This happened to Bronson a long time ago, and it was a classic two-edged sword -- the guy became rich and comfortable, and he lost his actorly intrigue.

The fact is that Charles Bronson checked out of the coolness and vitality hotel 27 or 28 years ago after he made his last half-decent films, DEATH WISH ('74), and HARD TIMES ('75). The remaining actioners he made in the mid to late '70s (FROM NOON TO THREE, BREAKHEART PASS, etc.) were second- raters, the movies he made in the '80s were even worse, and his '90s films were rank embarassments (with the exception, that is, of Sean Penn's THE INDIAN RUNNER, which was pretentious but semi-tolerable).

I'm not dissing the poor guy's record as much as paying tribute to the seeds of his original coolness, which eventually resulted in his becoming an action star in the early '70s, just after he'd turned 50. For me, the stardom that came out of RIDER IN THE RAIN and Bronson's European rep as "Il Brutto" (Italy) and "Le Sacre Monstre" (France) was the begining of the downturn.

That's because the coolest Charles Bronson of all was the somewhat younger (early to late 40s), quietly simmering supporting player who came into his own in the early to late 1960s. The log-splitting gunslinger in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, Danny "The Tunnel King" Willinski in THE GREAT ESCAPE, Robert Redford's romantic rival for Natalie Wood in THIS PROPERTY IS CONDEMED, the seasoned hard guy in THE DIRTY DOZEN, an even more dangerous gunfighter in ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST.

The Bronson myth was sculpted by his work in these films. Back then he wasn't an older guy flexing a certain graying machismo. He was lean, taut and brawny with a shock of black hair, no fucking moustache and sharp Eastern European features. (He was born in Pennsylvania with the name of Charles Buchinsky). That subtle facial signature that Bronson came to be known for, in which his features always seemed to on the verge of exressing a faint grin, was a fresher thing back then and seemed more spontaneous. Whatever the role, you always sensed his character was quietly on top of the situation. He never said much, but he had it figured. The camera loved Bronson back then; he was interesting as hell to just watch.

The fearful-man-of-action European thing was created out of this, and then Michael Winner's DEATH WISH ('73), a effective B-level exploitation film, cashed in on the whole magilla. A conservative-minded revenge piece about Paul Kersey, a liberal Manhattan architect who starts drilling street criminals after his wife has been killed and daughter turned into a catatonic following their brutal rape, DEATH WISH began the stuffing of Bronson's pockets but locked him into an iconic prison cell. It's success goaded him more and more into playing Kersey variations -- the sly, patient, shrewdly calculating guy who's capable of sudden violence.

DEATH WISH was aptly titled, in a way, since it gradually "killed" Charles Bronson, who no doubt had paradoxically wished for the kind of success it brought him since he first began with bit parts in the early '50s.

It took a while for the rot to set in. Things didn't get really appalling until the Cannon period kicked in in the early '80s. Oh, for the young Bronson who would have pinched his nose in disgust at the idea of a Golan-Globus movie! There was a TV series Bronson starred in briefly in '58 called "Man With a Camera." I've never seen a single episode, but I'll bet he's ten times more intriguing in any one of them that in all the bullshit Cannon movies he made put together.

I could see the despair on Bronson's face when he made an appearance on the "Today" show in '87 to promote (as I recall) Cannon's DEATH WISH 4: THE CRACKDOWN. A clearly-cynical interviewer asked why he thought the DEATH WISH films continued to be made, and Bronson answered, in essence, "Because people have primitive tastes in movies and because the Cannon people are paying me well." He didn't use these words, but he obviously felt this and was less than delighted at being obliged to hawk a Golan-Globus shitburger on nationwide TV.

Anyway, I remember Charlie...okay? Back when he was cool as a jewel in a swimming pool. Maybe I'm not willing to forgive him for making those 29 or so films that followed HARD TIMES, but I'm willing to forget and look back on the bright side.

Deflowered

Australian director Jane Campion's IN THE CUT (Screen Gems, October 24) has been described by ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY as "a sexually explicit, emotionally raw enterprise." That's par for the course for Campion, who got into some sexual stuff in THE PIANO (including that shot of a full-frontal Harvey Keitel...please) and HOLY SMOKE (remember that shot of a nude Kate Winslet urinating on-camera?). However, it's a notable departure for star Meg Ryan, who's never been much for graphic love scenes, or even semi-graphic ones.

From what I'm told, Ryan's love scenes with costar Mark Ruffalo are definitely an initiation into the big leagues.

In the quasi-murder thriller, due to be shown next month at the Toronto Film Festival, Ryan plays a New York writing professor, Franny Thorstin, who gets into a big heavy-breathing affair with a police detective (Ruffalo) who's investigating the murder of a attractive young woman in her neighborhood.

"IN THE CUT struck me as more interesting for Meg Ryan's nudity than anything else," a friend who's seen it wrote last weekend. "It's an interesting enough film about sexual obsession, but Meg's nudity is especially bracing because it's America's sweetheart doing the down and dirty. And there's a long, fairly explicit scene in which Mark Ruffalo [orally pleasures her]."

Another person who's seen it agreed with the initial writer that IN THE CUT's ending is problematic, "but leading up to that point I found it to be a pretty interesting take on a genre, and quite clearly from a female perspective," he wrote. "I understand the film takes a radical shift from the way that the book ends. The film is very Campion-y, with lots of little directorial flourishes. Not all of them work, but they're always interesting to watch.

"I reckon critics and specialised audiences will actually really like it," he added, "but perhaps not so much the general public. One other thing though: Ryan is, in my opinion, EXCELLENT. This is the best piece of dramatic work she's done, alongside WHEN A MAN LOVES A WOMAN, which I kind of enjoyed."

Revolutions a'comin

A bearded, darkly lit Oriental guy says, "What if they don't find us?"

Jada Pinkett Smith answers, "They will."

"How do you know?"

"I just know."

"What do you think will happen after that?"

"I don't know, but something tells me it's gonna be a hell of a ride."

40 or 50 rapid-fire action cuts follow. Sentinels attacking Zion, some Oriental dude (clean-shaven) flashing firearms, Neo doing his gravity-defying kung fu back-leaps. Trinity running sideways, Morpheus blasting the baddies. Ka-boom! Agent Smith delivering an archly villainous hoo-hah-hah! (which reminded me of John Carradine's deranged sex scientist in Woody Allen's EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX). More sentinels and boom-booms and flying plaster (hmm... seen that before). "Mr. Anderson," sneers a soaking-wet Agent Smith, in closeup. "We've missssed you." I didn't catch Neo's response, but I'm sure it's something pithy.

I saw it online a few weeks ago and found it...well, pretty good. Rousing if not blinding. Then I saw it again last weekend at a theatre in Montparnasse. It made a stronger impression this time. THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS will be the grand crescendo, the end of the line, the tying-up of the ribbons -- the above-ground, scorched-earth finale with that hugely-expensive action sequence we've been hearing about for months. Neo's passion play (death, resurrection), and what looks like another burly brawl, only this time in the rain. Hey, that'll be different.

But I can't shake myself out of that post-RELOADED funk. We're all feeling that, right? I'm into seeing REVOLUTIONS, sure, but with bets hedged and fingers crossed. A friend says I'll eat my words when it finally arrives on November 5th. What words? I'm just not tinglng with anticipation.

There's an oblique upside, at least. After the MATRIX RELOADED let-down, people aren't expecting as much this time. That's almost a home-court advantage, when you think about it.

Someone should tip off MATRIX executive producer Bruce Berman, who's still making excuses. In the current "Fall Preview" ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, he says ''the second movie is always the toughest one in a trilogy." Bullshit. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK showed that all second installments have to do in order to succeed is hit the ground running and end with an intriguing (as opposed to RELOADED's perplexing) cliffhanger. The third and final chapter -- the one in which all the strands have to fuse together and the ending has to deliver a resounding echo -- is always the bitch.

This is prompting some of us, I'm sure, to consider the following: if the Wachowksi's couldn't make the second installment pay off in a satisfying way, why should anyone trust in their ability to pull off the more-difficult final chapter in any kind of grand, profound style?

"Well, it's nice to have something to look forward to," the Oriental guy says at the teaser's end.

"Indeed it is," says Pinkett Smith.

Smart Ass

You've gotta love Paul Newman for that thing he wrote about the Bill O'Reilly Fox News nuisance lawsuit for trademark violation against Al Franken, which came out of Franken's using the term "fair and balanced" -- a line ostensibly copyrighted by Fox News -- in the title of his new book. Newman's piece ran in the op-ed secton of the NEW YORK TIMES on Tuesday, 8.19.

"Unreliable sources report that the Fox suit has inspired Paul Newman, the actor, to file a similar suit in federal court against the Department of Housing and Urban Development, commonly called HUD," Newman wrote, based upon claims of "piracy of personality and copycat infringement.

"In the 1963 film HUD, for which Mr. Newman was nominated for an Academy Award, the ad campaign was based on the slogan, 'Paul Newman is HUD," the actor reports. "Mr. Newman claims that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, called HUD, is a fair and balanced institution and that some of its decency and respectability has unfairly rubbed off on his movie character, diluting the rotten, self-important, free-trade, corrupt conservative image that Mr. Newman worked so hard to project in the film. His suit claims that this 'innocence by association' has hurt his feelings plus residuals."

Speaking of which, why hasn't Paramount Home Video put out a first-rate DVD of this Martin Ritt film? There was a decent-looking widescreen 1994 laser disc, but that's where it stopped. Great performances (costars Patricia Neal and Melvin Douglas won Best Supporting Oscars, while Newman was nominated for Best Actor), superb Eugene O'Neill-level screenplay (by Harriet Frank Jr. and Irving Ravetch), Oscar-wining cinematography by James Wong Howe, etc. Perhaps PHV publicist Martin Blythe (he's a reader) can tells us what plans may be afoot to put this title out.

The O'Reilly lawsuit is is absurd, of course, but I may as well mention the entire title of Franken's book while I'm on the subject. It's called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" (E.P. Dutton). It goes on sale this weekend, moved up from the earlier release date September 22nd to cash in on the controversy.

Arnold vs. Arianna

I feel it's okay to get into Arnold Schwarzennegger's gubernatorial candidacy because it's obviously a Hollywood-driven thing. Especially his poll numbers. Apart from that one field poll that came out last weekend and had Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante leading Schwarzenegger slightly, Arnold is the leading candidate among all the recall wannabe's. I'm not saying he's a lock to win, but he seems within reaching distance.

I wrote in a column than ran July 4th that "I honestly, sincerely believe it wouldn't be too much of a bad thing" if Arnie gets elected. My reasoning was that his 25-plus years of Hollywood experience had taught him how to play the power game, and that his blustery personality suggests he isn't likely to pussyfoot around when it comes to making decisions. I also comforted myself by reporting that although he's a Republican he's not Attila the Hun, and that he's "reasonably progressive in his thinking...for an egocentric rich guy, I mean." His positions on social issues -- the environment, gay rights, etc. -- are fairly liberal.

But the recall election isn't about social issues or Governor Gray Davis's lack of popularity with voters -- it's mainly about California's financial crisis. (This is sounding like a political pamphlet, but bear with me -- it'll be over in a few paragraphs.) And I've come to believe over the last few weeks, and particuarly after reading and listening to what political columnist and independent gubernatiorial candidate Arianna Huffington has to say, that Arnold Schwarzenegger is too much of a Bush Republican to stand up to the moneyed special-interest groups to do much about repairing California's economy.

During an interview on the Fox network earlier this month, Huffington said if she were elected she "would start with all the revenues we're not collecting, because of all the payback and IOU's to special interests. We're losing $1,300,000,000 a year because of tax shelters and close to $4 billion a year in property taxes, due to special interest relationships. I believe that commerical property taxes and all taxes need to be fairly assessed...you should not be able to buy loopholes."

Asked if such a policy might scare away businesses owners who are already thinking of fleeing California due to taxes and operating costs, Huffington got a bit ticked off. "You're saying we need corruption and favoritism to keep businesses here?," she asked her questioner. "That's the kind of mindset that has created so many problems in this state."

Schwarzenegger won't be able to do anything to stimulate growth in California unless he breaks free from his Bush Republican pallies, and he's not about to do that. It's doubtful, given this reluctance to act truly independently, that he'll stand up against the healthcare industry, the energy producers, the insurance industries and the landlords and force them to accept a fairer return on their investments with fewer gravy-train priveleges.

If anyone's interested (and I realize I'm testing reader patience with this shit), I recommend their reading Huffington's latest book, "Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America." In it she writes, "The gross excesses of today's crony capitalists are no longer aligned with the interests of their shareholders or workers, or even the long-term interests of the companies they run, not to mention society as a whole."

It doesn't matter what the numbers say now. You don't get a cash bonus if you vote for the winning candidate. All the Arnold fans who are planning on voting in the October 7th recall election should really think twice, and maybe take a look at Huffington. She's a genuine populist who's saying some really sensible things that really and truly add up. I know I'll be donating some of my time to Huffington when I return to California in late August.

Anyway, I just wanted to dispense with the impression that I'm an Arnold supporter. I like the idea of his running, or the entertainment value of it, rather, along with the uplifting land-of-the-free metaphor of a guy with a thick Austrian acent running for high elective office (and I like the same thing about Arianna, of course, with her thick Greek accent), but I don't trust him to do the hard things that need to be done. Not with the company he keeps.

Check out this video of Huffington being interviewed (http://pixpusher.com/ah/video/goodDay240) and maybe you'll see what I mean. Her website is ariannaforgov.com. Okay...back to the movie stuff.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

"You are right to be excited about Kim Bartley and Fonnacha O'Brien's THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED. It was shown here in Ireland on our national broadcaster RTE a few months ago and it is phenomenal. It builds like a superb Hollywood thriller, is genuinely frightening and moving and if it gains traction, would give people a great deal more to criticise about Bush and especially Colin Powell. The directors apparently happened simply to be in the right place and the right time, but the result had me on the edge of my seat more than any other thriller so far this year." -- Ian O'sullivan.

"I caught this sucker at SXSW in March, and Jeff, you can't miss this thing. Whereas you can get fooled by staged 'documentary"\' moments in docs like Bowling For Columbine, Revolution luckily has the benefit of being the smoking gun doc that looks at the way people spun things in last April attempted Venezuelan coup. Some rather conservative folks I saw it with in March were moved to change their minds about the liberal media bias we all see so prevalent today. If for nothing else, watch this to see Colin Powell ram his feet into his throat with the statement "President Chavez is not acting in the best interests of the United States."

"This flick, along with CABIN FEVER and MEWLVIN GOES TO DINNER, really made SXSW killer for me. Try to give MELVIN some love, it's a great film that most will not see, and I'm told it'll be at Toronto. I actually work on campus at Florida State, where we have a gloriously cool on-campus movie theatre (www.fsu.edu/~slb), and we're bringing Mike Blieden and Matt Price to come talk following a screening of MELVIN in October. I thought I'd pimp my university's cool programming stuff to Mr. Internet Journo-King, whether you care or not. Again, miss not REVOLUTION. (By the way, the second director's name is Donnacha, not Fonnacha.)" -- Moises Chiullan , Tallahassee, FL.

Wells to Chiullan: CABIN FEVER?