Vic Sage

For some reason, the movie put me in my mind of a Peckinpah "comedy" called THE BALLAD OF CABLE HOGUE with Jason Robards. I think it had something to do a strong man carving an "empire" (such as it was) out of the wilderness, and being destroyed by the process. Of course, Hogue is a tragic hero and Plainview is a monster. Also, LIFE & TIMES OF JUDGE ROY BEAN comes to mind as well. I prefer both of those pix to this one, but BLOOD definitely has its ... um... charms. It didn't remind you of Citizen Kane at all? I mean, Anderson isn't the technical innovator that Welles was, but I feel the stories and scopes are similar. No, not really. And it's not a matter of "technical innovation". Frankly, KANE gets overpraised for innovations it didn't innovate. The cinematographer's (JW Howe) use of deep focus, and all the wonderful little cinematic touches (shooting up out of the floor, the use of mirrors, the camera coming thru the skylight, etc) had all been done before. But Welles most interesting accomplishment (aside from the enormous chutspah of taking on a media mogul who was still all-powerful and who initially succeeded in crushing the film) was Welles notion of "truth".* KANE tells the life story of a man thru the prism of different peoples' recollections. They are often faulty or conflicting recollections... this is a literary device known as the "untrustworthy narrator"... and they add up to a fascinating portrait of a fictional character, who is supposed to represent WR Hearst. But Kane, like Hearst, is unknowable, because the "truth" is not really knowable. KANE preceded RASHOMON by a decade, and while I'm sure there are other films to have taken this narrative device, few have taken them to such virtually operatic heights as KANE, nor have any suffered the consequences that Welles did for having done so. None of this is present in BLOOD, other than the superficial telling of a life of a great and terrible man who built an empire at great personal cost. Those similarities are present in the 2 films i mentioned, CABLE HOGUE and JUDGE ROY BEAN, which also share a simllar "19th century old west overcome by the 20th century" time and place with BLOOD (as opposed to the 20th century urbanity of KANE). And, like HOGUE AND BEAN but unlike KANE, BLOOD picks up the character's life well into his adulthood, so those stories are narrower in scope and don't attempt the sweep of KANE, which traces its protagonist from birth to death. Of course, you could say that any film that depicts such a character is reminisicent of KANE, and KANE'S influence and greatness is such that you'd probably be right to do so. But i was looking at much more specific similarities. * Welles was always fascinated about the nature of "truth". As a kid, he was a skilled magician, and he later became famous for his WAR OF THE WORLDS radio hoax. At the end of his life, he made a fascinating documentary called F FOR FAKE, about the nature of forgery and fakery. Many of his movies dealt with the theme, in one way or another. LADY FROM SHANGHAI has the famous "hall of mirrors" scene, in THE STRANGER, Welles is not what he seems, also MR. ARKADIN. At the end of TOUCH OF EVIL, after Welles' corrupt sheriff is killed, and its noted that he was a great detective but a lousy cop, Marlena Deitrich says: "He was some kind of a man... What does it matter what you say about people?" Which was very much the point, i think, of KANE... a biography that debunks the very notion of biography.

And the character is riddled with self-doubt and internal conflicts. Very complex.

Nymr83 wrote: you left out one of the cartoons, batman beyond, its not bad. Batman Beyond is not "Bruce Wayne / Batman", ergo not Batman.

So maybe one of you caped crusader gurus could give the rest of us a quickie guide to this whole mess. Movie Serials: Batman (1943) - Lewis Wilson Batman and Robin (1949) � Robert Lowery -These 2 low-budget 15-episode serials from Columbia are pretty piss poor, even in their own time. TV series / video: "Batman" (1966-68) - live series / Adam West -celebrated and vilified exemplar of the pop art movement; still fun to watch. "The Batman/Superman Hour" (1968-69) - animated series / Olan Soule -unsophisticated animated series from Filmation has its charms "Super Friends" (1973-85) - animated series / Olan Soule (1973-83) and Adam West (1984-85) - bad scripts and bad animation render the success of this series a mystery to me "The New Adventures of Batman" (1977-78) - animated series / Adam West - poor attempt to continue tone and style of original live tv series, with West and Burt Ward �Batman: The Animated Series� (1992-95) - animated series / Kevin Conroy - the best animated version of the character. "The New Batman Adventures" (1997-98)- animated series / Kevin Conroy - the sequel series doesn't have quite the oomph, but still ok. Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero (1998) - animated video / Kevin Conroy - decent d-2-v feature The Batman/Superman Movie: World�s Finest (1998)� animated video / Kevin Conroy - complilation of a terrific story arc of 3 episodesfrom SUPERMAN tv series "Justice League" (2001-06) � animated series / Kevin Conroy - good series, with Batman as strong supporting character The Batman vs Dracula (2005) � animated video / Rino Romano - strange, Italian horror film version of the character Justice League: The New Frontier (2008) � animated video / Jeremy Sisto - terrific, retro story and style for a d-2-v feature Batman: Gotham Knight (2008) � animated video / Kevin Conroy - I have not yet seen this new d-2-v companion piece to DARK KNIGHT Theatrical Features: Batman (1966) - Adam West - if you like the series, you'll like the movie (I did, and I do) Batman (1989) - Michael Keaton - Tim Burton's art direction makes this turgid, over-the-top adaptation worth watching; Keaton is more confused and distracted, then focused, driven, scary and/or heroic. Batman Returns (1992) - Michael Keaton - 3 villains is 2 too many in Burton's still nightmarish followup. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993) - animated feature / Kevin Conroy - solid spinoff of tv series got theatrcial release before going to video. Batman Forever (1995) - Val Kilmer - Joel Schumaker makes a mockery of the franchise, but just when you thought it couldn't get worse... Batman & Robin (1997) - George Clooney - ... it gets worse. Batman Begins (2005) - Christian Bale. - Christopher Nolan rescusitates the series, with the best live action adaptation of the character to date. The Dark Knight (2008) - Christian Bale - unfocused and rambling, but still a worthy follow up from Nolan. TOP 10, in order: 1) BATMAN BEGINS (2005) 2) DARK KNIGHT (2008) 3) "Batman: Animated Series" (1992-95)(TV) 4) "Batman/Superman: World's Finest" (1998)(V) 5) "Batman" (1966-68)(TV) 6) BATMAN (1966) 7) BATMAN (1989) 8) "Justice League: New Frontier" (2008)(V) 9) BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM (1993) 10) BATMAN RETURNS (1992)

doh. i meant BATMAN BEGINS.

The performances in DARK KNIGHT are terrific; Ledger captures the dangerous insanity of The Joker like know one else ever. Bale is, again, terrific, and the small supporting roles are all played by amazing supporting cast. The stunts and action sequences are excellent, and while the visuals are good, they're not great or particularly memorable. There isn't a signature image (like the ones in BATMAN RETURNS on edit: i mean BATMAN BEGINS), where he stands in the cave amidst swirling bats) I also didn't like Gotham played as a realistic city (Chicago, apparently); I'm not saying you need to play it like a surrealistic gothic landscape like the Burton films, but a little stylization would have made a bat-man flying around a little less incongruous. In a comic book, they stylization is inherent in the medium; on the screen, it takes a little more effort. The themes are really well established and developed... the Joker as a force of chaos, intent on proving only that everybody has his capacity for evil, if push comes to shove. He is the yin to Batman's yang, seeing in the dark knight a kindred spirit he needs to make his own existance meaningful... and vice versa. And Batman as a force of order, working on a higher moral plain, outside the law to protect the innocent and seek justice in an unjust world. The developments in the last 10 minutes (from Joker's speech to Batman's plan regarding 2-face) gave me goosebumps, and push the Batman mythology into deeper territory. But on the whole, i prefer BATMAN BEGINS. The narrative of DARK KNIGHT is all over the place, trying to cover too much territory, with long dull patches. It's a movie better in its moments and concepts then in its storytelling. BR, on the other hand, is a smoother narrative; telling an origin gives it the engine necessary to keep things moving forward. Don't get me wrong... I really like the new movie. I just think the reaction to it is a little disproportion it. It's very good but it's not the best comic book or superhero movie ever; it's not even the best Batman movie ever. I just think the Heath Ledger story is like catnip to the media, and they've decided to deify the young dead movie star and use this movie as the vehicle for his ascendency.

As with most things, the more you bring to it, the more you get from it. The narrative doesn't require having any familiarity, but in order to fully appreciate the relationships and attitudes of the characters, it would help to have seen the first one. I actually think the first one was better.

Nymr83 wrote: the animation list is the only one that really smacks of recentism which is nice. Titanic sucked, but more to the point what the heck is an "Epic" and what makes it one? i wouldnt consider it the same "type" of movie as any of the others on that list i'd call ben-hur, lawrence of arabia, the ten commandments, and spartacus the same "type" of movie and if you want to call that genre "epics" then fine but why is titanic included? While "epic" is now used more generally for any large scale movie, the "epic" is a genre that has certain characteristics: * length - generally well over 2 hours, usually in the 3+ hour range * aspect ratio - usually in cinemascope or other similar widescreen format * scale - a "cast of thousands", or effects to make it appear so * scope - saga set against huge historical conflicts (wars, disasters), or with difficult "epic" quests, generally taking place over an extended period of time There are religious epics (TEN COMMANDMENTS, BEN-HUR), war epics (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, SCHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, TROY), romantic epics (DR. ZHIVAGO, GONE WITH THE WIND, TITANIC, CLEOPATRA), as well as SF/Fantasy epics (LORD OF THE RINGS), crime epics (ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA), and general historical epics (BIRTH OF A NATION, FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, GANDHI). There are even family epics (FANNY & ALEXANDER).

superhero: the secret origin of a genreis a great book; a dissertation on the definitions of the genre. http://www.amazon.com/Superhero-Secret-Origin-Peter-Coogan/dp/193226518X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213900800&sr=1-1

mm, it is mentioned. see above. as for LONE RANGER, it was, like GREEN HORNET, not a comic book character adaptation. It was a radio program, adapted to tv. There were subsequent Lone Ranger comic book adaptations (just as there was of Tarzan, and other pulp characters either from literature, radio or films), but the character didn't start as a 4-colored 2 dimensional superheroe whose adventures were told in sequenced panels. Interestingly, GREEN HORNET wss actually a spinoff of the LONE RANGER, with the Hornet being Britt Reid, nephew of the Lone Ranger - Captain John Reid Now an argument can certainly be made that FLASH GORDON deserves mention, since Alex Raymond's character began as a newspaper comic strip in 1934, pre-dating the comic book superhero. But if you include it, there is only a terrible 1954 series, and a terrible 2007 series, both of limited duration, low ratings and negative critical reaction.

Batman doesn't even meet #1 Yes, but the point was to meet at least 3 out of 5, not all 5, criteria. I didn't watch the "hercules" tv show; i was discussing the mythic version, but if you can identify the defining criteria in the show, then that's fine by me. I wasn't arguing about it, just trying to establish some reasonable criteria for defining it. What, no Greatest American Hero? i did mention it, in the post above discussing "fictional" superhero tv shows. But its not an adaptation of an existing comic book character.

I've already acknowledged the many flaws of the original superman tv show, and maybe my preference is purely nostalgic. But so might yours be. But the reason I ranked it 1st is because there has yet to be, in my opinion, a particularly good superhero tv series based on any of the established characters, and i think the top 5 are all pretty much equally mediocre, in different ways. But in addition to my personal preference, there is the matter of cultural impact. You have to remember that, when Reeves was flying around on TV in the 1950s, superhero comics were being burned by PTA and church groups, banned from newsstands, preached and prosyletized against by minisiters and psychiatrists, and investigated by senate sub-committees. Comics had turned to romance, westerns and funny animals, as well as SF and horror (which had its own problems). So, that Reeves kept Superman flying as an American hero during this era was no small feat. I really didn't much like the HULK show. I certainly don't think its in any way superior to Batman or Wonder Woman. I think THE FLASH had the potential to eventually be the best tv adaptation ever. But it was not to be. All the best tv adaptations of comics have been animated. I'm still waiting for a good (not even great) live action one.

MY RANKINGs: 1) Adventures of Superman (1952-1958) 2) Batman (1966-1968) 3) Wonder Woman (1976-1979) 4) Incredible Hulk (1978-1982) 5) Flash (1990-91) 6) Lois & Clark (1993-97) 7) Smallville (2001-present) 8) The Tick (2001-02) 9) Superboy (1988-92) 10) Swampthing (1990-93) 11) Nightman (97-98) 12) Amazing Spider-man (1978-79) 13) Sable (1987) 14) Witchblade (2001-02) 15) Blade (2006) 16) Birds of Prey (2002-03) 17) Shazam! (1974-76)

But that's what i mean... once you go down that road, is any fantasy story then eligible as a "superhero" story? Hercules is an ancient greek myth. He has no secret identity, no costume per se, no "headquarters" or "lair". Is he a superhero? Clearly, he's "super" and he's a "hero"... but a "superhero"? It's harder to say. writer Kurt Busiek has said that there are five chief elements to a story that make it a "superhero story": 1. A superhuman ability (or several); 2. A nickname or code-name; 3. A costume; 4. A quest; 5. A milieu -- a catch-all for parts of the superhero environment such as a secret headquarters, an arch-villain, and other such staples. Busiek's rule is that if a story has three out of five of those elements, it can be fairly called a superhero story. So, how would you categorize "Hercules" under this narrower definition? Obviously, he has superhuman strength (#1) and, while he doesn't have a single overarching quest, he leads a heroic life, so maybe you can grant him #4. But he has no definitive costume, name (other than his own) or superheroic milieu. As a half-mortal, he does not reside in Olympus, and tbough he vanquished certain monsters, he has no recurring villain. Now contrast Hercules with Thor, another god of antiquity, but one who falls much more within classic "superhero" definitions. * As the god of thunder, he has superpowers; * in the Marvel comics version, he has a secret identity ... Dr. donald Blake (or whoever it is they use now); * his costume includes the norse helmet and his mighty hammer, Mjolnir, * his quest is the protection of Midgard (earth); * his milieu includes his fellow Norse gods, the realm of Asgard, and his villianous brother Loki, with whom he is in constant conflict. Now, how about Tarzan?

i didn't include "fictional" superhero shows, only adaptations of pre-existing comic book characters. Once you go down the road of defining the superhero genre more broadly, things get very subjective. But of course HEROES and BUFFY would be on the list, as well as 60s relics like CAPTAIN NICE and MR. TERRIFIC; 70s shows like ELCTRA WOMAN & DYNA GIRL, MAN FROM ATLANTIS, the BIONIC WOMAN, and SIX MILLION DOLLAR MAN; 80s shows like GREATEST AMERICAN HERO, MISFITS OF SCIENCE, MY SECRET IDENTITY and KNIGHT RIDER; 90s shows like SUPERFORCE, ADVENTURES OF PETE & PETE and MUTANT X. I did miss SHAZAM (1974-76 / 28 episodes), as well as: *NIGHTMAN (97-98 / 44 episodes) *SABLE (1987 / 7 episdodes) *SWAMPTHING (1990-93/ 72 episodes) Shazam was pretty awful, even for a saturday morning kids show.

A brief history of live superhero (ie, non-animated) TV series: Adventures of Superman (1952-1958 / 104 episodes) - George Reeves survived the awful scripts, terrible ensemble acting and low budget production values to singlehandedly kept the superhero genre alive through the 1950s. Batman (1966-1968 / 120 episodes) - the unfairly maligned tv series was over-the-top camp, but was a cultural touchstone in its day. The spinoff of The Green Hornet as a secondary series only lasted 1 season, but debuted Bruce Lee to American audiences. Wonder Woman (1976-1979 / 60 episodes [60m]) - Lynda Carter defied gravity in more ways than one in this cherished series that delivered many young boys to manhood. Incredible Hulk (1978-1982 / 87 episodes [60m]) - Bill Bixby gave a superhero protagonist significant gravitas, somewhat emeliorating the silliness of the rest of the proceedings. Amazing Spider-man (1978-79 / 15 episodes [60m]) - short-lived and unmemorable Superboy (1988-92 / 100 episodes) - mediocre Flash (1990-91 / 21 episodes [60m]) - underrated tv series, with good effects. Lois & Clark (1993-97 / 88 episodes [60m]) - this hour long romantic comedy/drama was more "moonlighting" than "superman", but was surprisingly successful thanks to the chemistry of the leads, until it jumped the shark with a wedding. Smallville (2001-present / 152 episodes [60m]) - the most successful tv adaptation of a superhero ever, its basically "Smallville 90210". Witchblade (2001-02 / 23 episodes [60m]) - Didn't make it The Tick (2001-02 / 9 episodes) - one of my favorites, i must've been the only one watching. Birds of Prey (2002-03 / 13 episodes [60m]) - Bad adaptation; just an excuse to get some hot women into latex.... not that there's anything wrong with that... Blade (2006 / 12 episodes [60m]) - Really bad adaptation of good movie adaptation of minor comicbook character.

your statements are here and my statements are here. Others can assess them however they want. But my points were about the topic under discussion, for which i tried to provide rationales. Yours were primarily dismissive blanket statements without support, and then degenerated into direct attacks against me personally (until they were moved to the red light forum). And i owe YOU an apology? wow. Everybody is a hero in their own story, i guess.

It was neither wrong nor "deliberately provocative". I interpreted your public statements. You don't like or agree with my interpretation? Tough.

AG/DC wrote: You know, if time suggests you over-rate a current movie, or under-rate one, so what? You're wrong. You'll be wrong about plenty anyhow. Betting on a new stock is a high-risk, high-reward venture. What real meaningful authority do these lists have, anyway? They're just recommendations of what you should see. These folks think you should see There Will Be Blood. Maybe I should, but, based on the other films they frontload the list with, I'm leery. lists can have little value, or more value, depending on the criteria and methodologies used to create them. If you're collecting data for a scientific study, its all about methodology, in terms of assessing the validity of a study. So, too, with "lists" or any other attempts at scholarship in a field of study. the issue here, i think, is that since its just movies, and everybody is an expert, and everybody's opinion is of equal value, then therefore scholarship is meaningless. But i don't think it is meaningless. I just think that, like with any field of study, there is good scholarship and bad scholarship. Now, i don't think a bunch of newspaper guys were trying to create scholarship, but there list becomes data in the field for further scholarship on the history and aesthetics of cinema, and as such has greater impact (for good or ill) than a list of movies you might want to give a try (or ignore entirely).

I still think 10-15 years is arbitrary. Weigh a film on its merits as a film not on when it was made. the number of years is arbitrary, but not the concept that the passage of time factors into the analysis. A "cooling off" period allows an assessment independent of media saturation, hype and emotional responses that have more to do with cultural phenomena than they do with the movie istelf. That's why, to more accurately a assess or "weigh a film on its merits as a film" (as opposed to a cultural event) takes some time and distance. Take for example the movies from your list in this thread. If you made a list of the best movies in say 1976 would The Producers be unworthy of inclusion but in say 1981 it's magically acrued greatness? first of all, those are lists of "favorites", not an attempt at a "best of". As i said before, those are 2 entirely different exercises. And the fact is that movies do accrue "greatness" over time, or at least there greatness becomes less or more apparent over time. Of course, if trying to assess "greatness" is not the point, go ahead and list movies from yesterday, if you liked them. But if you're trying to create a tool to evaluate the history of an artform with an eye toward greater, not lesser, objectivity, than standards and methodologies are important to consider. I think there are more intelligent ways to determine a film's value than that. there are lots of ways... but surely its best to consider such determining factors, than to simply say "whatever you liked best today is good enough for the ages". Why is that a MORE intelligent way to determine value? Why is having no objective standards or criteria more intelligent?

A list is an artifact of the time it is made. Compare a list from today to one from 20 years ago and you can see which films were overvalued and undervalued at that time. that's one of the things a list is. Another thing it is, or could be, is a rigorous and scholarly attempt to put things in a historical and/or aesthetic context, using a methodology that minimizes "noise" so as to arrive at conclusions that are as objecively determined as possible, given that the subject is art. So some lists are better this than others. Not to mention that a list is just one person - or at best a small group of editors - idea of the "best of all time." Or its the consequence of serious-minded people really trying to do some critically valuable work. Clearly, THIS list is not THAT. A movie is good or isn't, a person likes it or doesn't. Setting arbitrarily time limits just stifles intellectualism and discussion. To sum up, you're wrong. LIKING or NOT LIKING is an entirely different matter than GOOD or NOT GOOD. If you're going to make a list of 100 of your favorite movies, everybody's list is as useful (or useless) as anybody else's list. I don't care about such lists, unless the opinions are expressed by people with a track record of critical analysis that i find interesting. But if your making a "top 100 of all time", that's an attempt to create not just a subjective list of favorites but an objective list of "best", and such an effort should be suject to scrutiny, especially in terms of the methodology. I proposed a methodology (time limits, for one) in an attempt to reduce the amount of "noise" created by the logical phenonomenon known as the "fallacy of the new", wherein more recent events take on larger significance than older events. Certainly you could consider that there is also "noise" when considering older works that have entered the cultural canon as "classics", and knocking CITIZEN KANE off its perch may have its merits. Of course, the burden of proof is on you when you do that, but I'd be delighted to read or discuss a methodology for reconsidering the classics, too. So, rather than "stifling intellectualism and discussion", discussions of methodologies (as they do in scientific inquiry) actually expand the discussion. But NOTHING stifles discussion like a statement such as: To sum up, you're wrong

it's good to know that my writing is of value to your career, at least... as for me, i've yet to figure out a way to make it pay.

how about the best movies on a friday afternoon, at 3pm? and the purposes of the "discussion" are obscured if you're asked to debate the worthiness of films released yesterday as compared to ones that have survived as cultural touchstones for 65 years. a "cooling off period" is necessary to let the temporal distortion fade, so the films can be assessed and discussed more rationally. And anybody that puts "point break" on its top 100 list isn't interested in discussion. They're just being purposefully contradictory. It's like the Monty Python sketch: "I came here for an argument" "no you didn't..."

yet more proof that "best ever" lists should not include films from the last 10-15 years; otherwise, the fallacy of the new rears its ugly head and pics like CITIZEN KANE get knocked off their perch by THERE WILL BE BLOOD, or some other flavor of the month.

Sydney Pollack was a solid, if unspectacular, Hollywood filmmaker for 40+ years. His background as an actor and acting teacher in the 1950s provided the basis for his excellent relationships and collaboration with a handful of Hollywood's biggest stars, resulting in films that were noted more for their great performances than for any ideosyncratic themes or cinematic style that could be described as "Pollackian". His own work as an actor made him a better known personality than his limited directorial career would otherwise have warranted, though he did have a few big hits over the years. But his films were often successful, and he was more prolific as a producer than director, not only producing 10 of his own movies but 20+ other theatrical features, as well as some TV movies and documentaries. Early Career Pollack was an acting student of the legendary Sandford "Sandy" Meisner in the 1950s, and later was a stage actor and acting teacher. He began directing in TV in the early 1960s before breaking through with a few features in the mid 60s. The Slender Thread (1965) - his first feature, it starred Sydney Poitier and Anne Bankroft, about a suicide hotline. It got 2 Oscar noms for art direction and costumes. This Property Is Condemned (1966) - Pollack here begins his big screen collaboration with Robert Redford, co-starring Natalie Wood, with a script by FFCoppola, based on Tennessee Williams play. The Scalphunters (1968) - This mediocre western comedy starred Burt Lancaster, with Shelley Winters and Ossie Davis. Unmemorable, except for the relationship between Pollack and Lancaster. At some point before this film (or during it?), Lancaster got Pollack hired to finish some scenes on Lancaster's other film that year, The Swimmer , which had been delayed when director Frank Perry was fired. Castle Keep (1969) - Lancaster worked with Pollack again on their third consecutive film, this WWII actioner. Its a strange, not particularly successful anti-war film. * They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) - Pollack broke through with this fascinating, tragic look of Depression-era dance marathons and the desperation of the participants. He got DGA and Oscar nominations for his direction, with great performances by Jane Fonda and Gig Young. Sydney had arrived. Mid-Career Pollack was now an established director de estime', an "actor's director". He worked with his favorite collaborator, Robert Redford, on 5 more films over the next 13 years, as well as with Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffmon, Paul Newman and Meryl Streep. * Jeremiah Johnson (1972) - this character study of a mountain man is one of Redford's best performances, and a compelling film. The Way We Were (1973) - this Redford/Streisand tearjerker is one of the most beloved hits of Pollack's career. Personally, I'd rather have a sharp stick jammed into my eye than sit thru this movie ever again. The Yakuza (1974) -Pollack got a producing credit on this one, his first, as payment for agreeing to come in late on this project, scripted by Paul Schrader ("Taxi Driver"). Originally, it was going to be a Lee Marvin / Robert Aldrich pic (now THAT would've been cool!), but when warhorse Robert Mitchum was dragged out of a potsmoking haze to star, he forced out Aldrich to get Pollack. The result is a strangely lethargic tough-guy noir in Japan's criminal underworld. * Three Days of the Condor (1975) - Back with Redford, Pollack makes the best thriller of his career. You can really see the Hitchcockian influence on Pollack, after years of directing "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" on TV, with lots more cinematic razzle-dazzle than he customarily employed. Bobby Deerfield (1977) - Pollack produced and directed this lame Pacino movie, ostensibly a love story. Better forgotten. * The Electric Horseman (1979) - like he did with CONDOR after YAKUZA, Pollack returned to Redford after DEERFIELD fiasco. Now THIS is a solid love story. Fonda & Redford are middle-aged mismatched lovers in the story of a cowboy on the run with a stolen horse, and the newswoman chasing the story who gets caught up in the nobility of the cowboy's last grab at redemption. One of Pollack's best. Absence of Malice (1981) - He produced & directed this solidly mediocre story of libel, with Newman getting an Oscar nom. *Tootsie (1982) - Pollack's first fullout comedy was not a "drag" by any means. Hoffman is great, but so is Pollack himself, as Hoffman's put upon agent. The picture got 10 Oscar noms, including 2 for Pollack (for direction & production). The feminist concept that the Hoffman character has to pretend to be a woman to learn how to be a better man is somewhat muddled by the less politically correct notion that it took a man to teach the female characters how to be better women. Regardless, it still is a funny, funny movie. Out of Africa (1985) - Oscar always loves big romantic epic films, and they love movie stars, and so here Pollack gives them Redford and Streep, and African plains, and the Academy finally gave him 2 Oscars (direction and best film) for this bloated, dull, totally overrated turd. It's a shame that this is the main one that keeps getting referenced in all Sydney's obituaries. Late career After his laurels for AFRICA, Pollack spent more time producing other people's films than making his own. Most of the films he directed in the last 20 years were unsucessful and uninteresting. Havana (1990/I) - The Redford collaboration ended sadly with this misfire. The Firm (1993) - Pollack produced and directed this Grisham legal thriller with "the new Redford", Tom Cruise. A solid entertainment, better than most of the Grisham adaptations that followed. Sabrina (1995) - Remaking Hollywood classics is always tricky (and usually pointless), but I always thought Bogart was terribly miscast in the original, and I thought Harrision Ford was a much better choice by Pollack for this remake. And Julia Ormond, while no Audrey Hepburn, held her own. Still, as with many Pollack movies, the pacing is turgid, giving far too much attention to performances than to narrative pacing. Random Hearts(1999) - Working with Harrison Ford again, this tearjerker makes most romance novels seem like MOBY DICK. The Interpreter (2005) - Pollack went out with a whimper with this hackneyed political thriller in the U.N., with Nichole Kidman and Sean Penn. The film is sabotaged by a bad script. ------------- Pollack's legacy is a handful of excellent films, and a greater number of great performances, both by his actors and by himself (in an ocasional supporting role). To the extent you could find any thematic threads to his work, it could be seen as depicting a vaguely liberal worldview, with environmentalism and feminism cropping up here and there. But in the end, he may have been more craftsman than artist, more producer than director, and more acting teacher than anything else. However, his movies were succesful and he had an impact on the film culture of the 70s-80s. He didn't have the lightest touch, nor the deepest insights, but he was a pro's pro and, by all reports, a solid citizen. So long, Sydney... and thanks for all the fish.