Hey folks, it's Harry here with a long time spy that we don't get to hear from near enough for my tastes. I've been a fan of Birdie Num Num here for a while... But he seems to disappear into the ether, only to resurface with another intelligent look at whatever the film at hand may be. Both of the reviews that we have recently had from AICN regulars (John Robie and that weird ol Segue Zagnut fella) liked many pieces of the film, but didn't like the whole. Both reviews provoked me to want to see the film for myself. And now here's a positive that reads the film a bit differently. There is a built in problem in being Martin Scorsese. Each and every film is supposed to be... BRILLIANT. But Scorsese is the type of filmmaker that goes into each film with a specific style and goal to the endgame. For me... Scorsese makes films that even if you were to turn all sound off... I enjoy his films. If you have nothing but the sound... I enjoy his films. They are crafted and intelligent... and I can't wait to see this.. his latest film.

I, too, saw BOTD at Paramount last week. And while I do think it's a somewhat flawed film, I also think it represents some of Scorsese's best work since GOODFELLAS and will more than please his diehard fans out there. Just don't expect perfection.

First thing to remember: this is a "for hire" job. The last one of these Scorsese did was COLOR OF MONEY. While that film has its fans, I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that Scorsese seemed straitjacketed with that piece. He did a thoroughly professional, craftsmanlike job and got as good a performance out of Tom Cruise as anyone has since (I haven't seen MAGNOLIA yet), but the film lacked inspiration and the feverish risk-taking Scorsese experiments with in his ballsier films.

BRINGING OUT THE DEAD is ballsy as hell and takes risks in spades. The risks don't all work (hence the film's grab-bag feel and sometimes inconsistent tone), but on a sequence-to-sequence basis, it's often stunning. I stress the word "sequence." What do we all love about Scorsese's best films? The extended episodes and sequences. Remember the "I can't pay him this Tuesday" sequence from MEAN STREETS, or the Travis/Sport argument in TAXI DRIVER, or the USO pickup in NEW YORK NEW YORK, or the "hit me in the face, you fuck" conversation in RAGING BULL, or Rupert visiting Jerry's house in KING OF COMEDY, or "what's so fucking funny" from GOODFELLAS? These are all beautiful pearls that stand out from the films in which they're contained. They're episodes with tension, build and memorable, quotable dialogue. Now name me one memorable sequence from CASINO or KUNDUN. You can't, because those movies don't have any sequences. CASINO is an endless montage under narration -- we don't give a shit about anyone in it because the film refuses to slow down long enough to let the audience catch its breath and SEE the characters unfolding in action, as opposed to BEING TOLD about it; KUNDUN, while stunning, is more akin to something like KOYAANISQUATSI.

Now back to BOTD -- There are at least 5 or 6 extended episodes here that are gems and proudly hold their place in the Scorsese pantheon. The cinematography is exquisite and unusually restrained for the normally show-offy Robert Richardson (minimal use of his trademark "overhead overexposed spotlight hanging from nowhere for no reason" look here). The use of music (save for the dreadful choice of a 10000 Maniacs song during an otherwise potentially moving romantic scene) is awesome. There is a wonderfully droll sense of humor in this film that is new to Scorsese's work, as well as surreal touches reminiscent of David Lynch. Nic Cage is the most restrained he's been since LEAVING LAS VEGAS and the supporting cast, particularly Ving Rhames, is exemplary.

So why do people dislike this movie? Because it's not perfect? What movie is these days? The biggest problem is that Scorsese is never quite able to reconcile the assumption that he's *SUPPOSED TO BE* making an "ordinary" Hollywood film with pat set-ups and payoffs and melodramatic threads, with the reality that he's ACTUALLY made an impressionistic art film, more akin to the works of screenwriter Paul Schrader's idol Robert Bresson than most contemporary audiences are going to want to handle.

My advice: don't worry about how everything does or doesn't add up and what threads are left dangling or what set-ups seem lame or the fact that on the surface there's not a lot of tension. Instead, surrender to the film and experience it -- remember how many critics complained about APOCALYPSE NOW's lack of plot, tension and focus when it first came out? Structurally, this film is similar. It doesn't really have a plot, rather it's more of a hallucinatory version of a 3 DAYS IN THE LIFE OF... type film. It's been over a week since I've seen it and I've found that it is sticking with me. Also, let's kiss the ground and cheer for the fact that Scorsese has rediscovered the joy of letting scenes play out and build with good dialogue and that he's decided to let his amazing actors ACT ON CAMERA, instead of in the ADR booth. Like this movie or hate it, there's no way you can say it's not daring and ambitious.

BIRDIE NUM NUM