mg1119

Not a good movie. Well-photographed, the shots are nicely composed. But that's about all you can say about it. There's a strong current of racism and xenophobia in this film. I'm not saying that just to be politically correct. If you've ever travelled anywhere outside the United States, you'll notice a difference between American tourists. There are those who feel humbled by the experience of being the outsider and have genuine curiousity about and respect for the people and culture of the land they're visiting. Then, there are those who want to maintain a bubble, only making contact with fellow Americans and clinging to their USA Today. Sofia's characters seem more like the latter, even though they make the rounds of Tokyo and hang out with some Japanese people at one point. But her view of Japanese people is as comical little short folks who like to behave like children. Whereas the Americans are so sly and sophisticated. Even though the Americans in the movie are more childish than their Japanese hosts. There's also a strong ick factor in the relationship between Bill Murray and Scarlett Johannsen. He's just too damn old for her. Sure, there's no actual on-screen comsummation of the relationship, and he's even shown sleeping with a woman who's only old enough to be his daughter, passing up Scarlett, who's young enough to be his granddaughter. But the ending cops out by making it rather clear that they may have a future together. You don't hear what Bill whispers in her ear, but you see her teary-eyed smile and the prolonged embrace between them. Since both live in Los Angeles, you can surmise that an offering of further contact is made once both get back home, that they have found "true love." Yuck. Bill Murray's performance is okay, but nothing ground-breaking. Ms. Scarlett is alright, too, but nothing to write home about. You watch this movie and think about the fact that if the writer/director weren't the daughter of Francis Coppola, it would not have been made. Period. Even if you think the film has merit, it's too slight and glacially paced to have ever gotten financing if daddy weren't the executive producer. The script would have gone in the waste basket. Nepotism always trumps real talent in the film business.

This is just one of those glossy '50s tearjerkers, with glamorous people, pretty Technicolor, and fab costumes. The best thing about it is Gene Kelly, who is absolutely handsome, charming, and sexy as a slimy rogue who leads the sweet, innocent Natalie Wood down a treacherous emotional path. The two stars have tremendous chemistry, in spite of the large age difference between them. Kelly proves that he is (was?) a marvelous dramatic actor, a side seldom seen in his career outside of this movie. He should have done more of it. Wood is more of a raw, unpolished talent at this point in her career, but her vulnerability and ability to bring real tears to a scene makes her performance tremendously affecting. She's also radiant and beautiful, showing off her Audrey Hepburn-like ingenuous charisma. This is not a perfect movie, but you will be engrossed and emotionally moved by it. Fine performances also by the supporting cast, including Martin Milner, Ed Wynn, Carolyn Jones, and just about everyone else. A fine popcorn romance.

This movie offends me on principle. If Bob Crane had dropped dead of a heart attack, even with his interesting "backstory," would this movie be made? I think not. It exploits the victim of an unsolved murder, whose killer was never properly brought to justice. It opens wounds for his surviving family, at least his first family. His second family seem as twisted, perhaps more so, than he was (his son from his second marriage runs a Web site where people can download Dad's self-porno videos for a monthly fee, with Mom's approval). And who the heck is Paul Schrader to judge this man? Paul has obsessions of his own, if you go down his film resume that includes "Hard Core," "Taxi Driver," etc. Bob Crane never assaulted anyone, was not a rapist or pedophile. He was a bit twisted, perhaps, but any more than the several Hollywood pervs that are so widely admired? What would Warren Beatty have been had he had access to a video camera? How do we know that guys like him didn't? How about Heidi Fleiss' clientele and their predilictions? The only weird thing about Bob Crane is that he was perhaps ahead of his time. Considering his background as a disc jockey, his eventual tendencies should have come as no surprise. If he were around now, maybe he'd be giving Howard Stern a run for his money. Aside from that, the movie is so deadly dull. And Greg Kinear is appropriate casting only from the standpoint that he, like Crane, is not an actor, but a made-actor from radio/TV. Crane at least did a better job. It is a pity to see a childhood icon dragged through the mud. Why spit on Colonel Hogan? Maybe Bob Crane wound up the way he did from playing that womanizing slimeball Hogan(after all, not being a real actor, he probably had to resort to that technique known as the "Method"). Why, he even married Helga/Hilda in real life. Give the poor dead man a break.