input: As others have commented, I checked this out after Siskel and Ebert listed this as one of their top 10 movies of the year. What a gift. I then went out to buy it, just so that I could loan it out.

Best quote? Dwight Yoakum stops his truck when he realizes that someone (Cage) is on top of his cab. When Cage peers down, he apologizes. "I'm sorry if I scared you." Yoakum thrusts his pistol in Cage's face with "Does THIS look like I'm scared?" Great bit of humor after an exciting (and temporary) escape.

There really was a sense of fun to this. The constant sighting of the "Welcome to Red Rock" sign elicits a groan and a smiling head shake. The music created a hunting, eerie quality to the film reminiscent of "Twin Peaks". Unlike "Twin Peaks", though, it doesn't spoil things by going too far into the outlandish, needing to "top" itself.

I admit watching the credits 15-20 times. You see, they had Yoakum's "Thousand Miles from Nowhere" (perfectly chosen) playing as a freight train curved around down to the desert floor . . with snow-capped mountains in the distance. This was incredible, fluid framing. Further, I've never seen a better unification of sight and sound on film. Also, it totally fit the story.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Two old men sitting on a park bench . I don't really have a problem with this scene - Only problem is that it's not a scene it's the entire movie

Yup movies don't get anymore low concept than this . They also don't get anymore boring than this either , but there's worse to come because these two old men are chalk and cheese . One is Nat Moyer who is Yiddish communist while the other is Midge Carter a former golden gloves champion who's also black . Let me see now , a Jew and a black man sitting on a park bench getting along fine . Well I guess it's possible though unlikely , but if this film has such an inoffensive scenario why play up to the Jewish stereotype ? Why make them loud tribilistic rabble rousers who take hebrew oaths ? Slightly ironic that the Jews seen at the start of the movie are exactly the type of Jews seen in Nazi propaganda films in the 1930s

Stereotypes aside moi dearz the problem with I'M NOT RAPPAPORT is that it's written for an entirely different meduim than cinema , it's based on a stage play and it shows . Walter Matthau sleepwalks through his role as Nat while this commentator almost slept through the whole movie

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The first mystery is to guess what Welles' original film was like. That makes this a real adventure -- to see an incomplete skeleton and using cinematic forensics, imagine the beautiful woman it once supported.

If you do, you will both see and experience perhaps one of the best film mysteries ever. As mysteries go, the narrative is rather ordinary: a simple diversion, one jealous husband as red herring.

What's rather miraculous is Welles' placement of the story in an artificial eye seeing a dark, dark multifaceted world. The first real noir, but even darker. It's not an obviously twisted world, unless you think about the camera. What we can see firsthand is someone creating a vocabulary that would later become common.

For all the celebration, Kane was a success because of the great drama and story. The camera's eye was shocking, but experimental. Welles would go from there to explore the mystery narrative and the self-reference of Shakespeare with this eye. Othello and MacBeth are both begun in this period, and I consider them part of a single vision with this.

The noir feel here hinges on the notion that people are not in charge of their lives, even a little -- they are manipulated by random factors in the environment. So in telling this story, Welles has to make the environment into a character. Several characters as suspects in the mystery.

Thus we have the famous lighting, blocking and angles we know (and have since seen countless times). And we have the deliberately closed sets: the park, yacht, picnic area, aquarium, dock, courtroom, Chinese theater and funhouse. I am certain that what was cut by the barbarians was lots and lots of 'external' narrative dealing not with character but with these strange environments.

My own solution to the mystery is that the funhouse did it, among the other character-environments introduced as suspects. In other words, the manipulation of Black Irish (who we know from notes and one scene typing at the union hall was an aspiring novelist) was neither: a force of human conspiracy (the park or the civilized version, the courtroom) nor of nature (the picnic or the civilized version, the aquarium).

Instead it was a matter of deliberate caprice by the gods for amusement. This is of course a self-reference to what Welles is doing: putting these people (including himself) through hell for our own caprice, a matter underscored by the Peking Opera set with Welles doped up. And of course leading to the funhouse where the environment directly tinkers with perception.

More about the self-reference: surely there is conscious comment on his relationship with his soon to be exwife. But I believe there is strong subconscious comment on his own taunting the environment in which he worked, the studio environment. Surely Welles was as much screwed with, and in much the same way, as his character. And that screwing took the form of the murder of this film, leaving the rotting corpse mentioned at the beginning of this comment.

That poor Rita comes from China ties up the whole thing, the Chinese theater, the expected rape from above, the loss of the woman. The investment in environment beyond all.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive