laadolf

Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller are likable fellows and good at what they do. They give this film their best shot, and it has its moments. But overall, this movie is neither fish nor fowl--torn between being a straightforward homage to the old show, or a comedy, it really accomplishes neither.

Yes, I am an old S&H fan from when the show first aired. Loved the camaraderie, the sense of fun, yet serious story telling the original show was famous for. Perhaps it doesn't translate well 25 or so years later, but that doesn't excuse Hollywood's lame tendency to mine 70's TV shows for parody material.

For me, the only time the film really came alive was at the end where the new duo meet the old pros. Sad to say, while their successors do not, Paul and David still have the magic--that scene was priceless. Watching the DVD deleted scenes and gag reel, and finding at least one other scene the two were in made me sad it too didn't end up in the final cut. It was funnier than anything in the preceding two hours. The old joke from the show about the Torino being a tomato not a car resonated with this old fan.

I wanted to do more than chuckle occasionally during this film, but that was about all I managed. Some things don't need to be remade but need to stay in their own time with their original cast. A better idea might have been to take the old concept, and try to modernize it--but even then, some things are just best left alone.

Demon Under Glass is a wonderful breath of air in the horror genre where for too long, shock value and gore has overridden plot, characterization and ethical conundrum considerations. This smart and stylish independent production is satisfying on many levels, not the least of which is the ethical dilemma which is its central theme.

Suppose that vampires really exist. And suppose that one were captured and studied by science? Is a sentient human being who just happens to be dead, and who kills others for their blood and fear, to be given more consideration than a lab rat? This is the premise of the film. The capture of the vampire, Simon Molinar happens at the outset of the film, as police and a mysterious commando force set a trap into which the urbane vampire falls. Once subdued and badly injured, he is spirited off to an LA area Veterans Hospital to be studied.

Once here, he comes under the attention and care of Dr. Joseph McKay, young doctor working off medical school debt at the VA facility. McKay is tapped to replace the project leader and medical doctor, Dr. Hirsch, who was killed in Molinar's capture. It is through McKay's eyes and experience that the nature of the project comes to light and the ethical considerations are explored.

Treating the injured captive, the compassionate McKay becomes drawn into his patient's life and situation. Necessarily clued to the true nature of the man under his care, the young doctor finds a polite, cooperative patient who seems to little warrant the stringent security and strict protocols aimed at keeping him under control. McKay's empathy is tested as he is involved in the experimentation involved first in healing Molinar's initial injuries, and as the vampire heals, the scientific inquiry that is the thrust of the secret Delphi project he has been drawn into. McKay is the voice of reason and compassion, who questions the right of the project specialists to conduct what seems at times the vilest sort of torture, in order to further science. As the experimenters go farther and farther in search of answers, and as the police who have been cheated of their suspect in a string of serial murders pursue the case and Molinar's whereabouts, McKay finds himself torn between a patient who is almost a friend, and associates who increasingly seem comfortable violating the very moral code that is at the heart of the Hippocratic Oath.

Molinar is played with style and flair by Jason Carter, who makes his vampire villain complicated and sympathetic--a man who, when escape does not seem possible, agrees to give back to humanity something of what he has taken for centuries, by allowing himself to be studied and experimented on. Garett Maggart is Dr. Joseph McKay, the emotional heart and soul of the film, who masterfully portrays a man torn between his natural compassion, his healing gift, and the moral considerations of how much humanity a fundamentally inhuman patient should be allowed. Maggart gives a multi-layered performance from which McKay emerges the quintessential hero, but not without emotional cost and conflicted feelings. The two stars are supported by a largely excellent cast.

For a low budget independent feature, the production quality and technical aspects are, if not great, still excellent. With studio backing and a huge budget, this could have been one of the most talked about films in years, but would probably have suffered from having huge name stars cast in the roles so beautifully played here.

This is very much a thinking man's film. While there is drama and tension aplenty, this film never goes for cheap shock and audience manipulation. The end result is a film that is first a drama with a compelling plot and second the most satisfying "horror" film this reviewer has had the pleasure to watch in many, many years.

As a Civil War buff from childhood, I've seen a lot of Civil War inspired films. This is a worthy successor (though technically prequel) to the excellent "Gettysburg" and despite its nearly four hour running time, kept me entranced.

If "Gettysburg" was largely the story of Joshua Chamberlain, "Gods and Generals" is very much the story of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Stephen

Lang, an very much under-appreciated actor of great talent, shines as Jackson, and should be nominated for an Oscar for his performance. It is through Jackson's point of view/experience that we come to understand the tragedy that was the War Between the States and Lang's heartfelt and compelling performance gives the film its emotional center. Fans of "Gettysburg" will remember Lang's turn as George Pickett in that film, here Pickett is played by actor Billy Campbell. Lang's performance as Jackson makes this odd bit of casting entirely forgivable, and proves his ability to carry this far meatier role.

Robert Duvall is excellent as Robert E. Lee. Jeff Daniels again shines as Joshua Chamberlain. Many faces from "Gettysburg" return in this film, memorable, Brian Mallon as Winfield Scott Hancock. Frankie Faison as Jim turns in a luminous performance as a freed slave who serves as Jackson's cook, and a voice of conscience for the film.

I found the history to be evenhanded, and as accurate as any film I've seen. As with "Gettysburg" this film takes names we may know from history and turns them into living breathing people that we can identify with.

This film is getting unfairly bad reviews and viewer reactions. I hold the fact that America has the attention span of gnat in this day of instant news and gratification, and a willful disregard for knowledge of its own history. History is only as dry and boring as the mind that approaches it. This film shows the human cost of the national tragedy that was the Civil War and dares to defy the 100 minute Hollywood standard for audience attention.

IF watching history come alive and better understanding the dilemmas, motivations of the leaders of both sides (of this struggle that forever changed the American form of government), the causal events and torments of those who fought against friends and kin, doesn't appeal to you, by all means, avoid this film. But if these very things are the elements you feel sorely missing from Hollywood's output of recent years, ignore the reviewers and watch this movie.

In my opinion, with a war with Iraq in the offing, this film should be required viewing for all Americans. It has many excellent points to make that are timely and relevant to our current situation, sometimes uncomfortably so. But you have to be willing to see them.

end of review