Logo

Cool News

The oh so Mighty Hercules looks at Kasdan's MUMFORD

Published at:  Sep 23, 1999 2:19:24 AM CDT

Years ago here in Austin I got the wonderful chance to meet Lawrence Kasdan at a special screening of GRAND CANYON and I tell ya... I was geeking something fierce. And just a bit he reminded me of Wolfman Jack, but otherwise he was just... cool. But I've been a fan of his since the beginning of his fandom, and I'm really looking forward to what sounds like a strange film. But according to this demi-god... Hercules... Ok, now how much do ya love that moniker. Doesn't it just conjure images of oil rubdowns and loincloths? My what... Muscles you have Hercules. Heheh. Well, Hercules is known to me as being a honest to goodness longtimer, but I just have to pick on his choice of name this time out. Heh. Sorry Herc... onto Mumford, which Hercules gives STRONG praise to...




MUMFORD

Written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan.

With Loren Dean, Hope Davis, Jason Lee, Alfre Woodard,
Mary McDonnell, Zooey Deschanel, Pruitt Taylor Vince,
David Paymer, Jane Adams, Martin Short, Dana Ivey,
Kevin Tighe, Robert Stack, Holt McCallany, Kirk Fox,
Ted Danson, and Jason Morgan Ritter.

Rated R for sex-related images, language and drug
content.

US:96min./UK:111 min. (a difference of 15 minutes!)

**** (out of four)

Lawrence Kasdan – the *good* Lawrence Kasdan -- has
returned to us.

The romantic comedy-drama “Mumford” is easily the
writer-director’s best and most entertaining work in a
decade and a half. It wastes no time reminding us of
the talent that sustained the brilliant screenplays he
forged for “The Big Chill,” “The Empire Strikes Back,”
“Raiders of the Lost Ark” and others; the new film
engrosses so thoroughly, in fact, that one almost
forgets the years squandered on half-assed nonsense
like “The Bodyguard,” “Wyatt Earp” and “French Kiss.”

“Mumford” represents the first time a Kasdan writing
credit has appeared on screen since 1994, and one
suspects the 50-year-old filmmaker has – laudably –
taken the time to carefully craft the kind of work
that established him as one of Hollywood’s leading
storytellers 20 years ago.

As the film begins, the young and mysterious Dr.
Mumford has made his home in scenic Mumford, N.H. for
less than five months, but he’s already the busiest of
its three psychoanalysts. It’s not hard to see why:
he’s as helpful, bright, well-mannered and witty as he
is unorthodox and enigmatic.

Mumford (the municipality) rivals even fellow lumber
town Twin Peaks for the number of secrets it harbors.
Mumford (the psychologist) gingerly extracts these
secrets, but the town has yet to learn that its
leading shrink has amassed a pretty impressive array
of secrets all his own.

“Mumford” is a story about fresh starts, and it feels
as though Kasdan has made a fresh start for himself.
Neither William Hurt nor the Kevins Kline and Costner
put in appearances; instead, the filmmaker has
returned to recruiting his leads from the roster of
the fabulous but little-known. Literally everyone in
the cast – including leads Loren Dean and Hope Davis
-- is terrific, but special praise should be reserved
for Jason Lee (as the goofy skateboarding computer
billionaire Skip Skipperton, who seems to be
responsible for the entire town’s livelihood), Zooey
Deschanel (as a brainy and overheated teen outsider
obsessed with periodicals), and Pruitt Taylor Vince
(virtually unrecognizable here as a pharmacist with a
markedly overactive imagination). Equally fun in
smaller roles are Martin Short (playing the villain of
the piece – a vile and resentful lawyer about two
chromosomes removed from Short’s SNL character Nathan
Thurm), Jane Adams (as a suspicious rival
psychologist), and Ted Danson (in a tiny turn as a
loutish and weak-minded industrialist).

As good as the product has been this year, I can’t
imagine this one not making my 1999 top ten. By turns
compelling, hilarious and poignant, “Mumford” brings a
lot to the couch. It’s the perfect place to lose
one’s mind.

I warn you not to defy me!

I am … Hercules!



    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 2:52:34 AM CDT

    Running Times

    by walter burns

    15 minutes difference between the UK and US varsions? Which version did Herculese see? Is the US version obviously missing scenes? Is the UK version too drawn out? From the write up it doesn't sound likely that there was an issue of content/ratings boards. Also, neither running time is particularly 'epic', so what gives with the huge discrepancy?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 6:20:18 AM CDT

    a really big **YEAH RIGHT** factor

    by cathfilm

    Loved those anatomically correct mannequin parts. Kinda ironic that Kasdan made Mumford (the shrink) so well-written that the secondary characters are so ludicruous. And, gee, how convenient, the shrink cures PTV's maladies with pornography. I kinda sound the Church Lady here, but could the new resident of Mumford be....SATAN? ***www.catholicfilmreview.com

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 8:11:17 AM CDT

    Posting Press Releases?

    by smilin'jackruby

    Oh, nevermind.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 10:06:31 AM CDT

    A Well-Written Review *gasp*

    by all thumbs

    I don't think anyone has really addressed this in this TalkBack, so nobody go off explaining what they really meant, but I find it kind of annoying that just because a review is too positive or the writer knows how to use a comma and words more profound than "good" it makes it a plant from a company. I honestly don't think the plants are the people who know how to spell, I think it's the ones that rant on about something totally off subject and then post an address at the end or say, "I'd rather go see (whatever movie is out in theatres or video from a rival company)." There has been a lot of finger pointing and bitching lately about Harry getting "kick-backs" from the studios. Why don't you just ask him, Harry, are you being influenced by your roles in movies and/or studios that give you free stuff or cool interviews? Now, enjoy the rest of your rants. (This film looks good, BTW.)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 11:41:04 AM CDT

    I don't know....

    by carouselambra


    What's this? Praise for "Mumford"? It looks quite stupid, in my opinion.

    First off, as one who studied psychology in college, it's a bit of a slap in the face to real psychologists. Someone can easily fool a whole city into thinking they're a psychologist just by listening to them and saying stupid catch phrases? I guess it worked for Tony Robbins.

    Also it seems to me that the comedy (in the trailer and the commercials) is amazingly mundane. "You're a doctor." "Yes, a psychologist." "Oh so not a real docotor." "Right, the fake kind." Hoho! It's like a bad sitcom. "What's her problem?" "She's, uh, weird."

    And just to let everyone know, if I can know every plot twist and turn (he's not really a doctor, he falls in love with one of his patients) just by seeing the trailer and the commercials, I have no problem with reviewing a movie I haven't seen solely by the trailer and the commercials.

    Sorry for the rant! This is a cool site, Harry. I enjoy it a lot.

    Chester McF.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 12:27:49 PM CDT

    Loren Dean as Cyclops

    by superman#1

    I first saw this guy in "Enemy of the State" as Hicks. Then I heard he was rumored for Cyclops, and you know what he would've been pretty good. He seemed like Cyclops in "Enemy of the State" taking orders from Voight and then giving orders out to everyone else. He had the leadership type quailities and seemed commanding enough to be convincing. In any case I think he's a good actor, and I will see this movie.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 12:36:22 PM CDT

    Press Release question

    by smilin'jackruby

    Because of my profession, believe me, I enjoy reading a healthy usage of the language or punctuation. Usually, I'm not so jaded to believe everything's a press release, especially not this one in retrospect as it would be too perfect to pass muster in a studio's marketing dept. (except Artisan where they pretty much go crazy), but entries that look like glowing reviews that begin with headers straight from Leonard Maltin always set off my alarm bells. Sorry if I offended anyone and regardless, I will probably see "Mumford" as, of course, it is Larry Kasdan. It was an early morning this morning.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 1:36:30 PM CDT

    I want to see Jason Lee in a really good skateboarding film

    by paragonian

    Since he's a pro skateboarder he could definitly handle that, plus he's a funny character actor who's also got a romantic side. I can't recall any real skakeboarding films either, it's one of the untouched sports. I really look forward to seeing him in Cameron Crowes upcoming rock film.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 5:53:26 PM CDT

    The sporting life

    by powerslave

    The words "skateboarding" and "sports" don't belong in the same sentence, unless you're watching ESPN 2.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 23, 1999 8:51:44 PM CDT

    THRASH! (And Trash)

    by damien667

    First off, as great as everyone louts Larry to be, I hated GRAND CANYON. The times it was meant to be funny, I was falling asleep. The times it was meant to be touching, insightful and emotional, I was asleep. Basically, I was bored shitless during the entire film. THE BIG CHILL was exactly that, as I could never identify with any of the characters. MUMFORD, based solely on its advertising, looks boring, trite and unabashidly stupid. The infamous "No, not a real one" line actually made me comatose during the trailer. It really does feel sincerely like one of these horrible sitcoms we have to suffer through, before the networks realize the error of their ways and pull the plug. I wish someone would do that to this movie at the box office (which, shouldn't be hard, considering the reaction NORMAL movie-goers give the trailers). Also, Jason LEIGH in a skateboarding film is nearly as assinine an idea as having a skateboarding film to begin with. By the way, if you REALLY feel like the whole skateboarding genre hasn't been exploited enough at the theaters, go find a copy of THRASH. It's an example of why skateboarding movies suck, why they will always suck, and why skateboarding culture is such a joke. The movie was made in the 80's, and I really don't recall the styles from that film (or attitudes) changing much in today's society.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 24, 1999 7:31:09 AM CDT

    It DOES run 111 mins in the US!

    by dursman

    Every review this morning here in the good o'l U.S. says the movie runs 111 minutes. Where did this guy get his information from about the running time??

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 24, 1999 7:53:22 AM CDT

    Damien, dude, chill out...

    by dr.drake ramoray

    I'm getting the feeling this movie may be as polarizing as the Blair Witch project, ( I'm among the ones who liked that one, by the way) , but for heaven's sake people, even if you feel compelled to bash a movie that you haven't seen, or don't want to see, can't we be civil about it?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 24, 1999 5:51:32 PM CDT

    A Second opinion

    by xocxoc

    Since practically everyone posting here has not seen it yet. Let me give a decent second opinion. I would give this movie *** (not great, but thumbs up) It will not excite you, but it may grow on you. This movie is sort of in the same category as Rushmore, an ensemble based character driven light comedy with no action sequences or any sustainable plot. It starts out slow but in the end it grows on you. It is not about a story, it is however about an idea. It is about abandoning your former self to find a new self. This idea was more eloquently portrayed in Pleasantville, Kasdan's earlier Grand Canyon, and the far superior weekend movie American Beauty. Unfortunately, this theme is not a universal one. Those that detest change will hate Mumford (none of the other 3 movies were/will be universally received either). As for you Psychiatrists that are offended by this movie, I suspect Freud himself would have loved the "dont take therapy too seriously" attitude of the film.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Sep 25, 1999 12:02:10 AM CDT

    I, Hercules, respond to you puny mortals

    by hercules

    Mumford is, indeed, 111 minutes in the states. I was late for an oil rub and loincloth fitting (my massiveness makes it diffcult to buy "off the rack"), so I just grabbed the (incorrect) running time off of the typically very useful International Movie Database. Now that Mr. Knowles has purchased for me this "wristwatch," as he calls it, I will be able to gauge the "running times" of these "motion pictures" with far more accuracy! -- Herc

    Reply to Talkback

  • Mar 17, 2010 9:15:45 AM CDT

    A black Box? Here?

    by orcus

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback