“Sorcerer”- (1977) Dir- William Friedkin

What I Remember:

This was a film that came out and closed before anybody got to see it in theaters. I mean, it was a huge bomb. I got to see this on HBO, and watched it with my Sister and Brother-In-Law. We were all astounded by how great the film was. For years afterwards, I wondered why nobody knew or talked about it.

Obviously it is poorly named, and I have a theory about this. “Sorcerer” is based on the French classic, “Wages of Fear”, by Henri-Georges Clouzot, which is itself a film adaptation of the novel by Georges Arnaud. So why the name change? This from IMDB:

“The film was originally to be titled "The Wages of Fear" from the original French film and novel. Friedkin has stated that the strange title of "Sorcerer" refers to the evil wizard of fate.”

 What the fuck? What “evil wizard of fate” is he talking about? This, to me, is total bullshit. The studio had to have talked him into the title. Friedkin was coming off two of the most famous films in recent memory, Best Picture winner “The French Connection”, and even more recently the blockbuster “The Exorcist”. Here was a film opening at Mann’s Chinese in Hollywood, that started with 15 minutes of subtitles. That’s no way to open a blockbuster! Plus, that 15-20 minute opening has zero exposition. You are thrown right into the middle of 3 stories, with no clue as to what their connection might be. No spoon-feeding here. I loved it!

I am guessing that the Studio, which had sunk 21 million (a huge budget for the time) into it, was scared of losing a fortune, and they figured if they named it something that sounded evil and mystical, people would think, “Wow, the guy who made “The Exorcist” with another scary thrill ride. Let’s go!” Then it’s 20 minutes of exposition-less subtitles, and no pea-soup vomit, and they are pissed off.

 Well, in my memory, this film was 10 times as tense and scary as “The Exorcist”, and in every way its superior. I have since seen “Wages of Fear”, which is a fine film, but I feel that “Sorcerer” is the better version.

 So if it’s that good, then why did “Sorcerer” get ignored at the time? Well, if you went to see a movie named “Sorcerer” directed by a guy famous for a horror film, and you ended up watching what resembled an art-house thriller, your word-of-mouth might be critical. Of course, there was one other factor. Maybe, just maybe, a little movie that opened the same week might have stolen its thunder. A little sci-fi joint named “Star Wars”.

After re-watching:

“Listen Pancho, I've been clocking you every second you've been in this town. If you wanna pick your nose in this truck, you better clear it with me first, otherwise I'm taking you and this nitro right into a ditch!”- Scanlon

PLOT SUMMARY

Four men from different countries all find themselves in a South American backwater, running from the law or organized crime. The place they are in is so miserable, that they jump at the chance to earn enough money to get the hell out of there. The opportunity arrives when an oil well in the jungle gets blown up by terrorists, and the only way to cap it is with a large amount of nitro-glycerin. The explosives, it turns out, are far too volatile to be choppered in to the well, so the company hires a small detail of men to drive the material over rough terrain and deteriorating roads and bridges 200 miles to the well.

STORY/THEME 

Wow. That really doesn’t sound like much of a film, does it? Oh, but it is. It is.

Let me begin at the opening of the film, which I addressed before re-watching. There are no opening credits. Big deal, right? Well it was a big deal in 1977! Shall I remind you of how “Star Wars” starts? “A long time ago, in a galaxy….”

That’s right. Music and a long expository crawl. This is the opposite of what we have here in “Sorcerer”. All we see is a Central American Indian carving, and graffiti-like letters saying the word “Sorcerer”. Then it’s “Vera Cruz”. A man gets shot in his office. Then the graphics say, “Jerusalem”. 4 PLO men posing as Israeli students bomb a bank. Only one, Kassem (Amidou) escapes. Then, the graphics say “Paris”. This story is more developed. We have a wealthy banker (Bruno Cremer) who is in deep poop for fraud, and his partner commits suicide, leaving him even further up the creek. Then it’s “Elizabeth, NJ”. WHOA! Sing along with Elmo everybody, “One of these things is not like the other”. I knew Elizabeth, and Paris is no Elizabeth, sir! I don’t even need to visit Jerusalem or Vera Cruz to know that the same applies there. More on this later. Scanlon, (finally, an actor we recognize, Roy Scheider) is one of 4 men (again!) who rob a Catholic Church, which happens to be presided over by the brother of a mob boss. They shoot the Priest, not killing him. As they get away, the car gets into an accident, and again, only one survives. At this point you are thinking, what the hell do these stories have to do with one another?

It would have been easier on the audience if Friedkin would have started the movie at the beginning of the men’s time in the South American hellhole, and have flashbacks for each character. But I feel that the way he chose was much more effective. Each successive story reveals more of what’s going on, and at the end of Scheider’s time in NJ, you understand that all 4 of these characters need to go into hiding.

Truthfully, they are all pretty bad people. The Mexican hit man, the PLO terrorist, the French spoiled white collar criminal, the petty Jersey thief. It is hard to root for them, but this is exactly what you end up doing. There’s no real character development like you have in “Dog Day Afternoon”, for instance. You solely root for these guys because of the tension and film technique. You might think, “really? I’ve seen tense movies before. Why would that be enough for me to root for the ‘70’s version of Al Qaeda to survive?” Answer; this is a level of tension unlike anything I have seen in the movies before or since. It’s a special skill to make the audience squirm this much. The last 20 minutes of “The Birds” does it. “Alien” can also get to that point. But even while re-watching, fully knowing what’s going to happen, I white-knuckled the sequences where the trucks cross those bridges.

FYI- "Sorcerer" is the name of one of the two trucks. Why trucks need names, you know like WWII bombers, I have no idea.

FILMMAKING

Friedkin obviously wanted to give this film the realistic treatment that he used so successfully in “The French Connection”. Extras and small parts were cast using native Dominicans from the location. All of the other location shoots are viscerally real. The sequence in Jerusalem in particular has a contemporary feel, and you can see the influence Friedkin's original style has had on the genre of International Intrigue thrillers. The hell-hole where they are in hiding is pretty miserable, and he makes it as awful as possible, with trash everywhere, and lots of rooster close-ups, corrupt police, trash strewn everywhere, flophouses and dive bars, etc. So, how does this differ with Elizabeth, exactly? Scanlon should feel right at home!

The heart and soul of this film are the two spectacular bridge crossing scenes. Our anti-heroes manage to take these explosive-filled jalopies across two of the most decrepit looking crossings you can imagine. The use of angles and zoom settings, the stellar editing and acting make the tension and suspense nearly unbearable. The result is anxiety akin to the bottom of the 9th of a tied World Series Game 7, with some unforgettable images; the truck tipping on the rope bridge, the tire getting stuck in the rotted wood plank,  the deadfall rushing down the flooding river, the winch buckling under pressure. 

One of my favorite sequences is when they encounter a huge tree that blocks their only path. Faced with a lose/ lose situation, they are about to give up, but the terrorist figures out that with just the right amount of nitro, they can blow up the tree. How he rigs the thing up (with an improvised timer) makes you alternately really respectful of his ingenuity, and really afraid of how easy it is for these guys to figure out a path to destruction and mayhem.

The use of music is really strange and a bit wonderful, too. The score was by Electronic Music nut-jobs "Tangerine Dream", and really sounds dated. But you must remember how very modern it sounded at the time. It predates Giorgio Moroder's score for "Midnight Express" by a full year, and Vangelis' score for "Chariots of Fire" by 4. The droning of synths and the repetitive nature of the sequenced lines are very much in line with the tension of the film. Apparently they wrote and recorded the score without seeing a single second of footage!

Then, in total antithesis to this machine music, we hear a clip of some imitation of "So What" by Miles Davis as incidental music in one scene, and in the denouement there is a moment when one of our anti-heroes dances with an old Latina barmaid to the strains of "I'll Remember April" from the Charlie Parker and Strings recordings. In the credits, there is a huge mention of Bird, which, as a Jazz musician, I really appreciated, but I found somewhat head-scratching.

Re-watching "Sorcerer" did make me notice some other pretty strange goings on, and some pretty weak moments that I did not recall. Primarily, Nilo, the Mexican hit man, is a man of mystery, with zero backstory and very little personality. When the truck he and Scanlon are in gets stopped by Guerillas, he saves the day, getting shot in the process. Suddenly he goes from self-serving murderer to courageous savior, and develops a personality of sorts. So I'm supposed to feel for this guy? 

Another weak moment is at the climax, when Scheider is in the truck and negotiating some moonscape which would have no business in the jungle. You can't figure out if he is imagining this terrain , or he's just lost. There's a lot of voice-over flashback noise, and double exposure shots. Is Scanlon going nuts from the pressure? Is the truck breaking down or lost? It's just not worthy of the rest of the trip. 

PERFORMANCES

This is not a film that acting will make or break. It's good that our cast did most of their own stunts, because the dialogue is not exactly Billy Wilder. IMDB says that Friedkin intended the role for Steve McQueen, probably the top action star of that era. Steve insisted that a part be written for his then wife, Ali MacGraw, and Friedkin and screenwriter Walon Green refused. Scheider was kind of a last option, after Jack Nicholson and Clint Eastwood also passed. Interestingly, the DVD I watched stated that there was never any question about Scheider's being cast as Scanlon. Hmmm.

Friedkin's other top choices for the 4 men were Marcello Mastroianni, Lino Ventura and Amidou. Only Amidou took his part, the other two stating that they didn't want second billing to anyone but McQueen.  Bruno Cremer was quite good, I thought. His part was probably the meatiest, and I wonder how Mastroianni would have fared in it. 

ON SECOND LOOK

Maybe "Sorcerer" is a bit more flawed than I recalled. I had kind of put it up on a pedestal thanks to its almost invisible status in the annals of film. Yes, it's still quite a good film, and stylistically a trendsetter for sure. But the film has its problems, and is not something that you will cherish, watching again and again. It's damn good, though, and I recommend it, if you can find it somewhere. Make sure you have your Xanax handy!

1^st Look- ✭✭✭✭   2^nd Look- ✭✭✭

"Champagne for Caesar" (1950) Dir- Richard Whorf

What I remember:

When I wrote about "The Rocking Horse Winner", I told you that my college

girlfriend talked me into watching it. In the case of "Champagne for Caesar", it was my post-college girlfriend who turned me on to it.

We watched it on our huge 19 inch screen Toshiba, which was more than ample for this film. To that point, that TV was the most expensive thing I'd ever bought that didn't help me make music in some fashion; that is until I bought my first VCR, a Panasonic 2 piece unit with separate tuner and video recorder/player.

Ahh, technology of the early '80's. Remember tracking dials? How about having to tune your TV to channels 3 or 4 depending on your local stations? Oh yeah, early Manhattan Cable, with some of the most unintentionally hilarious Cable Access programming you can imagine.

My girlfriend was quite the intellectual, and she was pretty funny too. She

certainly got comedy, and this movie was right up her alley. In order to make

money, a super-intelligent professor goes on a quiz show, and proceeds to clean up. He's got a parrot who gets drunk, and a very acerbic tongue. His arrogance, I think, ends up tripping him up at some point.

What sets this comedy apart from the usual dopey '50's chucklers is the cast, in particular Ronald Coleman as genius Beauregard Bottomley, and a crack supporting crew headed by Celeste Holm, Vincent Price and, gasp, Art Linkletter. Not to mention the great Mel Blanc as the voice of Caesar, the tippling talking bird.

It feels like this one has been all but forgotten. Time to change that, at

least with 5 or 6 of you who will ever read this thing.

After re-watching:

 Happy Hogan: “You have five seconds to tell us the Japanese word for goodbye. 1... 2..”

Bottomey: “Sayonara. Not to be confused with cyanide, which is, of course, goodbye in any language.”

PLOT SUMMARY

Beauregard Bottomley (Ronald Coleman) is a true intellectual, who sadly for him, is unemployed. He lives with Gwenn (Barbara Britton), his piano-teaching sister in a bungalow in Hollywood. At the unemployment office, he gets wind of a job with Milady Soap, run by the eccentric Burnbridge Waters (Vincent Price). Waters is horrible to Bottomley at the interview, so Bottemley hatches a revenge plan that centers around a trivia based game show sponsored by Milady. Bottomley shows up on the show dressed as the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and proceeds to win week in and week out, until he becomes a celebrity. He won't be satisfied, however, until he bankrupts the soap company and Waters to boot. Complications arise when Gwenn falls in love with the quiz show host Happy Hogan (Art Linkletter), and Waters hires a siren named Flame (Celeste Holm) to addle Bottomley’s mind.

STORY/THEME

There might be a lot more going on here than just your average frothy comedy. It’s confusing that the quiz show is first seen in a store window as a TV show, yet subsequently is referred to as a radio show. Initially it feels like this film is a vendetta by Hollywood against the lowbrow world of TV. But then when you keep hearing that it’s on radio, you start to think that it’s all in your mind. Curiously, the only real dummy in the film is Frosty, the starlet neighbor of the Bottomleys, who is at least quite sweet, and very attractive. Everyone else is quite erudite and well spoken, even Happy Hogan. You want stupidity and ignorance? Try 2012, my friends, not 1950.

The indictment of encroaching ignorance in society, which seems like the purpose of this film, begins to take a back seat to the comedy, which really dominates the proceedings. In fact, much of the comedy is physical, which would seem lowbrow to a lot of people. But really, what makes you laugh harder than such brilliant physical comedy as the opening of “City Lights” (Chaplin and the statue), or the stateroom scene in “A Night at the Opera” (“and 3 hard-boiled eggs”), or Alvy Singer’s LA bumper cars in “Annie Hall”? You don’t get smarter than those three comedy icons, that’s for certain.

The movie is filled with memorable characters, especially the two male leads.

Bottomley is a snob’s snob, but he is also quite witty and, even though the term is anachronistic, I’d say snarky. His insults aimed at Milady, Hogan and even the listening audience themselves are couched in such wit, that nobody seems to mind. In fact, the audience appears in on the joke. If this were today’s reality TV, a guy like this would be vilified. At one point when leaving Waters’ office, he says “Shall I genuflect, or just face Mecca?” Nobody is put off by his snarkiness, in fact, they applaud his gambling spirit; that he is willing to risk it all solely on the confidence that he feels he can’t be stumped.

Waters is the worst kind of psycho-boss. You have no problem with Beauregard’s vendetta; you want this prick taken down as much as he does. Vincent Price’s read on the character is about as funny as you can imagine. He’s completely unscrupulous, and also as corrupt and crazy as absolute power can make someone.  More on this later. Suffice to say that he makes the bosses in “Horrible Bosses” look like Ben and Jerry. One of my favorite TV comedies is the Aughties British series “The IT Crowd”. The boss in that show, Denholm Reynholm is absolutely insane, and hilarious. I wonder if the writer, Graham Linehan, had ever scene "Champagne for Caesar", because the resemblance of Denholm to Waters is unmistakable.

Look, this is no “Sullivan’s Travels”. You’re not getting a deep message along with your chuckles. It seems like this will happen, but it never really does. That doesn’t make the film any less enjoyable.

FILMMAKING

Richard Whorf had directed a bunch of very unremarkable post-war features up until "Champagne for Caesar", a few musicals and comedies, and one noir, creatively titled “Love From a Stranger”. He went on to direct a ton of television shows, including a bunch of “Gunsmoke” and “Have Gun, Will Travel” episodes. We’re not talking Raoul Walsh, here, despite the initials being the same. Whorf does a great job with this film, mostly. There is a bit of slowdown in the 3^rd act, where there should have been some acceleration in the proceedings.

After Waters hires Flame O’Neill to seduce and confuse Bottomley, their courtship and her use of feminine wiles is more than predictable. As much as I love Celeste Holm, she brings little new to this role, and certainly toils in the shadow of others before her, notably Barbara Stanwyck and Jean Arthur. Ronald Coleman isn’t really great at this kind of humor. While he does a masterful job at the quick retorts and the slapstick, his take on a lovesick professor is lacking. I think of the actors who had this sort of character down; Jack Lemmon, Cary Grant, even Henry Fonda in “The Lady Eve”. I feel that in different hands, the comedy in this section would have been much stronger and believable, and "Champagne for Caesar" would be considered a masterpiece of the genre.

The sets are stellar throughout, particularly the Milady offices. Photography is simple and direct, nothing gets in the way of the humor or story. The score has one memorable theme, and is typical of comic films of that era.

PERFORMANCES

In spite of the flaws of Coleman’s and Holm’s realization of the romance/anti-romance, most of the acting herein is just perfect. Coleman is a revelation as a physical comic. His bit with the Milady arms is as well done as Buster Keaton. As you would expect, his delivery of barbs is low key and yet still stingingly funny. And his frustration with the dumbing down of society comes across with palpable clarity. It is a very different role from the man who played Sidney Carton, Charles Rainier and Robert Conway. 

As for Vincent Price, this film predates his horror genre dominance, and follows his turn as Shelby Carpenter in “Laura”. To my knowledge, other than guest turns on variety hours, this is his only true comic role, and he is brilliant. Right in the middle of a conversation he will go into freeze mode, his assistant insisting that he has “entered another plane”. Suddenly he’ll snap out of it in full conversation. His timing and expressions hit every note pitch perfectly. Who knew? It makes you wish he had done much more like this.

Like I said before, I am a fan of Celeste Holm, and she rarely disappoints. Rarely however, has she been employed as a femme fatale, albeit a comic one. She doesn’t really have that animal magnetism or overt sexuality that the part calls for. She is a fine comedienne, but sadly miscast in this film. Bottomley admittedly wants an intellectual peer for a mate, but there still needs to be some chemistry to make that relationship and his sudden inability to concentrate believable. I think Rita Hayworth could have pulled this off far better.

As for Art Linkletter---it’s so hard for people of my generation to separate him from the TV icon--“Kids Say the Darnedest Things” and all that. When I was growing up, he and Ed Sullivan were the two biggest TV personalities that weren’t animated or on strings. At least as far as I know! It is no stretch for me to see him as a Quiz Show host, especially one as clownish as Happy Hogan. Of course, when Gwenn falls in love with him, uhhhhh, no. Art Linkletter a chick magnet? What the hell? Then again, I totally love dancing ingénue Dick Powell playing Phillip Marlowe in “Murder My Sweet”, so preconceptions be damned.

And what of our titular character, the parrot named Caesar? His voice was portrayed by the genius Mel Blanc, but given only a few good lines. I guess the concept of an alcoholic talking bird was enough to keep audiences in stitches in 1950. The film would have been fine without him, and his comic part is overshadowed by Coleman and Price. No upstaging by this pet, unlike Uggie in “The Artist”. It’s also kind of hard to understand what he’s saying through Blanc’s voice tricks. Too bad…there could have been a lot more great moments in here.

ON SECOND LOOK

"Champagne for Caesar" is a great and original comedy, but could have been much, much better. I think there is a reason why it’s been forgotten, and we can point directly to the lack of real romantic tension and chemistry between the two leads.  It’s absolutely worth the time, if nothing else for watching two masterful genre actors go completely outside their milieus, and for some terrific highbrow AND lowbrow comedy.

1^st Look- ✭✭✭1/2   2^nd Look- ✭✭✭

“SE7EN” 1995 (Dir: David Fincher)

I didn't get it.

What I remember:

Dark. Dark darkness darkly dimming dusk peeking into gloomy rain-soaked edifices growing moldy with peeling paint and rot.

This is what I remember from David Fincher’s second feature film. To say that “Se7en” has a mood, would be like saying that “Dumb and Dumber” was silly. Fincher, I felt, tried just so damn hard to announce himself as an auteur with this movie. His intent was to go past the typical police procedural/serial killer genre. His intent, I believe, was to make something that would have the art of Fritz Lang’s “M”, with the power and horror of Jonathan Demme’s “Silence of the Lambs”.

The truth is, he wasn’t ready yet. He did that a few years later with what I feel is one of the finest of this genre, “Zodiac”. “Zodiac” has everything “Se7en” did not—starting with a believable story. Maybe because it’s a TRUE story.

“Se7en” seems like an impossible tale because it IS impossible. Starting with the level of difficulty of pulling off these murders in the manner they were accomplished; details are lacking in my memory, but I recall thinking that this killer would have to be awake 24-7, and in 49 places at once for 10 years to pull off these elaborate schemes. The other items that are hard to get around are the disparate intelligence levels of the two lead characters. There’s no way a lifelong detective in a city police force is as highly educated and intelligent as Morgan Freeman’s Lt. Somerset, or that Brad Pitt’s Det. Mills could be such a total blockhead. Somerset comes off as a Harvard literature professor taking a sabbatical. Mills resembles a WWF bad guy wrestler.

On Rotten Tomatoes, the audience gave “Se7en” 87% approval, as opposed to a “Zodiac” rating of 73%. Critics saw it a bit more my way, but still had this film rated way higher than the score I would give it. Let’s see if a subsequent viewing makes me change my mind.

After re-watching:

“You're no messiah. You're a movie of the week. You're a fucking t-shirt, at best.” Det. David Mills

PLOT SUMMARY

Young Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt) and his wife Tracy (Gwyneth Paltrow) have just moved to the big city so that David can become a Homicide Detective. He is partnered with erudite Lieutenant William Somerset (Morgan Freeman), and the two bump heads more than a few times. Somerset is about to retire, when a serial killer case develops. It’s clear that the killer is murdering people who each represent one of the seven deadly sins. As the case unfolds, it becomes clear that this killer is in much more control than the police.

STORY/THEME

Spoiler alert---you must understand that this whole undertaking is rotten with spoilers, but if you haven’t seen “Se7en”, then please stop reading this until you have.

Before I even discuss my feelings about this film, can we just go over one very important item that bugs the hell out of me? Thanks.

OK, so there are 7 deadly sins. He kills the fat guy- Gluttony. He kills the lawyer-Greed. He kills the hooker- Lust. He kills the model-Pride. He kills the junky- Sloth. What’s left?

According to my sources, Wrath and Envy. The last two victims are Tracy and the killer himself, John Doe (Kevin Spacey). Which is which? Wait, so when Mills kills Doe, that’s Wrath. And Doe makes a big deal about how envious he is of Mills and his beautiful wife. Envy. If you think about it for more than a second, it makes zero sense. Shouldn’t the people who are envious or wrathful be punished and killed? Then that means that Doe is a sinner? But I thought he was the right hand of God, smiting the sinners. That makes him wrathful. But Mills kills him in wrath. Now you say, but the man is insane, so of course it makes no sense. I retort, he is way too methodical to be sloppy about who and what represents these sins. The slop, my friends, is in the script and plot.  

The last line of dialogue in the film is Somerset’s voiceover (wow-Morgan Freeman doing a voiceover? Go figure.) quoting Hemingway:

“The world is a fine place and worth fighting for”. Then Somerset says, “I agree with the second part”.

This is our theme, friends. The world is a vile cesspool. But don’t give up! We hope you enjoyed your movie. Now go home, get a good night’s sleep (if you can) and get back to work in your dreary puddle of shit. Try not to get murdered or dismembered on your way home.

I recently saw the film “Shame”, which I immediately labeled “The Worst Date Movie EVER”. “Se7en” is a damn close 2^nd.

FILMMAKING

A friend of mine used to call pitcher Ryan Dempster “Bipolar Boy” because he would be so inconsistent from start to start. That is how I feel about David Fincher. He can give you near masterpieces like “The Social Network”, “Zodiac” and “Fight Game”, and then you get a mess like “Benjamin Button” or “Alien3”. I think this film is a mess, too.

One of the things that makes a chilling horror film so effective is that feeling that it is really happening. Why do “Psycho” and “The Birds” freak us out so thoroughly? Hitchcock leads you to believe that everything is perfectly plausible, and there, but for the grace of God, goes you.

Yes I understand that Fincher was going for a modern day chiaroscuro effect, where things are hidden and poorly lit. Done in the right amount, this is very gothic and can give the audience just enough of a sense of uneasiness. The extent to which it’s done in “Se7en”, sad to say, is absurd. I mean, the Public Library looks like some kind of dimly lit sex club. Not that I’ve ever been to one, but I’ve seen them on the news. The police station looks like one of those old banks that they’ve turned into a chic restaurant, with marble staircases and columns all lit artfully.

Then there’s the rain—where is this supposed to take place, anyway? Tracy at one point says they moved from upstate. Well it’s New York then, right? Where else is that a term? And it rains all the damn time. Maybe it’s Seattle. Nope, no hills. At the end, they drive to a desert, obviously California somewhere.

Back to the rain; at one point it is pouring outside, but when they go into a building to investigate a murder, the sun is streaming in from the outside windows. Come on! Sloppy is as sloppy does. Or Sloppy John Does.

I will admit that the first time I saw it, the end was both shocking and powerful. Kind of like the twist in “The Sixth Sense”. It made up for a lot of what bugged me in the movie. But just think how powerful and shocking it could have been, had they taken the care to make this a truly credible and slightly more realistic film.

PERFORMANCES

I’m not going to say that Fincher is the modern day Hitchcock, in that he views his actors as cattle. Truth be told, the acting is somewhat secondary in his films, although there were a few standout performances sprinkled throughout. I loved Cate Blanchett and Taraji P. Henson in “Button”, and John Carroll Lynch in “Zodiac” was unforgettable.

Brad Pitt seems to be finding his way as an actor, finally. “Moneyball” was a breakthrough performance, and I am hoping there will be more to come. For me, the early roles are just without subtlety and depth. It’s a hole in the middle of “Benjamin Button”, and a huge problem in “Se7en”. His role model here seems to have been Mel Gibson’s performances in the “Lethal Weapon” series. Bluster and frustration are combined, but there is little intelligence and humor.

Morgan Freeman is universally beloved, and as hard as it is to believe his character, he gives it the old college try. His scene with Gwyneth is solid, and his reactions during the film’s climax are convincing. It’s nowhere near the level of his parts for Clint Eastwood, or even his supporting turn in “Shawshank Redemption”. Gwyneth herself has very little to work with, but she is lovely to look at, of course.

It’s worth mentioning Kevin Spacey’s creepy John Doe, since it is obviously the template for Verbal Kint in “The Usual Suspects”. Slightly effeminate, and quite subdued, he uses this singsong voice pattern, and there is just enough of a sense of superciliousness that makes it work. A touch of crazy inches in near the end of his big scene in the squad car, and he handles it well.

ON SECOND LOOK 

I do have a list of “one-timers”, movies that I liked but never really want to see again, because they were tough to watch.

“Midnight Express”, “Shame”, “Jesus’ Son”, and “Requiem for a Dream” all are on this list. So was “Se7en”, but for the blog I will do anything!!

This is not a film you want to revisit. It is a thoroughly uncomfortable experience, like recalling a terrible error in judgement that you made years ago. You know it will be interesting to go there, but you can’t change it, and it will make you a bit sick to your stomach. It’s a one-timer, and I am sorry I didn’t keep it that way.

On First Look: ✭✭1/2   On Second Look: ✭✭