I didn’t see ‘Ali,’ because I didn’t want to see Will Smith in a pastel suit and t-shirt, which I was SURE Mann would somehow cram in there. (What is it with that guy and that look?) But I did see ‘Collateral,’ and I don’t have words for how crappy, dull, meaningless, pointless I found it.

I didn’t acknowledge ‘The Insider,’ but that is a deeply flawed movie as well, though all the performances were excellent AND Mann did stay away from his ‘Mann’erisms. (Huh? Huh? How you like me now?) But he also was involved in the screenplay, and it was all over the lot. Is it the story of Dr. Jeff Wigand evolving into tobacco whistleblower? Oh, wait, is it Lowell Bergman as Intrepid Journalist and a particularly tricky story? Oh, wait, no, it’s corporate concerns about the business of broadcasting? It’s all of these, and it knocks the story out of balance; big threads that are left alone for too long. I do understand that it is the peril of having more than one megastar in a picture—each star must be tended to, which usually knocks the story off kilter. And ‘The Insider’ suffers from most stories that involve someone doing something and then another person acting upon it, such as all journalism movies, many legal movies (“ghosts of mississippi” being the worst offender here—turns out the Big Story wasn’t Medgar Evers, but rather some square-jawed white guy who successfully wore a tie to court every day). But Mann doesn’t get a break for taking on a movie with those built in structural flaws—the movie is still structurally flawed.

You’re right about Stone as screenwriter. Those were all great (I might not put “Wall Street” in that class, though.) ‘Nixon’ is a much under-rated film, I believe. I’m a big Nixon buff (not to say afficianado, just knowledgeable), and while I spotted lots of historical inaccuracies, I thought it did an amazing job of storytelling and capturing the essence and the truth of the man, if not each event depicted in it. Is this one you found too self-indulgent? I could see that point, even while not feeling that myself.

You’re right about the directors you mentioned becoming too enamored of their signature flourishes (DAMN Hitchcock and his gimmick, so now every damn ‘auteur’ thinks he has to have one). One of the great lines about writing was, I think, G.B.Shaw’s: To be a good writer, you must be prepared to kill your darlings. The guys you mentioned simply don’t kill their darlings, and you’re right that it throws off the picture.

The antithesis of this is John Sayles. One day I was beached on my couch, and watched ‘Lone Star,’ ‘Eight Men Out,’ and ‘Matewan’ more or less back to back. Three great movies by any standard. But they all feel different, look different, ARE different. John Sayles simply has zero ego in his filmmaking, or maybe his true ego is invested in good storytelling rather than making it a “John Sayles Film.” I think Sayles is the best filmic storyteller in America, maybe ever. (Hey, one of us was bound to use the word ‘filmic,’ so I’m sparing you from looking like a goofus doofus.)

The absolute apotheosis of this was ‘Indy Jones/Crystal Skull.’ Spoiler Alert: it’s a piece of shit. I could not believe how horrible it was. Did they shoot that in someone’s basement? The sfx were so rudimentary as to be infantile. The story was total crap. (Why did they villainize the Cate Blanchett character and make her die such a horrendous death, a la that Nazi who melted in the first film? JUST for being a Soviet intelligence researcher? They hadn’t really established that she was heinous per se.) The thing was incoherent gibberish. And looooooaded with self-references and other references which, instead of warming my heart as intended, made me roll my eyes. And having the boy on his motorcycle make his entrance through the steam puff? Look, if you’re aware of James Dean/Rebel Without a Cause, you groan; if you’re not aware of the reference, then it’s pointless. And as the thing lapsed into a caricature of itself, I was actually remembering a great Letterman line from 1986: he was interviewing Oprah about ‘The Color Purple,’ and he asked, “Did Spielberg ever suggest during the filming that… you know… this would a GREAT time to bring in a space ship?” I was thinking that, and then GOD DAMN if that didn’t happen! Load of crap. C-i-l-l George Lucas (“I am become death, Destroyer of franchises.”) THIS was the story they waited 20 years for? Spielberg is a technically skilled filmmaker; I just don’t think he tells stories well, with about 5 exceptions—and those are the ones that don’t “feel” like Spielberg films (“Schindler’s List,” “Catch Me if You Can,” “Munich,” “Raiders/Ark,” and “Svng Pvt Ryan.”)

Christ, this is long. Sorry to all. It’s just a fun topic.

that the insider was very very good and I like last of the mohicans fine but really aside from those two…wow… Ali was a big a pile of crap as I’ve seen and discounting how bad even the idea of a Miami Vice remake of shouldn’t be lost to anyone. My point was more about Oliver Stone who,next to Joel Schumacher, is the probably the worst director going today. The fact that these people can still make movies is well beyond me.