CABruno

But is the artist Woody Allen himself? It's obvious that the circumstances are similar if not the same, but an overly literal translation of "Stardust Memories" seems to be what essentially caused critics and fans to dislike it. If one can watch "Stardust Memories" without drawing comparisons to Woody's maturing cinematic talent from the early 70s (Bananas, Sleeper) to the end of the 70s (Interiors, Manhattan), then he will be treated to a feast of visuals and moods in the style of Federico Fellini wonderfully crafted by Woody and legendary cinematographer Gordon Willis. The film is certainly funny and has its share of Woody one-liners, but to watch it to laugh is to watch it for the wrong reasons. If you watch the film to think, and go into it with the mindset usually reserved for drama, you will find yourself laughing more. Woody Allen proved himself more than a comedian with "Annie Hall," a fine dramatic voice with "Interiors," and simply one of the finest filmmakers ever with my all time favorite film "Manhattan." "Stardust Memories" is the culmination of these three films, which, although it would be denied, probably gives the viewer a pretty good idea of where Woody was at with critics and fans at the time. The only Woody Allen film I would recommend more highly than "Stardust Memories" is "Manhattan."

With "The Loss of Sexual Innocence," Mike Figgis has reminded the movie-goer that in its truest form, film is meant to evoke a feeling in the viewer. Like any often misunderstood art, "Loss..." must be experienced, rather than fully understood. The images on the screen, coupled with the masterful use of score absorbs the viewer, resulting in him harboring different emotions and views regarding the film itself and the ideas it presents. There are few writers and directors today that are confident enough in their film's power to almost entirely rob it of dialogue, but Figgis takes that risk and succeeds in increasing the emotional intensity of the experience. Most have spoken against this, but have we forgotten that Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey," a film about silence, mood, and image won an Oscar for its (minimalist) screenplay?

I don't doubt there are people that will simply not understand this film. We have been raised on the Hollywood vision: big stars, big thrills, little plot, little thought. Now that something comes along to challenge that, they don't know what to do - they can't understand it, and because they spend so much time trying to understand it, they miss the point. I highly recommend this film to anyone who is willing to sit down and be taken by its impact - and wait until the film is over to put its pieces in place.

I was on tv-now.com looking at a film schedule for Olivia Hussey when I saw Lost Horizon listed on AMC. I couldn't find a copy anywhere, and so I was looking forward to seeing it. I got about 40 minutes through it and it was a great film. Unfortunately, the music started... This movie knows how to hit the mark, and it knows how to royally screw up and does both. Whenever there's no singing, this adaption of the novel is a good movie with a strong cast, beautiful locations, and nice colorful and exotic costumes. If only they had stuck with that, I would give the film a 7 or 8, but when the music comes in, it's terrible. There's not enough for it to be a musical, but it's still there. It's corny music, some of the worst by Burt, and totally changes the mood of the film. The only one that really fit was the dance by Hussey while the guests were having dinner. With the music, I'd say a 5. If you have the option of fast forwarding through the musical numbers, then definitely give this a shot. Without the music segues it flows nicely and tells the story effectively.