topcat-1

Unless you are under 13 and have never seen a horror movie (I don't think any kid like that exists) then you'd be hard pressed to stay the whole 2 hours with this bucket of swamp water. First, when the director writes the screenplay, you know you are in for trouble. I'm not a Stephen King fan but even his fans must have been disappointed with this one. It's only David Koepp's 6th outing as a director and he should probably stick to screenplays; it's pretty stock directing. Johnny Depp sleepwalks through this role - I guess he needed a paycheck. Most of his choices of movies are reliable but not here - he doesn't even look good, all scraggly. The rest of the cast is equally boring with the exception of John Turturro who does a good job with the hackneyed lines he's been given. The story is uninteresting and the dialogue and plot are embarrassingly predictable. If you want suspense, watch Hitchcock or better yet, go read a good book.

I think people are getting better at sequels than they used to. A good sequel doesn't imitate or retread the original but builds on it. That's the case in Legally Blonde II. One was compact and inspirational with Reese Witherspoon carrying most of the comedic load. In II she has lots of help. Bob Newhart's deadpan is perfect for the doorman. Sally Field has to play it pretty straight as a congresswoman but plenty of others help out. The Delta Nu's are a bit overdone with the exception off Elle's two friends leading the interns in a bow wow wow cheer. Priceless. A lot of the humor is situational and the script sparkles.Witherspoon of course is the star and one of the few that can carry a movie by herself. Elle matures in her masquerade as a ditzy blonde but with plenty of smarts and a friendly heart of gold. I saw it twice and enjoyed it even more the second time as I was able to pick up some of the nice little touches I missed the first time. It's not really a classic but pleasant enough and well worth a look.

While the remake with Curtis and Lohan was good and Hollywood smooth with better production values (so what), the main difference is in the lead actors. I mean you know Jodie Foster can act circles around Lindsay Lohan (who couldn't) but the main difference is in the moms. Jaime Lee Curtis is a savvy pro who has her own take on the role but it's pretty flat in comparison. Barbara Harris I didn't remember from her small roles in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and Peggy Sue Got Married but now that my memory has been jogged, she did a fine job. This movie, though, is her tour-de-force. What a fantastic performance. She is flawless and incredibly funny in this role. As fine a comedic turn as anyone has ever done; the nuances of voice, the facial expressions, the slapstick - all spot on.

Jodie Foster is no slouch either. Her teenage roles have showed maturity beyond her years and a thorough understanding of her roles. She shines in this one. The supporting cast is well chosen and they're all good too.

I can see why they remade it, though. Todays kids don't usually get into old movies so with a box office cinch like Lohan, why not? I like a lot of the 60's and 70's movies since that is my generation and subsequently have trouble enjoying the 30's and 40's movies. But a good movie is a good movie no matter when it was made.