Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Reel Thoughts

  • Viewing The Manchurian Candidate for the AFI Project

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    What's the AFI Project, you ask?  For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

    The Manchurian Candidate is on the following AFI lists:

    The Original Top 100 (#67)
    100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#17)
    100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Mrs. John Iselin is the #21 villain)

    This is a film that I have been looking forward to watching for quite a while now.  After all, the plot summary alone is intriguing, but then, the film received a high-profile remake treatment featuring the likes of Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep.  I swore off the remake (even as the previews tantalized and teased me) in favor of the original because I knew it was on my AFI lists and because, from everything I've ever read or been told, the original far surpasses its successor.  I'm happy to say, my anticipation was well rewarded because this is one of the best films I've ever seen, i think, or it's at least the best film I've seen in awhile.  Also, the film, like Network, is unusually prophetic, even if the entire plot arises from Cold War paranoia that no longer exists - at least not in the same shape and form.

    The film's beginning is confusing because the viewer is given a few misdirections in order to hide highly satisfying twists and turns that pop up as the picture progresses, so I'm probably going to rely on the Spout page's plot summary a bit more than normal.  As the film opens, American soldiers in the Korean War are in a bar, enjoying a little R & R, before their commanding officer, Sergeant Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), comes in and orders them back on duty. It's clear from their begrudging acquiescence that the soldiers have no love for their CO, but they follow him on patrol anyway, where they are ambushed and taken by Korean troops.  The film then flashes to months into the future.  Shaw has received the Congressional Medal of Honor, and all of his former platoon call him "the bravest, finest, and most lovable man I've ever met."  It becomes clear, particularly to Captain Bennett Marco (Frank Sinatra), that the men underwent brainwashing and thought control at the hands of their captors.  Some experience nightmares and visions, others behave erratically, but Marco can't seem to shake the feeling that the dreams and behaviors he is exhibiting aren't his own.  Through petitions to his own commanding officers and investigatory arms in the military, he begins to piece together clues that lead him to conclude that Shaw was programmed by a Chinese and Russian coalition who have turned him into an indiscriminate killing machine, able to assassinate anyone on command and then forget his actions later.  While Shaw contends with blackouts related to this programming, he is also harangued and used for political gain by his highly ambitious, uncompromising and seemingly unfeeling mother (Angela Lansbury), the puppetmaster behind her husband, John Iselin's (James Gregory), congressional career.  He's vying for the vice presidential nomination fueled by his wife's carefully orchestrated anti-Communist hysteria. Shaw, in the meantime, spends his time attempting to separate himself from her unrelenting claws, even as Marco befriends him in an effort to find the source of the conspiracy that led to their capture.

    I loved this film.  What a picture to be made in 1962, when the country was still in the throes of pearl necklaces and white picket fences and apron strings and Father Knows Best, before Kennedy was assassinated and the Vietnam War.  True, the film's plot, which was based on a novel, is rooted in something that has long since faded into memory, but echoes of the anti-Communist agenda ring as true now as they once did, with today's focus being on terrorism and the nameless jihad directed toward the western world.

    This film works on every level because it is smart, savvy, foresighted, and poignant.  It's intense; the paranoic tone is perpetuated throughout the film thanks to the on-point direction of John Frankenheimer and the against-type performances of Frankie and Murder, She Wrote.  I have never seen a film where Angela Lansbury plays the villain, and I'm not sure I ever want to again! What a vile, odious woman she played, so far removed from Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Mrs. Potts and other Disney-approved creations.  Her performance more than earns her spot on the Heroes and Villains list because her snake-like character comes out of nowhere and has more layers than a casserole. While the film offers so many reasons to watch and appreciate it, Ms. Lansbury stole the show with one of the most fully-realized and complex villains to ever hit the screen.

    Sinatra also gave a career-defining performance as Marco.  His chemistry with Janet Leigh (who plays his random love interest; they meet on a train) was a little off, but Marco's tenacity, conflict, and determination are well-played by the erstwhile crooner.  Shaw also expertly offered a layered performance of the ultimate brainwashed  though innocent stooge, even if his actual character and performance were a bit theatrical at times.

    The film was also directed well.  The tone was consistently intense, and the pacing was consistently at the level of a slow boil that popped at just the right moments.  My heart pounded at several key points when reveals, both expected and unexpected, occurred. Some of the key twists the viewer might see coming, but Frankenheimer and company make the viewer work for it and plant just the right amount of doubt, so that no conclusion is truly foregone.

    The most creative segments of the film - and the most confusing - were during the Chinese/Russian coalition's demonstration of their brainwashing success.  The filmmakers decided to alternately show the actual room the soldiers were in, with levels like in the United Nations only populated by representatives of major Communist countries, and a garden tea party, the vision the soldiers were duped into having as this demonstration progressed.  Some of the switching back and forth grew confusing and tedious but, ultimately, the creative stroke was effective, particularly in its misdirection.

    The reviews on this page call The Manchurian Candidate a satire.  I don't know if I agree with that categorization, since satire usually implies a comic angle to the piece.  While some black comedy might have been present in the film, I wouldn't give it any kind of overarching comedic label, because I never laughed.  If the humor was there, it was based in subtle irony - more subtle and insidious than the irony found in something like Dr. Strangelove.  The Manchurian Candidate is ultimately a thriller and a very well-constructed one to boot (it also deserves its ranking on the appropriate AFI list).  It elicited a thumping heart on many occasions from me.

    With a razor-sharp script, again prophetic as its political and social commentary transcends the year in which the film was released; consistent and expert direction; and uniformly great performances, The Manchurian Candidate is a great film.  It's surprising, but the AFI chose not to add this to its Revised list, and this is one of the best films I've seen from the Original lineup, at least in this bottom half (incidentally, it was replaced by Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, which was new to the Revised list).  For all these reasons and more, this film received a five-star rating from me.  I also think it merits an 8.5 on the patented ratings scale between very good/minor flaws and perfectly entertaining, owing to some of the confusion brought on by the alternate realities.  This is really just one flaw, and I only feel this way because it really did grow tedious (which prevents me from calling the film perfectly entertaining or better).  As to the test, I may very well buy this one.  It would be interesting to add the cynicism and paranoia of this film to my collection, juxtaposed with Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and all of its hopeful optimism in the face of political corruption. Incidentally, I've read the plot summary of the remake since viewing this film, and I don't feel that I can honestly bring myself to watch it, Meryl Streep or no.  Is there someone who can convince me otherwise because the original was just too good?


  • Oscar Flashback: Gorillas in the Mist (1988)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)?  Read here:

    Next on my Netflix queue was Gorillas in the Mist, for which Sigourney Weaver was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar; Stuart Baird was nominated for the Best Film Editing Oscar; Maurice Jarre was nominated for the Best Score Oscar; Andy Nelson, Brian Saunders, and Peter Handford were nominated for the Best Sound Oscar; and Anna Hamilton Phelan and Tab Murphy were nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar (film year, 1988; awarding year, 1989).  The other nominees in these categories were:

    Best Actress

    The Accused - Jodie Foster (Winner)

    Dangerous Liaisons - Glenn Close
    Working Girl - Melanie Griffith
    A Cry in the Dark - Meryl Streep

    Best Film Editing

    Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Winner)

    Die Hard
    Mississippi Burning
    Rain Man

    Best Score

    The Milagro Beanfield War (Winner)

    The Accidental Tourist
    Dangerous Liaisons
    Rain Man

    Best Sound

    Bird (Winner)

    Die Hard
    Who Framed Roger Rabbit
    Mississippi Burning

    Best Adapted Screenplay

    Dangerous Liaisons (Winner)

    The Accidental Tourist
    Little Dorrit
    The Unbearable Lightness of Being

    This film also represents the fourth of nine Oscar-nominated dramas topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track.

    I watched Gorillas in the Mist instantly (I do love my Roku).  I can't remember why I cued this film up.  Again, I think it was one of those film titles from the 80s that have always stuck with me but which I did not pay much attention to as a child (I would have been 10 or 11 when this movie was released).  As you can see from the above nominee list, there were other important films that likely drew my attention much more quickly at that age, such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit.  Nevertheless, I do like Sigourney Weaver in just about everything else I have ever seen her in, and the plot likely intrigued me enough to want to watch it, so here it is, next up for some Reel Thoughts.

    The film is based on the autobiography of naturalist Dian Fossey, played by Weaver in the film.  According to what I've read since watching the film (and I was keenly interested for several reasons), Fossey was mysteriously murdered in her home in Uganda just prior to the film's release, and the film itself follows Fossey's life story, beginning with her choice to petition anthropologist Louis Leakey for a position on a research project to study gorillas in the wilds of Africa.  Though her work is slow-going at first, the film depicts how Fossey becomes fascinated and, arguably, obsessed with the habits and lifestyle of the gorillas, and she is able to develop a means of communication with them, even as she forms a deeply personal attachment to them.  This attachment costs her a potential love-match with a National Geographic photographer (Bryan Brown) and brings her into direct conflict with poachers and the Ugandan government that supports them.  The film further shows how she becomes a militant animal-rights activist, leading to some ethically compromised choices of her own.

    What I liked best about this film is that it's far from manipulative or coercive in its attempts to provide a balanced account of a woman's life that ended mysteriously and amid controversy over an issue that doesn't necessarily have the widespread support one would expect.  As I've indicated, I spent some time reading (through quick online research) some accounts of Fossey and her life after watching this film, and the film, surprisingly, received mixed acclaim.  Much of the criticism of the film centered on the idea that the depiction of Fossey as a potentially homicidal devotee to her gorillas was inaccurate and biased, and that Fossey was a victim of political assassination in life and death as a crazy woman, attempting to force her western ideals on a less-than-advanced culture dependent upon the revenues of poaching and looking to indict Fossey in the worldwide court of public opinion.  Still others felt the film undersold her devotion to these animals, from a school of thought believing that the "crazy woman" moniker wasn't developed enough, while others felt the conservationist messages were not strong enough because the film was too busy focusing on a murder mystery rather than the work of a heroic woman.  I actually felt that the movie was just balanced enough to incorporate all of those views and to let the viewer decide how to accept the message(s).  

    In my opinion, the conservationist message rang loud and clear, and the endeavor to present a balanced portrait of a woman whose work and life choices could be interpreted in several ways, allowing time to each of the possible theories, was the most fair way to depict the life of an otherwise controversial, complex. and passionate woman. Sigourney Weaver's performance was the key to the whole picture coming together; her sensitive portrayal of this person never strayed into the deliberately outlandish.  Everything from her interactions with the live (and, apparently, costumed) gorillas--quite the scene stealers themselves-- to her more impassioned outbursts, to her joy, and yes, even to the extreme devotion Fossey had for these animals was given a mesmerizing treatment by Weaver.  It was her performance that kept the film from falling too far on one particular side or position of the controversy underpinning Fossey's life and her performance that kept this viewer engaged.

    Because of the type of film that it is, there was some erratic pacing, and the film seemed to lose its pacing consistency about the time that the Fossey character was becoming more active in her efforts to hold her research assistants and the rest of the world at large at bay from invading her and her gorillas' territory.  The film is slow and deliberate, which suits its subject, until it decides to tell the tale of Fossey's murder and the events leading up to it, which happens to be a second act switch.  It's noticeable because it's hard to switch gears, but I'm not sure how director Michael Apted or the rest of the filmmakers could have improved upon that and still have maintained the balanced approach to which they obviously seemed to be aiming.  In my mind, this late course-change is but a minor complaint.

    Truthfully, I sort of loved this movie, and I loved it because it did deliberately straddle the line and left any conclusions to be drawn about Fossey's choices and the events of her life up to the viewer to make.  Also, Weaver's performance really is the hallmark of Gorillas in the Mist and, alone, makes the film recommendable, but add to her performance the breathtaking cinematography capturing the lush African mountainsides and a moving score, and the ingredients for a very good film are all nicely combined into a delicious mixture.  All in all, then, I think the film merits an 8.5 on the patented ratings scale between very good/minor flaws and perfectly entertaining (for the pacing issue).  As to the test, though I loved the film, I can't see myself watching it repeatedly.  I think its most powerful impact would be felt on the first viewing alone; also, as much as I loved the message and the fair autobiographical depiction, it's not the type of fare I pull out for a giggle.

    As a side note (see above), 1988 was quite the year for films.  This film faced some stiff competition in its categories, including films I adore, such as Roger Rabbit, Die Hard, and Rain Man.  I think that says something by itself.


  • Viewing Network for the AFI Project

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Network  (1976)

    What's the AFI Project, you ask?  For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

    Network is on the following AFI lists:

    The Original Top 100 (#66)
    100 Movie Quotes (#19 - Howard Beale: "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!")
    The Revised Top 100 (#64)

    Network, instantly viewed on Netflix, is one of those films that I've always vaguely heard about but never paid much attention to until reviewing the films for this project.  When I read the premise and prior reviews, I was greatly intrigued but otherwise had no preconceived notions.  I'll leave it at that until after offering the obligatory plot summary.

    Network is a wily satire of the machinations of television.  The term floated in the film is "trash TV," though the film easily makes the argument that all television is trash.  For the purposes of the film and its plot, though, trash TV seems to refer to exploitative, sensationalist programming, an early wash of the genre known as "reality TV."  Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is forced out of his long-standing position as veteran newsanchor at fictional network United Broadcasting Systems because the ratings show that he "skews old."  Network executive and Howard's best friend, Max Schumacher (William Holden), delivers the news, but Howard can't bear the thought of losing his job for any reason, much less his age, so in his next broadcast, he announces to his viewers and, essentially, the nation that he is going to commit suicide on his final program.  Frank Hackett (Robert Duvall), the corporate executive in charge of the Network, wants to oust Howard before his remaining two weeks have expired, but Programming Executive Diana Christensen (Faye Dunaway) sees an opportunity in Howard.  Ambitious, driven, and in charge of bringing cutting edge programming to the network, and in lieu of all of the ensuing news and interest becoming a ratings gold mine in the wake of Howard's announcement, she convinces Frank to let Howard onto his final broadcast as a special event, with cameras poised to film whatever grisly end Howard brings to himself.  Howard, on the other hand, who has begun to crack under the circus that began with his termination, fails to commit suicide; instead, he embarks upon a rambling, raving rant about the state of the world and of television and encourages the viewers to go to their windows and shout as loud as they can: "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"  When people actually listen to this encouragement, Howard becomes the hottest thing on TV, and Diana becomes the Network's new "it" girl.  Howard gets his own news program, where he can rant and rave to his content while bolstered with interesting segments, such as a psychic's predictions.  Diana also bills Howard as the "the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves," and Max watches all of this in horror and disgust, even as he finds himself drawn into an adulterous affair with Diana.  Though he is equal parts fascinated and horrified, Max temporarily leaves his wife (Beatrice Straight) for Diana, only to return to her when he realizes that Diana is television in human form.  At the same time, the network owner (Ned Beatty), who admits that he relates to Howard in only the craziest of ways, convinces Howard to preach a "You can't win, so why try?" philosophy that causes the ratings roller coaster to coast down hill. Thus, the network must decide how to deal with Howard's declining trend and cut their losses, despite their investment into this new kind of programming.

    That's quite a bit of plot summary, and I relied on the Spout page more than usual in my attempts to coax from memory everything that happened in Network, but truth be told, Network is a cynical, ascerbic, and visionary film that is complex in its many layers.  It's all satire--barbed, pointed, sharp, and merciless--but there are so many different edges to the satire, Network almost loses track of where the barbs are aimed, and, in some ways, the film, as brilliant as it is, fails to obtain that masterpiece status because the sly bullets are being shot in six different directions at times when maybe only three or four bullets should have been shot at the same target.

    The screenplay by Paddy Chayefsky is about as brilliantly written as any great screen story, and the film's focus on the Network's inner cogs was when the film was at its tightest and strongest.  The fact that the film took aim at sensationalist programming, which has only become more prevalent in the 21st century, makes the film more prophetic than even the filmmakers probably knew in 1976.  All of the little jokes, from sly comments made by the executives to the visual gags, to the poignant conclusion of the film, serve to take well-deserved knocks at the television industry and contempoary news broadcasts, otherwise known as the "media," and there are times when the film is laugh-out-loud funny because of the sheer irony of what is being targeted and how it is being portrayed.  There are also times when the giggles arise from the squirm factor, as the film clearly broaches the line and stretches it without ever crossing it (at least - until the end, which I refuse to spoil under any circumstances).

    Yet, the film lost me when it veered into the Max and Diana tryst, for several reasons.  It bothered me that the only "evil" executive being given a full character wash was the only female of the bunch, the "Eve" shall we say, and the conclusion made by the Max character was that she was essentially nothing but a (five-letter word), myopically focused on her career and the ratings that define it.  It also bothered me that the Max character was clearly meant to be the voice of morality and ethics, even in a reactionary way, but that he did this after making a knowingly immoral choice.  It bothered me that the implication here was that Diana's character seemed to be symbolic of the alleged influence that television has on society and society has on television, and the neverending cycle it perpetuates, or so the filmmakers would have the film's viewers believe.  In basic terms, the implication is that Diana is TV and Max is society, and he strays from his wife amidst the pixellated glow of excitement that Diana seems able to offer him, only to have Max realize in the end that she is two-dimensional and, therefore, not real or, further, not everything she is cracked up to be.  The whole story seemed distracting to the overall satire, lacked both the comedic and dramatic punch that the rest of the film provided, and struck me as inherently sexist.  I didn't even have to overanalyze the film to arrive at these visceral and instantaneous reactions.

    Also, the performances were a bit of a mixed bag.  Finch and Holden could not have been finer.  Finch had to play a stark-raving lunatic with some semblance of relatability to a public hungry for someone or something to love, at least for the moment, and he deserved his posthumous Oscar (he passed away just before the film was released and was the only actor to have this distinction, until Heath Ledger's death in 2008). Holden had to play the only quiet, understated character in the entire piece, the voice of the "every man," and he did so with grace and believability.  It was a bit odd seeing him so old too, since I've seen a great deal of his films from his heydey (he was the guy in Sunset Boulevard, Stalag 17, Sabrina, and others, to name a few).

    Faye Dunaway gave a great performance, and her trademark theatrics served this character well.  She was depicted to be the most unlikeable of the bunch, and yet, she gave the character some charm and occasional emotion making her more three-dimensional, at least at the outset, than she was allowed to be in the end.

    Still, other performances left something to be desired.  Many of the characters shouted everything, bringing new definition to the phrase "on the air."  Why Duvall and Frank Hackett had to yell everything under the sun was beyond me - I guess because all executives are blow-hards who cannot seem to control the volume of their own voice.  Most of the supporting characters, such as the people in the recording room, were a bit ham-fisted and forced. There seemed to be many loose threads in all of the different scenarios that were not completely sewn together by director Sidney Lumet.

    Still, to say the film was ahead of its time would be an understatement.  If the film had focused entirely on the progression of Beale without taking the side trip into Max and Diana's particular love affair, I probably would have loved it.  I may even have thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, or at least since Star Wars (that I've seen - remember, in the order that I've seen them). Since their tryst had little effect on the overall story other than to provide a deeper, slightly esoteric commentary on television as a whole in comparison to the chides hurled by the rest of the picture at a certain type of programming, I feel justified in rating the film a 7.5 on the patented ratings scale, between minor flaws/very good and shaky/entertaining, since the flaws I described seem to me to be more than minor even as the film was still very entertaining.  As to the test, Network does not pass, owing in large part to this offshoot of the storytelling.  I was kind of offended by it, truly, even as the rest of the film and all of its ingredients (right down to the clever insertions of "television" music that served to be the only scoring of the film) struck me as brilliantly constructed bits of foreshadowing to what would become true eventualities.  In any event, Network is nothing short of in-your-face and is recommendable as long as the potential viewer remembers that nothing in the television world is safe from this picture (nor are some elements from outside that world).


  • Viewing Out of Africa for the AFI Project

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Out of Africa  (1985)

    What's the AFI Project, you ask?  For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

    Out of Africa is on the following AFI lists:

    100 Years...100 Passions (#13)
    25 Film Scores (#15)

    This film also represents the third of nine Oscar-nominated dramas topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track.

    Out of Africa is one of those movies that I've heard about ever since its release in the mid-80s but never paid much attention to; after all, I was a child at the time and much more mesmerized by contemporary films like Back to the Future.  Still, as I've gained years of age, I've also gained a growing appreciation for one of my favorite actresses, Meryl Streep, and I've made it something of a mission to cover more of her filmography.  Thus, when Netflix was making its convenient recommendations to me, I popped Out of Africa on my queue.

    As it turns out, Out of Africa is based on the writings and short stories of Danish author Isak Dinesen, the pen name of Karen Blixen-Flecke.  The film begins in the early 20th century, as Karen proposes to her friend, Baron Bor Blixen-Flecke (Klaus Maria Brandauer), that they tie the knot absent other better offers.  Bor agrees but cautions that he has plans to purchase a plantation in Africa.  Karen marries him with this understanding, and the two set out for Nairobi; however, upon arrival, Bor immediately leaves Karen for alleged business only to return to his womanizing ways, while Karen finds herself the governess of a plantation for coffee that cannot feasibly be grown in the arid African air.  She spends her days teaching the local villagers employed (enslaved?) on her plantation in a school she sets up for them and hosting visitors, including a charming and educated hunter named Denys Finch-Hatton (Robert Redford, who is supposed to be British).  The pair's natural chemistry simmers into love, but Denys wants a no-strings, open relationship.  While Karen is typically independent and self-sufficient, she also finds that she has become unhappily dedicated to an aloof man who feels deeply but places a higher priority on his freedom to come and go.  Karen must, thus, decide how to handle this relationship, lest she lose Denys completely.

    Directed by Sydney Pollack, Out of Africa is a visually striking and beautiful film.  The cinematography and photography (which won one of seven Oscars), best appreciated in a widescreen presentation, is truly captivating, using the natural wilderness as a springboard for creating a romance of epic quality.  In fact, this is one of the three most winning qualities of this film: the fact that it's simply beautiful to see, and that Pollack and company capitalized on the sunny climate and on-location extras, such as lions, to truly drive home the strangeness and surreality of Karen's particular situation.

    The second winning quality is the beautiful score by John Barry, which the AFI saw fit to rank as one the 25 best American film scores in history.  The rich and epic string-heavy themes are noticeable from the first frames and the first notes; it's one of those scores that could stand on its own, played by a large symphony as a purely instrumental presentation, but also delicately dramatizes the unfolding romance.

    The final winning quality is the performance of Meryl Streep who, let's face it, has the ability to make any film better for having her in it.  She's given so many otherworldly performances, and the reason Out of Africa is half as likeable as it is comes down to Meryl's uncanny and unmatched ability to completely become her character.  Given everything from her consistent and realistic Danish accent to her facial instructions depicting a strong and principled woman who finds herself emotionally susceptible to an unpredictable romance, it's hard to argue that she's given a better performance (or, perhaps, all of her performances are simply great).  Without her, Out of Africa would simply have become a long, boring film with no heart, soul, or feeling.

    Of course, conversely, Out of Africa was still largely a long, boring movie.  For all of its winning qualities, it also has some elements which truly detracted from the film and prevented me from loving it.  The sheer protracted nature of the story is its primary stumbling point; at nearly three hours' length, painstakingly recreating Dinesen's memoirs translated into a plodding biographical film.  While I typically find myself a proponent of an accurate adaptation, this film would probably have benefitted from some artistic editing because Karen's story is not sympathetic unless completely zeroed in on the tensions between her real-life husband and her real-life paramour.  The occasional diversions into Karen's life, while designed to create sympathy for what becomes an adulterous love affair, served to drag out the film and were not necessarily engaging, which, in turn, made the actual romance of the film less engaging.

    The second element that made Out of Africa awkwardly less than adored was the casting of Robert Redford.  He's an amazing actor, and he had some chemistry with Streep, no doubt attributable to an off-set friendship that provided a certain level of ease and comfort between the two leads.  Unfortunately, his presence almost always felt out-of-place.  Also, the character he was playing was supposed to be British, and while the page notes that criticism of the film centered on the fact that Redford was - and played - too American, it's not an unfounded criticism.  His cowboy-like demeanor, reminiscient of his performance in The Electric Horseman, didn't seem to fit the rest of the picture.  Also, the actual chemistry was limited at best; the AFI rated this film high on its love stories list, but, for me, it left something to be desired because I did not necessarily believe the romance between Karen and Denys and never actually cared about it, at least not until the surprise ending, and then, the concern came more from tragedy than from any attachment to the romance.

    All in all, Out of Africa was a decent film; it won many Oscars, was beautifully shot, and was a great performance showcase for Meryl Streep, but it was not the most entertaining film.  Interestingly, the other four nominees for Best Picture in 1985 were The Color Purple, Kiss of the Spider Woman, Prizzi's Honor, and Witness, so 1985 was quite a year, and I've seen two of those other films and enjoyed them more than this one.  I suppose that's neither here nor there, but, as a result, I find myself wanting to rate Out of Africa a 7 for being shaky but entertaining, and the entertaining quality I'm ascribing solely to Meryl Streep.  If someone less apt had been in the role, this film would have been an epic disaster in my mind, beautiful photography or no.  As to the test, I can safely say it does not pass, for the simple fact that it took me a couple of tries to get through it a first time. If you enjoy a protracted, smoldering love story with few distractions in the historical backdrop, Out of Africa is for you.  As for me, again, I find myself thinking that films like Gone with the Wind or even Doctor Zhivago are better films, have more interesting background stories, and set the standard higher and first, which Out of Africa did not quite meet.