AnnieP

Gimmicks are not plot. Confused, repetitious images are not keen character development, and certainly not genius. All the techno-crap and time-jumping were really unnecessary,and the heavy-handed clues throughout were tiresome. This pic could have stood more editing - by about fifteen minutes.

But I digress: Tom Cruise is my subject, and the reason I went to see the picture. (And how they sold it. This is a STAR VEHICLE, get it?)

Now:is there anyone who likes Tom Cruise unreservedly? Or is that guy working all the angles behind that golden smile visible to everyone?

Until "Vanilla Sky" I liked Tom Cruise - but with provisos. Now I must admit: he CAN act (though his range is small) and (to his credit)he was willing to take a chance of losing his audience by hiding that fabulous Star-Face for so much of this unhappy story.

The audience filed out as if unconscious before the credits started to roll, and I admit I suffered the same malaise. It was nothing so clear as "I don't like it."

The uneasy feeling stayed with me. In fact, it took me several hours to realize that I simply don't LIKE seeing Tom Cruise as a loser. Life is complicated enough. I was to see a jaunty happy hero, the place wherein all his attraction lies. (And I'm not a kid; the heroes of my twenties have been dying off for about five years from natural causes.)

When I go to see Tom Cruise I want him to be the Tom Cruise climbing the sheer rock face at the beginning of "Mission Impossible 2".

He doesn't need to show me he can act.

He doesn't have to.

He can just smile and win. I won't mind at all.

Are the Coens the new fashion? (Do we believe the Emperor is wearing clothes even if we don't see them?)

Without exception (and I have seen "Blood Simple," "Fargo","Hudsucker Proxy," "O Brother Where Art Thou?," "Miller's Crossing" and tried 3 times to sit through "The Big Lebowski")I have been left cold by each story, telling myself (except for Hudsucker,which just stank, plain and simple)that they were evolving. I thought "Fargo" was funny in places (thought Margie was divine)but it went on too long. I tried "Miller's Crossing" because I like Gabriel Byrne and Mellissa Gay Harden. There were redeeming moments, but not many.

Then too, I'm not particularly amused by seeing the same supporting characters over and over again. In fact, I find it distracting. These familiar faces never become lost in the character. It's simply Jon Polito, for example, playing another fat sleaze. I have tried to see a pattern in their films. I tried to find extenuating circumstances for the lack of entertainment value in a series of films which have obviously been painfully constructed. Problem is, all you see is how painstaking it is.

I don't want to see the zipper in the back of the monster's suit. I want to be entertained. In a literate fashion, if possible, which this one strove to be, but not necessarily. I like silly stuff well enough -Loved, for example, "Beautician and the Beast," the new "Mummy" and its sequel. Even the Di Caprio "Man in the Iron Mask." I loved Billy Bob or Bille Ray or whoever he is, in "Primary Colors." He had a character there and he developed it. In this one, I KNOW he's the man of the title, but who gave a d---? Sure, he disappeared. Sure, he was supposed to. I GET it, but you know what? I think he was bored.

I know I was.

I think somebody decided the Coens were cool, or hip, or chic, and word of mouth has solemnly carried them along.

The popcorn was great - just the right amount of butter - but the movie was really boring.

Have you seen "The Others?" Incredible! Classy AND entertaining.

According to a very good biography written by his grandson, near the end of his career, John Ford sought to make his own reparation to the Indian nation.

This is a thoughtful, sympathetic treatment of the Indian that runs a little too long in my estimation. The picture would have benefited by eliminating the entire "Wyatt Earp/Doc Holiday-with-the-sidebar-of- lovely ladies of a certain occupation", which was staged and played just this side of a pratfall. It made me impatient to get back to the Indians, but might have been intended as comic relief. Somebody made a bad call.

Several members of the John Ford ensemble company are present, including Harry Carey Jr, Patrick Wayne and Ben Johnson. Mike Mazurki plays a comic turn that does not jar.

Richard Widmark is a divine leading man and Carroll Baker does her job well too. It's a shame the casting is so obviously non-American-Indian, but this too is in the light of my recently acquired PC consciousness. Who do you cast as the noble savage? You know if you're over a certain age - Ricardo Montalban, Gilbert Roland, Sal Mineo, Victor Jory. They all did a good job, but one of the things I liked about "Dances with Wolves" was the native casting (and the great hair!)

I'd recommend this one to all John Ford fans. I am, but this particular flick is not his memorial. Perhaps "The Searchers" is.

I think so.