movie with Voice-over Narration

[4/10 · 19 September 2008]

Although I enjoyed "VCB" more than any of Woody's movies since, say, "Bullets Over Broadway," I was stunned at the amount and sterility of the voice-over narration. I'm of the (widely-held) opinion that narration should be used on the rarest of occasions and sparingly when it is used. Not only is there way too much of here, for some reason Woody chose an actor with no character or familiarity at all. It was as if Woody instructed the theater managers to have a descriptive audio feature installed so the entire audience could hear...as if he'd made the movie for the blind! Voiceovers, if they're required, should neither explain what the action on screen is, nor what is going on inside the characters' heads. "VCB" fails on both counts. And it's a beautiful movie that's ruined by it! Here are three recent examples of well-done VO, IMHO: The Coens' "The Man Who Wasn't There" (also starring Johannson, as it happens); Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby," which is responsible for the terrific payoff at the end; and Scorcese's "The Age of Innocence." (Billy Wilder's "Double Indemnity" is the perfect all-time example of VO.) The first two are VO's of characters within the film, while the third is by Joanne Woodward, whose work adds wonderful flavor and texture to the already sumptuous images without overwhelming them, and it helps keep the viewer within the time and period, bringing the voice of Edith Wharton herself voice to life. I'm knocking 3 points here because of "VCB"'s poor use and uselessness.

I suppose what fuels my displeasure more than a little bit is that I realize that Woody Allen has completely "goyed" himself; there's none of his wonderful Jewish witticisms and insights - and JOKES! - of his classic '70's/early '80's period. He's had WASP envy of rich Manhattanites for decades, from "Interiors" through "Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Everyone Says I Love You," finally reaching full assimilation with "Match Point." "VCB," even though it takes place in an exotic locale, proves that Woody is a full fledged WASP; you can't even tell he's on the outside looking in anymore! When I got home I had to watch "Manhattan," which, after 30 years, is just as beautiful and engaging as it was when first released, and is one of the great romantic comedies of all time, even more so than "Annie Hall" (wait...maybe that's where the symptoms began, back in Chippewa Falls!]. Woody's VO at the beginning of "Manhattan" is describing the main character of the book he's trying to write: "He romanticized New York all out of proportion..." Woody Allen has succeeded in doing so with "Barcelona." The running joke in "Stardust Memories" was the complaint of Sandy Bates' (Woody) fans that he should make more movies like his "earlier, funny ones." My complaint: how 'bout making some more like his earlier, GOOD ones.

Capote (2005)

"What's the Title of Your Book?"

[6/10 · 30 October 2005]

Please note: although I've checked the "spoiler" box, there really isn't one in this post. For this film details an important series of events in American cultural history on several different levels that, frankly, should be common knowledge to anyone old enough to go see it. Those who have a strong interest to see "Capote" are already familiar with its story. Those only partially familiar yet wish to see it (not surprising, given the loud (justified) raves for P.S. Hoffman's performance) would do well to do some preliminary study, about the real-life Clutter killings if not about Capote himself. If you're interested in seeing the film but have never heard of either Truman Capote or the story (or the book TC wrote), do yourself a favor and rent Richard Brooks' 1967 adaptation of "In Cold Blood." Robert Blake's performance (as Perry Smith) in that film is every bit as good as Hoffman's in this one, and you'll get a much better understanding as to why Smith and Hickock did what they did, which, ultimately, is what "Capote" is really about.

Having said that, I'm torn about recommending "Capote": yes, Hoffman is excellent in capturing Capote the enigma and deserves to be on next year's Best Actor Oscar short list; yes, it captures the relationship between TC and Harper Lee, as well as the painfully-shy Lee herself (I wonder what the real HL thinks of Catherine Keener's performance); yes, it does a good job capturing the deep connection between Perry and Truman, and I even liked how the filmmakers seemed to have gone out of their way to dignify the Clutters as murder victims almost as much as they do their killers, something the film of "ICB" doesn't do.

Yet in making sure everyone involved is portrayed with an appropriate level of dignity and sensitivity, all the blood and the feeling has been drained out of it. This is why "Capote" generates more questions than the film can possibly answer: What was it that moved TC to pursue the Clutter story so immediately from the very moment he read about it in the newspaper, considering the light years rural Kansas was from his own Manhattan world of holding court at cocktail parties and being the general center of attention? Couldn't the filmmakers have addressed more fully how the success of "ICB" ended TC's career, not even to show how the book's release forever altered the publishing and literary worlds and made him a cause célèbre for years, which made his downfall so breathtaking and tragic?

With the exception of Perry himself, how was it that no one in his orbit -- Lee, Jack Dumphy, even William Shawn, to an extent -- never confronted or call out TC on how shamefully exploitative he was in squeezing the murder story out of Perry for the sake of his own career and ego? And most importantly (one reason I wanted to see it), how did a flamboyant,self-centered, lisping man-child queen not only manage to get the story with the full cooperation of everyone he approached -- including, begrudgingly,the lead investigator in the case! -- yet was not once "gay-bashed," verbally or physically, by anyone he encountered in Holcomb or elsewhere in Kansas, no less a bastion of church-sanctioned homophobia in 1959 than it is today? (TC was wise to bring along Harper Lee, but a beard posing as a research assistant could have only done so much.)

All of these things could have been portrayed very well. The problem with "Capote" is the script: the filmmakers' dedication to stay within the boundaries of "ICB"'s creation and composition deprives the movie of having a lasting impact. Why did they continue to portray TC to the very end with sympathy to the point of reverence, and limit detailing his comeuppance to a handful of pristine notes at the end of the picture? Truman Capote was a true genius, brilliant and beguiling; he was also a despicable, manipulative, narcissistic lush. "ICB" made TC; it killed him, too. If the makers of "Ray" were brave enough to show their subject warts and all, the makers of "Capote" could have easily done the same. Sometimes when you keep the kid gloves on, you do more harm than good. The real talent lies in knowing when to take them off.

Little Women (1933)

A Basket of Kittens.

[9/10 · 10 January 2004]

I think it can easily be said that this is one of Katherine Hepburn's finest, richest performances -- it would be cliche to say that she was born to play Jo March, but only if it weren't so true. Yet as a film entire, it's one of the best period pieces I believe I've ever seen. The clothes, sets, cinematography, Max Steiner's charming score and the brilliant script combine to make you feel you are truly there in the Marches' world, civil-war Concord. (Of course, this is not to slight the grand performances of the cast in any way -- how else would it be so alive?) It is truly a fascinating work, firmly in George Cukor's hands (though with Selznick hovering behind). "Little Women" casts a spell over you just like watching a basket of kittens, the illness remedy Jo brings Laurie that is the basis of their 1st meeting: it is not so much cute and cuddly (and sharp!), but seeing them (inter)act as full-blooded, alive, natural creatures. It's precisely this quality that the 3 subsequent remakes ('49, '79 (TV) and '94) simply didn't have. You feel -- and ARE -- a better person after having seen this film than you were when you sat down to watch it.

Undercover Brother (2002)

Solid!

[7/10 · 16 June 2002]

OK, OK, it's basically a black "Austin Powers," but it's not claiming to be more than that, it's reasonably well made, and a good 65% is downright hilarious. But I agree completely with the member who said this is a movie you have to "get." Meaning that, as a 40-year-old A.A. male seeing this in a downtown Washington theatre with a strong presence of folks my age and slightly above (i.e., old enough to remember when all of the black references were taken seriously), then not only did I get it but so did the rest of the audience -- the perfect conditions in which to see this movie. Chances are most (under 25, non-black) folks who don't fall into at least one of these catagories better stick with "Episode II," even on the 3rd go-around. The member who tried to compare the two films is precisely what I mean by not getting it.

I realize it's an odd concept -- a summer movie that ISN'T made to appeal to absolutely everyone -- but, hey. See for yourself. What it is!

In the Bedroom (2001)

Perhaps A Classic, Further Down the Road

[8/10 · 18 March 2002]

I think "In the Bedroom" was perhaps the truest movie I've seen this, something you can't say about "A Beautiful Mind," the likeliest of the Best Picture nominees to end up with the top trophy.

True in the sense that, given who the Fowlers were and what happens to them, how they react to their tragedy and play it out, and what and how they reveal to each other (and, in turn, to us) was no melodrama, no contrivance, nothing more over the top than the situation required. Just painfully, admiringly, believably true. And, for the nay-sayers among you, so is how the film turns out.

There's not a chance the film will win much of anything next Sunday -- the oddsmakers are shifting over to Halle Berry's camp from Sissy Spacek's by the hour. But I certainly hope the film becomes a classic: aside from some heavy-handedness (the cannery company truck driving SLOWLY past the restaurant window where Matt is lunching) and a glaring gaffe (the clock on the kitchen wall during a major scene), there's a timelessness to it that I think will stand up for quite a while to come. Considering what Hollywood spews forth week in and week out, they just don't make movies like this anymore.

Gosford Park (2001)

Altman - a Merchant/Ivory wannabe?

[6/10 · 21 January 2002]

The mere fact that Robert Altman has turned in his first film since "Short Cuts" that wasn't a tedious, undercooked bore DOES NOT entitle him to be crowned "Best Director" by every critics' organization -- and now the Golden Globe group, a Dick Clark company -- who can't get over the fact that Altman wasn't given the '75 Best Director Oscar for "Nashville" and hope this faux Merchant-Ivory consignment outfit will do the trick.

No, you CAN'T identify who's who, or who's who's servant is, or what the relationships are amongst the host family and their guests. Anyone who hasn't seen and appreciated the 99% British actors' previous works (i.e., anyone under 25, and certainly not a general audience) wouldn't have a clue who Alan Bates, Derek Jacobi, Eileen Aitkins and Michael Gambon were. If I hadn't known myself, I'd have been as lost as anyone else! There's nothing here that either Ivory or Kenneth Branaugh couldn't have done a better job with, with a lot more polish to boot (no pun).

That said, there are two reasons to see this movie (maybe at a cheaper, rainy-day matinee): Maggie Smith and Emily Watson. Smith is as great as she's ever been, playing the kind of character -- the slightly soiled socialite -- that no one else can. She's completely delicious. And Watson's turn as a worldly housemaid is perhaps the most fully formed character in the film: we know where she's been, we don't know where she'll end up, but there's no doubt she will survive.

But once again, these talented actresses could have pulled off these performances under anyone's direction, not singularly Altman's. If there's an Oscar he deserves, it's the Thalberg for the body of his work, the good, the bad and the ugly. And who knows: he could still end up with this year's, just so he's guaranteed a consolation prize.

Traffic (2000)

Undercooked.

[6/10 · 4 February 2001]

For its concept and execution, "Traffic" is very well-made and crafted. And it takes the "correct" stance that the American War on Drugs, at least as it's now being waged, is unwinable by its very nature.

Yet in the end, what do we have? Three stories that have no pat resolutions, but no cliffhanging tension, either. It's never entirely clear what motivates Del Toro's character to do what he does (for family? for faith? for Mexico?); we never really see Zeta-Jones' lust to keep the lifestyle to which she's become accustomed (for a woman who was supposedly oblivious to how her husband made their money, her transition to hit-ordering drug moll scarcely registers), and the whole undercover segments seems to have been purloined from a 40's police caper. And I'm willing to have "Traffic" end unresolved, but shouldn't there be some sense of OUTRAGE that things are the way they are? Instead of feeling that we ought to do something about the drug war, we're left feeling just as complacent as if there really HAD been a happy ending after all.

And whose fault is this? Steven Soderburgh's, who's likely to become the first director to be Oscar-nominated for two films in a single year since Michael Curtiz in 1938. Which, given this lousiest film year in memory, is par for the course. I can't believe I'm saying this but -- go rent "Erin Brockovich" instead! Better yet, go rent "The Limey," Soderburgh's 1999 outing with Terrance Stamp in perhaps his best performance.

Going Bye-Bye! (1934)

Prime L & H

[22 January 2001]

The critic in me says that the entire film is structured for the sole purpose of the sight gag with which the film ends. But, OH, WHAT A SIGHT GAG!

I saw this the other night at a local arts club screening, but available nowhere else. Why isn't this (or for matter, their masterpiece "The Music Box") on video?

The Sixth Sense (1999)

A 6 for "Sixth"

[6/10 · 25 March 2000]

This is a very good film, featuring an incredible performance by Osment and a strong reminder of what a fine actor Willis can be when he's got a good script. But while I certainly don't wish to jeopardize my membership by revealing the end (said by many to rival "Usual Suspects"), it simply doesn't warrant the incredible attention it's received (including its Best Picture nomination), and, to my own surprise, undoes any strides it makes towards being a human story rather than a ghost story. For this is really a movie about how being a kid in today's world is tougher than it's ever been. This could have been a much darker, better film, but Disney clearly reigned it in from any steps into R-rating territory. (It's PG-13.) Hopefully its success will allow Shymalan freer rein on his next film: he's capable of it, as the "Munchausen revelation" will attest.

Buena Vista Social Club (1999)

Rockumentary? Propaganda? A Masterpiece of Marketing?

[5/10 · 26 December 1999]

Don't misunderstand me: the music is splendid, just as it was on the million-selling album. But as a stand-alone documentary -- one that's winning far too many year-end awards, simply because the pickings are so slim -- it's quaint and lovely, but it's a bore. It's really just another rockumentary, albeit the stars are not 20-30 but 70-90. Their longevity is admirable, but the biggest disappointment is that Wenders never conveys how the Club's international success has impacted its members, if at all.

You get no real sense of the crippling poverty prevalent under Castro's regime (certainly no indication of Cooder's stated fact that he could barely find enough food to feed the performers while they were making the first album!) and how they survived it; no indication of their national renown apart from the 40-year-old "groupie" who pulled the band together for Cooder to play with; and, considering the film was shot AFTER the album's critical and financial success (each and every members has a solo album currently in release) whether they're reaping any of its benefits.

Yes, you can love the music and respect the performers, but when they arrive in New York for their Carnegie Hall show, you don't see it through their eyes: when Ferrer wanders around the city and says he's "never seen anything like this," we don't care because WE do every day. You do get pretty pictures of somber Cuban life and see the beautiful interiors some of them play in (Gonzales as the pianist for the children's gymnastics class, for example), and they can TELL us about music's role in their lives, but Wenders (and Cooder, to a lesser exent) has forsaken a remarkable opportunity to SHOW how music has impacted the band's life of today in favor of a hip yet benign travelogue, i.e. style without any substance.

And who's PROFITING from all this, anyway? The Club? Castro? Cooder and Wenders? Is this propanganda -- did it require Castro's blessing before its release? Is it a sign of how capitalism neuters everything in its path? Or maybe my response is an indication how we Americans have become so completely desensitized and I'm disturbed that I wasn't outraged by the poverty and the citizens' apathetic acceptance of it. (Why do so many Cubans risk their lives to leave it if it's so wonderful, at least as Wenders paints it?)

I'll stick to the album, thanks, but for anyone expecting anything beyond that in the film, prepare yourself for major disappointment, an immensely wasted opportunity.

American Beauty (1999)

"FAVORITE OF ALL TIME!!!!!!!"?? Please...

[8/10 · 13 October 1999]

I know there's no member criteria in terms of what constitutes a "favorite all-time movie," but c'mon, folks: how about about waiting, say, a year before making that declaration (at least until after it comes out on video)? Unless, of course, you're so crazy about it that you've seen it every single night since it was released, THEN maybe it could be your favorite...

Yes, it's an amazing film, with more thematic imagery-interplay and well-defined characters(allowing for the performances to be as good as they are)than I've seen in an American film in a long time. Yes, it touches on many, many topics of contemporary interest. But give the rush you've gotten after seeing it a chance to deflate a little bit before ranking it up with "Star Wars" and "Shawshank."

Relax...it's only a movie...

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Destined to be Misunderstood...

[18 September 1999]

...which is of course true of every Kubrick film since 2001. Anyone who goes to see it without a learned appreciation of what film can do is wasting their money and time. You have to let it resonate in your mind for a long while and talk about it with other people before you truly get a sense of what Kubrick's saying and doing...even if you don't agree with it. Only Scorcese and Spielberg are still capable of pushing these kinds of boundaries, and that's genuinely unfortunate. As for the critics, they've had to sit through the mountains of bulls**t Hollywood spews out for mass consumption (and that's all it is -- God forbid people should be expected to THINK about a movie!) and all the hype that went with it (okay, Kubrick was part of all that, his untimely demise notwithstanding), that it's no surprize at all that they hated it. How could you appreciate a gourmet meal when the only food you've ever been given to eat is from McDonald's?

See this film (Cruise and Kidman are wonderful, BTW, together and apart; thought the gay-bashing scene had to have been suggested by Cruise!), but don't go to be entertained or because "Stigmata" was sold out. Go expecting to misunderstand it, and enjoy the process of getting to the "a-HA!"

Lifeboat (1944)

Fahh-bulous, Dahh-ling!

[8/10 · 12 September 1999]

A better, richer film than when I first viewed it close to 20 years ago. One of Hitchcock's greatest accomplishments (with a terrific Macguffin -- the compass!). And the perfect showcase for Miss Tallulah Bankhead, bitch-goddess of Broadway, who never conquered Hollywood but is forever enshrined in this performance, where's she basically playing the image she herself created -- "Dahhlings" and all -- if not, in fact, playing Herself! An intense delight, Dahhling...

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Not for Fans Only, But...

[7/10 · 6 July 1999]

...if you've never seen the show, you probably wouldn't go anyway. Don't let the great reviews fool you novices out there. However, if you've at least seen the show and appreciate the concept of musical-comedy anti-Disney satire, you will definitely enjoy it.

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

The 'Diet Coke' of Sequels

[5/10 · 11 June 1999]

Actually, "AP:TSWSM" is only slightly less amusing than its predecessor for pretty much the same reason: it's hilarious, but only sporadically. And while very few sequels outrank their originals, the main reason this one does not is money: too much! Granted, the product placement running gag is terrific (I half expected to see Howard Schultz himself behind Dr. Evil's Starbucks counter!), it indicates just how much Myers and crew had to work with, while the main charm of "AP:IMOM" was its limited budget, which worked in great tandem with its originality to make it the camp-classic it is.

Myers is our most talented screen comic both in front of the camera and in front of his P.C. (the pop culture allusions are amusing again; how perfect that Dr. Evil's globe demonstration echoes Chaplin's "Great Dictator," no less!). Yet it's clear New Line (i.e., Time Warner) knew they had a demographic smash on their hands. If you are: a) a 12-year-old boy; b) were a 12-year-old boy between the years 1974 and 1979; c) are "b" AND are the father of a 12-year-old boy, "AP:TSWSM" is YOUR HAPPENING, BABY, and IT WILL FREAK YOU OUT!!! If not -- or if you don't have a relationship with either a, b and/or c -- go rent the first flick again, which is what "AP:TSWSM" makes me want to do most. Your movie 'mojo' will be back in no time, baby!

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Not Necessarily About WWII, But War in General

[7/10 · 23 March 1999]

I think Malick's work reflects a deeper sensibility about what the soldier must overcome to survive, both against the enemy and within their own ranks. I also think that Malick treats the Japanese more humanely -- they're just as afraid as the guys in "Charlie Company" were -- than Spielberg did in "Saving Private Ryan," where his presentation of the Germans borders on the stereotypical. SPR was about WWII and the American Spirit; TRL could have been about Vietnam, about Korea, about the Gulf War or the Civil War, for that matter. The film is not so much about War as it is about its impact on the Soldier.

I'd have given this a higher recommendation, but I have to think about those unaccustomed to Malick's existentialist style, particularly the narrative. If you've seen either "Days of Heaven" or "Badlands," you'll not be surprised. If you haven't, you're in for a loooooooooonnnnnnnnngg three hours. It is beautifully and skillfully photographed, however; try to see it on a big screen if you still can, otherwise letterbox on home video.

Affliction (1997)

Character Study Extraordinaire

[8/10 · 6 March 1999]

Either it's me or because Hollywood is so damn reluctant to make them, but the character study is perhaps my favorite film genre. This is one of the best I've seen, and coming off McKellen's performance in "Gods and Monsters" (against which Nolte will compete in the tightest Best Actor Oscar race in years), that's not an understatement. I don't remember if I've ever seen Nolte "disappear" into a role (as Hanks can as easily as breathing), but his Wade Whitehouse is one for the ages.

Coburn is exceptional as well, and Spacek provides perfect support, but none of this would have come off as powerfully and as believably were it not for Paul Schrader, who's one of the best screenwriters/directors in the business, yet he still can't get people to remember that he's done other things besides write "Taxi Driver." Schrader's use here of handheld 8mm and black-and-white flashback are prime examples of his imaginative style (check out his tri-styled "Mishima" when you have a chance), and it's a shame that Schrader's not even up for one of the Oscars that either Nolte or Coburn may end up with that night. Not for the psychologically (or dentally!) squeamish, but deeply rewarding on many levels, especially if you've survived life in a dysfunctional family. It's all true, folks. (BTW, those of you're upset that the murder plot goes nowhere or were bored in general, you're COMPLETELY missing the point of the film. Go see "Message in a Bottle," or "Analyze This," instead: spoon-fed entertainment for the masses.)

Woman in the Dunes (1964)

The Best "Twilight Zone" Serling Never Made

[8/10 · 21 February 1999]

I had always been curious about this film and how Teshigahara managed to wrangle an Best Director Oscar nomination among the likes of William Wyler, John Schlesinger and David Lean. Then as now, you can always count on the Academy's Directors Branch to throw an annual monkey wrench into the serene, meatheaded commercialism of the rest of the nominees.

"WITD" may be thought of as an incredible "Twilight Zone" episode. The simplicity with which the scientist has been captured is quite stunning, yet his ultimate acceptance -- even embrace -- of his predicament comes as no surprise: he wanted a simpler life, away from the demands of the "certificates" he groans about as the film commences, and he gets it! "Be careful what you wish for..."

Actually, I half expected the scientist to discover that he'd been trapped in a glass, corked jar not unlike the insects he has captured himself; it's one of the film's marvelous metaphors for the meaningless/fulness of human existence, for and against the nature that prevails over us all. And it's yet another reason to lament the persistent commercial dreck Hollywood releases with such distressing regularity. (Seen "Payback" yet? No thanks!) But then as now, it's the commercial dreck that prevails: Teshigahara, as did the three directors previously mentioned, lost the Oscar to Robert Wise for (yeesh!) "The Sound of Music." The vast multitude of film viewers may never, ever see this film and yet insist that they "truly love movies." If you see this film and truly enjoy it, you'll understand just how wrong the multitude is...

Gods and Monsters (1998)

Exquisite and Quite Moving

[7/10 · 14 February 1999]

While I expected to be blown away by MacKellan's performance, I was under-prepared for how good everything surrounding and supporting him was. Lynn Redgrave's a bit one-noted, but there's no way I figured on Brendan "George of the Jungle" Fraser holding his own with Sir Ian; in fact, he helps MacKellan be better than he otherwise might have been. Break out the brandy and cigars...

A Simple Plan (1998)

It's Not What The Book Was, But...

[6/10 · 13 February 1999]

After glancing at the first 20 or so of other comments, I'm surprised no one has mentioned having read the book, which has remained in my head in the five years since I've read it. [Highly recommended, BTW] So my expectations were a maybe a little higher than most folks.

When I read that Billy Bob Thornton was to play Jacob, I knew they were halfway home! [In the end, his performance was superb -- just about the only thing about the picture worth raving about.] And when Scott Smith signed up to adapt his own book, my excitement increased: if they were to make a film from the book as written, it'd easily be another hour longer, with two more corpses and Jacob dead halfway through. As it stands, Smith's script rearranges things quite nicely and is a model of economy.

The real problem, friends, is the direction: John Boorman was originally slated to do it, but he and the producers (and maybe Billy Bob, too) had a falling out. Enter Sam Raimi: while an adequate choice, nothing Raimi's done so far qualifies him for anything more than journeyman status, with the very remote possibility of the "Evil Dead" pictures.

My problems: it's entirely too pretty; Danny Elfman's score is miserable (Boorman or any real artisan would have had out for someone more appropriate); and Boorman (or someone like him) could have gotten stronger and better performances from Paxton and Fonda, who are appropriately bland but barely change at all as the bodies and the complications pile up.

So, a disappointment, but not as big as it might have been. And for those of you who were "bummed out" by the "downer" ending: you need to go rent some movies made prior to 1990, back when the studios weren't demanding that EVERY SINGLE FILM end happily as they do now. Might help you appreciate what a truly well-made film is...

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Warts and All, Remarkable

[10 November 1998]

Had the great pleasure of seeing WOZ at the Uptown Theatre last weekend. No other film in my recollection has "evolved" with successive viewings like this has: from my first time seeing it on black & white t.v. in 1967 at age 5 (a REAL journey, much longer than a mere two hours!); the realization nearly ten years later that 80% of the picture is in C O L O R; up through a couple of years ago, watching it needlessly truncated on commercial t.v. on a non-Easter Friday night (when the two hours felt like 20 minutes, if that). So I was ready for the "genuine" widescreen, three-strip Technicolor movie-theatre experience.

The result: well, it was like having known about "the man behind the curtain" but not accepting it until now. I'm old enough to see the poor continuity (the Tin Man's funnel-hat handle switches sides at least once), the primitive make-up, the once-magical backgrounds that are now clearly movie sets, that Dorothy had quite a rack for a twelve-year-old;-),and so on. And as for "Munchkinland," we won't even GO THERE.

But it doesn't matter. Oh, the COLORS: the burnt fuschia of the hourglass sand, the genuine ruby of Dorothy's slippers, the repulsive green of the Witch's skin versus the entire green spectrum in the Emerald City. And there's nothing like seeing it with an adult audience: old enough to know all the lines and all the lyrics, booing and clapping and cheering right on cue (and laughing heartily where we never dared laugh before). WOZ may be one of the very few things this culture has produced that allows you to enjoy it as both a grown-up and the kid you once were -- and maybe still are -- without feeling the least bit self-conscious about it. May it never change.