Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I refused to watch this when it originally aired, treasuring the memory of the late, lamented 1960s series with Mike Pratt and Kenneth Cope, but I can never resist a challenge. I should have known better. Not quite a remake, and more of a parody than a homage, this show didn't quite know how to play it, and plumped with infantile comedy and cartoon plots and characters. The three main characters were little more than caricatures of the actors, and only Emilia Fox could act (Bob Mortimer is painful in a straight role). The supporting cast were merely comedian-acquaintances of Vic and Bob's wanting to be part of the in-joke, and far too aware of the situation to be convincing. And the CGI, though the effects couldn't help be an improvement on those available 30 years earlier, merely dazzled the viewer with lights and camera work, and did little to mask the poor quality of the scripts and dialogue. All style and no substance. (And whereas the 1960s show is mocked for being very much of its time, this 'update' is now also very dated, with 'Matrix'-style fashions, obligatory 'girl power' scenes, and less than subtle tension between the two living leads.)
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James "Not Jim" Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Look, I know this may suck right now, but pain is temporary, film is forever. Whatever you do right now is burned into celluloid for all time and for thousands of years to come." Robert De Niro

This was initially a film for Steven Spielberg, the director hiring several screenwriters to adjust the screenplay so that it more suited his themes. And so we have a dysfunctional family that is threatened by a deranged monster in the form of a recently released from prison Robert De Niro. Like "Jurassic Park", "Poltergeist" and "War of the Worlds", the dysfunctional family bands together to defeat the beast, the beast being the creation of the father, a lawyer who failed to defend De Niro during his trial.

In typical Spielberg fashion, the father kills the monster that undermines the family and is then promptly absolved of his sins. Like Oscar Schindler, Robin Williams, Sam Niel, Tom Cruise and virtually every "daddy" figure in Spielberg land, the father reclaims his paternal duty in the kind of bittersweet coda that Spielberg so enjoys.

But Spielberg eventually abandoned the picture and the project was instead turned over to Martin Scorsese, who at the time was seeking to try his hand at more commercial fare. The result is arguably the worst film in Scorsese's filmography, and, ironically, his most illuminating.

An artist's failures or misfires are often very revealing, exposing the inner workings of their art. When the story doesn't work, the characters don't connect or the images don't sear, we find ourselves left with a kind of inner core. This the remaining carcass- is what the director's cinema is about.

Now "Cape Fear" is an impersonal film, so we won't find any thematic connections to the rest of Scorsese's filmography ("You already sacrificed me!" De Niro yells, but the films themes of Catholic redemption are cookie cutter). What the film does, though, is expose the kind of language that his filmography hinges on. Watch how Scorsese's camera desperately whips back and forth, how he zooms frantically onto doorknobs and windows in an attempt to force tension and how his characters are all loud and screaming for attention. But more importantly, watch how the film makes no spatial sense. A showdown on a boat at the end of the film takes place on an obvious sound-stage, a street parade is claustrophobic and takes place within no larger context and the family's house doesn't seem to exist anywhere in particular. There is simply no geographical sense to anything in the picture, Scorsese unable to film space or create any kind of spatial environment.

The reason for this is that Scorsese's camera always has to be bound, or intimately tethered, to his central character. For the world around the character to make sense, his camera has to be focused on the character. Resnais can take you around a French Hotel, Welles and Hitchcock can dance you down a street and up a building, Cameron can give you a tour of the Titanic, Scott can recreate an entire future cityscape, Lucas can give you an alien desert planet, and most other directors can create a sense of space by textbook "close up-mid shot-wide shot" combinations, but Scorsese can't do this. There's no poetry, no sense of tangible space in his films. He's all about the character. You break that tether, you leave that boxing ring, that taxi cab, you look away from De Niro, and everything collapses. He simply cannot break away from this very documentarian style of shooting, which, in a way, is a prerequisite for action film-making.

Scorsese tried to rectify this problem with "Gangs of New York", where the space and the sets become the central character, but even this self consciously spatial experiment gets sabotaged by the magnetism of Daniel Day Lewis, the actor drawing Scorsese's camera inexorably toward him like a moth to a bulb.

5/10 Even as a generic B-movie, this is an ugly, vulgar looking film. Look at the matte paintings, the inept attempts at tension, the silly rotorscoped special effects and hokey fistfight showdown. Still, we have Robert De Niro to pick up the slack. De Niro, who gives his body over to Scorsese like a tattooed Christ, gives the film its only great scene. In an improvised romantic sequence with young a Juliette Lewis, he sticks his thumb into her mouth and kisses her. A kind of symbolic rape, the girl runs away, both aroused and repelled by this man's interest.

But De Niro's performance, so deliciously over the top, simply can't be imitated by Scorsese. You'd need the operatic tone and the baroque visuals of someone like De Palma to make this work. But Scorsese? Nope.

Worth one viewing.
+++++++++
A:
negative