"It's not Willis' fault. At least not entirely." Not to get all Jeff Wells here, but yeah, it kind of is. Maybe he's not the star that he used to be, but Willis is still enough of a name that he could have (a) told all of those concerned to take a hike when yet another sequel was proposed (bear in mind I am one of those who still doesn't like sequels in general, but I also think the only one in the series worth a damn besides the first movie was the third one), or (b) he could have decided to make sure the movie, at the very least, was entertaining and not insulting to the audience. And if Willis is doing it for a paycheck or because he likes action movies, hell, he probably has another franchise going well with the RED sequel coming out, as the first one was surprisingly entertaining.

As much as I still love (or like a lot) many of the movies he directed and/or wrote, I have to say the bloom fell off of Mamet for me long before his political conversion, and it was with "On Directing". Not only was that the first time he indulged in what most people who have commented here (if not all) seemed to agree was a tiresome critical position (in order to elevate someone you like, denigrate someone you don't like even if the comparison between them is tenuous at best) in his screed against Method acting. Far be it for me to say there aren't valid criticisms to be made of the Method, but often, it seemed he made the most specious of them (comparing it to flat roofs?). Not only that, but he has maintained this position in similar books and/or essays he's written about movies and theater, conveniently forgetting some of the best performances involving his screenplays have come from actors identified with the Method; Paul Newman in THE VERDICT, Al Pacino and Alec Baldwin in GLENGARRY GLENN ROSS (is Ed Harris Method? He would seem to be, but I don't know if he's ever identified himself as such), Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman in WAG THE DOG (and De Niro again in RONIN), and Baldwin again in STATE AND MAIN. Changing subjects; I too was disappointed in THE GOOD GERMAN, and even a second viewing didn't change my mind.

I will definitely try to stop by at least for SCARFACE and THE OUTFIT.

BB - I don't know if John Woo, Ringo Lam or Tsui Hark, among others, are to your taste, but remember, their first American films were all with Jean Claude Van Damme. It happens.

It's funny how "It's not a tumor" has replaced "I'll be back" as the Ahnuld line of choice. I wish I could measure up more enthusiasm for BROKEN CITY, especially since both Kyle Chandler and Alona Tal (the wisecracking yet adoring assistant) are in it, but the trailer makes it look so generic, and I haven't liked anything Hughes (or his brother) has been involved with since MENACE II SOCIETY.

Glenn, this is a good piece about a thorny question and film, but I'd like to raise two points. Firstly, one phrase that always gives me the heebie-jeebies is "that's how they felt at the time", and that's particularly true when it comes to race relations. True, race relations at the time were, on an institutional level, much worse than they are today, but it makes it seem like there were no black public figures making a difference at the time, in film or elsewhere, and so much as I admire Agee as a writer and critic, I call bullshit on that entire defense he wrote. Secondly, if BIRTH OF A NATION is problematic today in addition to how it is as a film (along with, of course, its technical brilliance), it's because the majority of works dealing with the Civil War, or the tensions that arose from it, portray the South as the good guys and the North as the bad guys (there are plenty of people who take issue with GONE WITH THE WIND's racism, for example, if not the Klan specifically). As you sort of imply, one of the nice things about LINCOLN is the corrective it applies to Thaddeus Stevens; you might think his portrayal in BOAN to be hysterical and one-note, and justifiably so, but what of the book "Profiles in Courage", which John F. Kennedy signed his name to, and yet portrays Andrew Johnson as someone of courage but Stevens in just as evil terms as (presumably) Thomas Dixon and Griffith did?

As they are childhood faves, I always remember Durning best from THE STING and THE MUPPET MOVIE. Of course, he was capable of more varied performances than those two (Durning's performance grounds TOOTSIE), but comic villains are very tricky to pull off, and in those films, he did it without letting the seams show at all. And I happen to really like LAKEBOAT, as well as Durning's work in it.

I didn't like FUNNY PEOPLE at all, and I have to admit I haven't liked much of what Apatow has directed or produced since KNOCKED UP. Having said that, the most appealing parts of KNOCKED UP, for me, were with the Paul Rudd/Leslie Mann characters, and from what I've read, there is one gag in this movie that made me take notice (the Graham Parker joke they mention in last week's Entertainment Weekly), so I will check it out at some point.

Nice piece, Glenn. I haven't seen the movie yet (sometime this week, thanks to a family member's generosity), but I trust Bigelow, and while my sympathies are usually more inclined with Greenwald's than, say, Bill's are, Greenwald really dropped the ball on this one. Till I do see the film, once again, I'm going to be highlighting the arcane points of your post. First of all, I haven't heard that Miller Lite slogan in years, yet it's still embedded in my brain, and weirdly appropriate as a caption for that picture. Secondly, somehow I never knew Pete Townshend lifted "it's the singer not the song" from the Rolling Stones. Live and learn. Finally, I know hindsight is always 20/20, but when you were asked about the South Park creators only being in it for the money, it might be a little too obvious, but as far as comebacks go, what about, "And you're not?" (or "Just like you"). Maybe that opens up the can of worms of why it's okay for one person who makes a lot of money to criticize someone else for making a lot of money (or wanting to), but maybe that's a can of worms worth opening. At any rate, looking forward to seeing the movie, especially after your write-up.

And now that I've seen it, I felt it was very similar to last year's MY WEEK WITH MARILYN; an anecdote stretched out to feature length. And I would agree the best parts of the movie were Williams and Marvel, and it was a shock when I realized who Eleanor Bron was playing. I will admit, however, I seemed to be in the distinct minority of the audience I was watching it with, as there was a lot of laughter, even at the 500th time they made a joke about whether or not Queen Elizabeth II would eat a hot dog. It's that kind of movie.

Ah, well, I'm seeing this at a free screening tomorrow night. Maybe the fact I don't have to pay for it will mean I'm kinder to it than you were, though I agree that's not a necessary corollary (after all the worst movie I saw in the last 10 years or so was at a free screening). I will say, however, I liked Murray's version of THE RAZOR'S EDGE more than you did.

I can't remember if it was this film or M that was the first German-made Lang film that I saw, but it's always been one of my favorites, and I also need to watch it again one of these days. Along with that one, YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE and all of METROPOLIS (I must shamefacedly admit I've not yet seen DIE NIBELUNGEN), my list of favorite Lang films would include SPIES, M, FURY, MAN HUNT, SCARLET STREET, and THE BIG HEAT.

David N - Oh, I agree about Rose, being someone who passionately defends the merits of IMMORTAL BELOVED against any and all comers (and regret never seeing IVANSXTC, as it sounded very good). But while I acknowledge a longer cut of his ANNA KARENINA might have worked more than what was released, I don't know if it could overcome one part that was miscast (I have liked Mia Kirshner in other projects, particularly EXOTICA, but she's out of place in a period piece), one performance that seemed to be channeling another (Sean Bean, whom I normally like, played Vronsky as if he was still playing his bad guy character in GOLDENEYE), and most of all, an actress whose charms elude me in the lead role (and lest you think it's merely because she's uncomfortable in English-speaking roles, I haven't thought much of Sophie Marceau in her French-speaking roles either).

I am a fan of her acting ability, I do think she's pretty, and I admire her for taking a stand (for now) against Hollywood's usual weight standard for actresses. However, I have to admit, I was more than a little disturbed by that recent NY Times interview she gave where she expressed disdain at the idea of watching a black-and-white expletive deleted silent movie. As I wrote on a friend's Facebook page, I'm trying to write that off as a folly of youth, "trying" being the operative word. That said, given how much I liked the book, I still want to see SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK. As for ANNA KARENINA, is it at least better than the Bernard Rose version from 15 years ago? Because that looked beautiful, but was awful otherwise, except for Alfred Molina.

Petey - no, I don't completely attribute the failure of JADE to Friedkin (though, since I consider him a highly overrated director, he certainly didn't help), I lay most of the blame on Joe Eszterhas' utterly offensive screenplay. So again, the subject DOES matter.

I think of ALTERED STATES in the same way I think of FROM DUSK TILL DAWN - the first half, the director is relatively restrained, and then he went batshit crazy in the second half - although, in this case, I prefer the batshit crazy. I find the first half to be indigestible psychobabble, despite the actors who do their best to make it work. At least when it becomes a freak out, Russell knows how to make it creepy. And I am still hoping Criterion releases LETTER FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMEN in my lifetime. Come on, guys! And while they're at it, THE RECKLESS MOMENT as well (wouldn't mind a Criterion transfer of CAUGHT either, but don't want to appear too greedy).

Alright, Petey, then we'll try what is my least favorite movie of my lifetime, if not of all time; William Friedkin's JADE. You may, I grant you, not be as offended by that movie as I was, but on a pure "technical" level, I suppose it works. What does that matter if I spent the entire time wishing I was somewhere else because I was so disgusted by what I was watching? And you can't even blame it on the actors "ruining it", unless you have a hatred for Chazz Palminteri, Linda Fiorentino, Michael Biehn or Donna Murphy, among others (I won't go to bat for David Caruso, though I did like him in MAD DOG AND GLORY, PROOF OF LIFE and the remake of KISS OF DEATH). So again, the subject matter does matter. And I don't "fetishize" directors, though I don't want to derail the thread by getting into an argument about auteurism.

"song, noun (1) a short metrical composition intended or adapted for singing, especially one in rhymed stanzas, a lyric, a ballad. (2) a musical piece adapted for singing or simulating a piece to be sung. (3) poetical composition, poetry. (4) the art or act of singing; vocal music. (5) something that is sung." Call me crazy, but I think Charlie Parker - whom I revere, by the way - would concur with that definition (and Beethoven wrote "Ode to Joy", which, oh yeah, was SUNG!). Ahem. To get back to my original point, maybe I, or you (or Hitchcock, if you want to put a fine point on it) are confusing "matter" with "meaning". I don't think the lyrics of a song - or the story and/or subject of a film - have to "mean" anything, but they have to "matter" in the sense I think they should be well-written, or fit in with the other musical elements (and yes, I include James Brown's work here), and not insult my intelligence or taste. Petey, if I take your argument to the extreme, should I like a snuff film if it "works" (that is, all the technical ingredients Hitchcock talked about were well put together)? If it doesn't - and I can't conceive of any way that it would - than yes, the subject DOES matter!

As much as I love PSYCHO, I still can't get behind this viewpoint. To me, that's like saying the lyrics of a song don't matter.

All due respect, but CLEAN & SOBER came out in 1988, and 28 DAYS in 2000. Not to get all David Poland, but that's hardly a "trend".

Bay Ridge seems to have emerged somewhat unscathed (though I'm only going by what I can see outside my bedroom window; waiting to hear from family members and friends before I venture outside). We still have power, thank goodness. Glad to hear you and YLW are okay, Glenn.

I was just re-watching THE CONFORMIST (going through all the political-oriented movies I own). Still my favorite Bertolucci movie. And I don't know about anybody else, but IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE is my favorite Wong Kar Wei film.

I am more than pleased to see Daryl Zero on that list of "great screen detectives", as ZERO EFFECT is, to me, a highly underrated movie (as well as the first movie to make me understand the appeal of Sherlock Holmes). However, I wish there had been room for Alfred Fichet, the police detective Charles Vanel played so brilliantly in DIABOLIQUE.

Siren, I apologize if I was condescending in talking about Bennett's performances in FATHER OF THE BRIDE and WE'RE NO ANGELS. All I meant to point out was there was a world of difference between the writing of those parts - where any thought that went into the role seemed to only come from her performance - and her role in THE RECKLESS MOMENT, where the writer gave her character things like an inner life and motivation, which Bennett played to the fullest.

While channel surfing, I caught part of ME AND MY GAL last night, and I hope they repeat it, as it definitely looked intriguing. If nothing else, it reminded me once again what a great actress Joan Bennett was. It's amazing to consider the range she had, from Amy March to The Woman in the Window to a repressed housewife in Ophuls' THE RECKLESS MOMENT to a role in SUSPIRIA (and yes, she also played traditional housewives in the original FATHER OF THE BRIDE and WE'RE NO ANGELS, but she went beyond the stereotype in those performances). I enjoyed this write-up, Glenn, as well as the snark of the last paragraph, except to say I don't think a voodoo doll would work on Whedon. Now, an Orb of Thesula, on the other hand...