richard-mason

As one of those who saw the premiere of this film at the Sydney Film Festival, I can assure you if I was on the "edgerton" of my seat, it was in disbelief as implausibility piled upon implausibility until the film collapsed under their weight.

The film started well, and for a while I was happy to go along with the well-worn Noir formula of the small crime that goes wrong, and all attempts to cover it up only make things worse for the illicit lovers, and the crimes get bigger and bigger. But they also get stupider and stupider, until you just feel your intelligence is being insulted. If, as bilingizard seems to be suggesting, black humour of the order of the Coen Brothers was being attempted, then I suggest some wit (other than that involving the fate of the dogs) should have been attempted. Nor do I think David Roberts was an acceptable lead. The character was dour and unpleasant from the beginning (making it hard to care what happened to him and his paramour) and the performance added no light or shade or leavenings of humanity.

I agree it looks good, and the direction is stylish. But the plot is not just full of holes, but sinkholes that suddenly open up under the feet of the characters, and the audience.

I agree with the other posters. I directed the Australian premiere of this play back in 1983, and just LOVED it and all of Christopher Durang's works (I also directed 'Dentity Crisis). So when I saw that one of my favourite directors of all time, Robert Altman, was making the film version, AND it had people like Glenda Jackson, Julie Hagerty, Tom Conti etc in it, I was agog with anticipation. It was probably my biggest disappointment in the cinema.

What is it about Altman that he seems to make a real turkey about once or twice a decade, in between all the wonderful films he makes?

What I can't understand is how Christopher Durang allowed his name to be credited as screenplay writer, when it's a travesty of his play. Especially what was done to the two psychiatrist characters..

And why set such a New York story in Paris/

And why ... and why .... oh forget it.

Just caught this the other day, and somehow, had not been aware that Chuck Jones, Michael Maltese and Mel Blanc had tried to revive the theatrical Tom and Jerry cartoons in the sixties. While not nearly as good as the cat and mouse's Hanna-Barbara heyday of the 40s and 50s, judging by this cartoon, they certainly put some of the life back in the franchise.

And how do they do it? By applying the Tweety and Sylvester formula that worked so well while they were at Warner Bros. (although, admittedly, I don't think Jones had much to do with those cartoons, leaving them mainly to Friz Freleng.)

Anyway, an amusing enough short, and a great improvement on the ones that were produced between Hanna-Barabara's departure for television, and Chuck Jones' arrival. I give it a 6.