input: I'm a pretty old dude, old enough to remember the taste of Oreos and Coke as they were 50-55 years ago, when every taste for a kid was fresh. I wish I have somehow set some aside then is some magical suspended locker, so that I could taste those things today. This magical locker might even have adjusted the fabric of the food to account for how I've drifted, physically and otherwise, a sort of dynamic chemistry of expectations. Over the half century, they would have had to adjust quite a bit, because you see I would have known that I set them aside. Eating one now would be a celebration of self and past, and story, and sense that would almost make the intervening years an anticipated reward.

I didn't have enough sense to do that with original Coke. And I couldn't have invented one of those magical psychic lockers not then. But I did something almost as good. In the seventies, I really tuned into Roman Polanski. He was a strange and exotic pleasure you know, movies smuggled out of the Soviet block. Movies so sensitive to beauty that you cry for weeks afterward. Movies that make you want to live with Polish women, one, and then deciding that they would be the last to get it.

Here's what I did. I took what I knew would be my favorite Polanski movie and set it aside. I did not watch it. I deferred until I thought I would be big enough to deserve it. Over the years, I would test myself, my ability to surround beauty and delineate it without occupying it. There probably are few Poles who have worked at this, practicing to deserve Chopin. Working to deserve womanness when I see it. Trying to get the inners from the edges.

Recently, I achieved something like assurance that it was time to pull this out. I already knew that I was already past the time when this would work optimally, because I had already seen and understood "9th Gate."

If you do not know this, it is about a man who innocently rents a room in which the previous tenant (about whom the story is named) jumped out the window, to die later after this man (played by Polanski) visits. What happens is that time folds and he becomes this woman. We are fooled into believing that he is merely mad. But the way we follow him, he is not. He merely has flashes that the world is normal, and that the surrounding people are not part of a coven warping his reality.

The story hardly matters. What matters is how Polanksi shapes this thing, both in the way he inhabits the eye that only makes edges and in inhabiting the body that only consists of confused flesh. The two never meet. There is a dissonance that may haunt me for the next 30 years. Its the idea about and inside and an outside with no edges at all at all except a redhead wig.

I know of no one else that could do this, this sketch that remains a sketch, this horror that remains natural.

To understand the genius of this, you have to know one of the greatest films ever made; "Rear Window." The genius of that film is the post-noir notion that the camera shapes the world; that the viewer creates the story. What Roman does is take this movie and turn it inside out. In Rear Window, the idea was that the on-screen viewer (Jimmy Stewart) was the anchor and everything else was fiction, woven as we watched. Here, the on screen apartment dweller is the filmmaker. We know this. We know that everything we see is true because he is the narrator. We know it is true that bodies shift identity, that times shift, that causality is plastic. We know that the narrator will kill us. We know that the narrator will leave us in a perpetual horror, on that edge that he imputes but never shows us and lets us imagine.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: "Written on the Wind" is a Douglas Sirk's melodrama. Douglas Sirk was rediscovered by the "Cahiers du Cinema", Fassbinder etc.. that hailed him as a master director - I think that it is because of the sophistication of his cinematography - "Written on the Wind" offers luscious color images and gorgeous decors. But I ask myself: Is this enough to carry a film? The acting in "Written on the Wind" ranges from weak to fair (excepting Robert Stack - he is convincing as the weak & spoiled playboy). Lauren Bacall, normally a powerful presence in the screen, is miscast in this film. Dorothy Malone as the seductress, the care-free "femme fatale" is OK, but she lacks the strength for the role. Rock Hudson is efficient but vapid .

The plot has very interesting ingredients. The main characters are:

A rigid patriarch

his alcoholic son Kyle (Robert Stack) (never loved by the disappointed father)

his frustrated and nymphomaniac daughter Marylee (Dorothy Malone)

Lucy (Lauren Bacall) - a woman of principles, formerly a secretary and now married to Kyle

Mitch (Rock Hudson) - brought up together with Kyle and loved by the patriarch.

Secrets beyond the door, a love triangle, frustration, fistfights, laughter, death etc. - well, when I read the story summary on the back cover of the DVD I thought that I was in for a treat. My mistake! Why? I'll try to explain: "Written on the Wind" takes itself seriously and tries to tell a dramatic story. As I said before the acting, in general, is not good enough - the intensity is lacking. There are many strong scenes in the story, but the actors just do an efficient job. I think that maybe with Italian or Spanish actors those scenes would have been explored fully - they would end (for us) in an explosion of laughter or tears .

What remains to us is the beautiful cinematography of Douglas Sirk. For me this is not enough. If you want to enjoy a good melodrama, see "Aventurera".

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This movie is very much like "Flashdance", you know that dance flick with Jennifer Beals. That film is probably the most boring film I have ever seen since it's not even bad enough to be funny. "G.I. Jane" is much better than that film, but that doesn't say much. Here Demi Moore sweats a lot and there's high music and we get to see her fight and everything, but it is certainly not very engaging. I really think the idea behind the film is kind of interesting, but the script is too cliched and Ridley Scott can't do anything about that. Well, like I said... It's better than "Flashdance"... (4/10)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative