Just Hit Play

Larry Crowne

2012-02-15T00:04:00.000-06:00

It's pretty easy to see why 2011's Larry Crowne was a disappointment in theaters and reviewed less than favorably by many critics. It doesn't deliver a huge, high-arcing message, doesn't tell us anything about the human race or society. The performances aren't groundbreaking, and the story doesn't explore any new territory. What is it then? Just a good, old-fashioned (if sometimes sappy and/or sentimental) story with likable characters. Every so often, that's not a bad thing to stumble across.

A 20-year veteran of the Navy and a divorcee, 40-something Larry Crowne (Tom Hanks) is fired from his blue collar job because he doesn't have a college degree. He's completely taken back by the news, never realizing it was an issue. Struggling to find a job, Larry really only has one alternative left open to him. He enrolls in the local community college, taking several classes, including a speech class taught by Mercy Tainot (Julia Roberts), a professor burned out by the profession, and an econ class taught by Dr. Matsutani (George Takei). Surrounded by a much younger student body, Larry is most definitely out of his comfort zone. But as he adjusts, he begins to find that it's never too late to change in life.

Yes, that could be sappiest, most sugary thing I've ever written in 800-plus reviews. But you know what? That's the whole movie wrapped up in one quick sentence. 'Crowne' is about the people. It is a personal story based in the little people on their day-to-day lives. We see the good and bad, and more often than not, the individual rising out of the bad situation and moving toward the good. It's refreshing to see movies like this. There's no violence or sex or twists or turns or betrayals. Director/producer/writer/star Hanks does a great job putting it all together. Sure, there are bigger things at work -- Larry's struggles at the job search are certainly very timely with current economic struggles -- but when it comes down to it, this is a story about people looking for happiness.

Now that said, I do see the objections some viewers and critics had with this movie. It is so ridiculously sugary sweet and sappy that any diabetics watching should be careful. Larry attends a community college that only exists in the movies with administration leading tai chi classes in the quad, stoner kids who hang with the jocks, that sort of thing. He meets one student, Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), the free spirit and insanely adorable college girl who won't be tied down by society's conventions. Talia invites Larry to ride with her "scooter gang," where he also meets Dell (Wilmer Valderrama), her possibly jealous but just downright nice boyfriend. There's also Cedric the Entertainer and Taraji P. Henson as his intensely stereotypical neighbors, identified in one review as the "magical Negro" characters. In any other movie, I might have called Hanks out, but nope, not this one. This movie doesn't have a mean bone in its body.

Two stars who worked together previously in 2007's Charlie Wilson's War, Hanks and Roberts team up again here in a much lighter story. Neither star has quite the star power they did in the 1990s or even early in the 2000s, but it's still Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts for goodness sake! Hanks brings his usual easygoing tone and manner to his part as Larry. Partially because it's Hanks and partially because the character is so sympathetic and a genuinely nice, good guy, you can't help but root for him. Roberts is given the darker of the two parts, a jaded, more than a little cynical professor who questions what she's doing as a teacher. Their scenes together have an easy flow that only two pros like this could show. And I add this as the shallow guy, if any of my professors ever looked like Julia Roberts, I'd have gotten an A+....just saying.

Behind the camera for just the second time with a feature film, Hanks fills out his cast with some solid names including those already mentioned earlier, Takei especially having some fun as the econ professor with a devilish laugh. Bryan Cranston does what he does best playing a sketchy, cocky son of a you know what, Roberts' husband who's fallen on some self-imposed hard times. Pam Grier has a small part as Frances, a fellow member of the faculty and friend of Mercy's. I feel safe saying this isn't a great movie, and who knows? Maybe it isn't even a good movie. I can say there's a comfort with this movie. Just enjoy this one and don't overthink it.

Larry Crowne <---trailer (2011): ***/****

The Debt

2012-02-14T00:10:00.000-06:00

In the closing days and months of WWII, Nazi officials saw the end in sight and started to plan their escapes, retreating into new lives, knowing that their actions would eventually catch up with them. Intelligence agencies from countries around the world did their best to bring these men to justice as seen in movies like Marathon Man or The Boys from Brazil, and most recently 2010's The Debt.

It's 1997 and Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren), Stephan Gold (Tom Wilkinson) and David Peretz (Ciaran Hinds) have been holding onto a secret for 30 years. Now that secret might be coming out. Rachel's daughter has a written a book about her mother's exploits as Mossad agent in 1965, working with Stephan and David as part of a three-man team to bring a Nazi war criminal to justice. What they told though happened isn't the truth, and now after 30 years of inner turmoil, it may finally be time for that hidden truth to reveal itself. What will be the price? At what cost can their struggles be revealed?

A smart, well-written thriller. They seem few and far between actually arriving in theaters, don't they? Director John Madden has done it though with this thriller, crafting a story that weaves in between 1965/66 and 1997 fairly effortlessly. Early in the story, we're thrown for a loop as an audience, seeing what we believed happened only to find out later that it wasn't based in the truth. The East Berlin setting of 1965 is dark and gloomy (appropriate) with the flashback occupying much of the movie's middle portions only to bounce back to 1997. The look of the movie is great, and as a whole, it's more content in telling a human, interesting and still entertaining story than getting wrapped up in gunplay and explosions thankfully.

A surprising problem though is the division of the story between the two separate years. In the 1965 portion, Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas play Rachel, David and Stephan. All three do a fine job with their characters, Mossad agents on a nearly suicidal mission deep in Communist-run East Berlin. Worthington especially makes a positive impression, showing he's more than only an action star, and Chastain too carries herself very well. Even with the mystery though of what happened on the mission, these 1965 Berlin scenes lack a certain energy. We know some sort of twist is coming yet somehow it isn't all that interesting. There's also the always reliable, always cliched love triangle thrown into the mix, one of my all-time least favorite plot devices.

So with a story that has three main characters, we're really seeing six characters, not to mention Jesper Christensen as Dieter Vogel, the Surgeon of Birkenau, a Nazi war criminal who played a major role in the Holocaust (and loosely based on Josef Mengele). Of the two storylines, I was more interested in the 1997 plot. Mirren is one of the best actresses working in movies today, and Wilkinson is no slouch either. Hinds has the least screentime but does not disappoint either. I can't explain the differences because all the acting is above average and pretty top-notch. The more current story just came across better to me while the rest back in Berlin drags at times.

What divided many reviewers/critics was the ending after the twist and an additional surprise are thrown into the story. I for one, liked it a lot, thinking it was a very emotional fitting end for the character. There is a certain amount of viewer interpretation allowed in the ending, but this is where the debt in the title comes into play. These characters have suffered with a decision they made some 30 years back and are now forced to deal with it. The solution is no easier than the original problem, and the final scene is incredibly moving. Credit goes to composer Thomas Newman and his score, balancing the tense scenes (kidnapping Vogel in Berlin) to the quiet moments. A flawed movie in terms of story, but the acting is worth mentioning on its own.

The Debt <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Safe House

2012-02-13T00:02:00.000-06:00

Denzel Washington is one of a rare breed in Hollywood. He's an Academy Award-winning actor who has shown that regardless of the role he's in, he is truly an actor. On the other side, he's also a movie star, a true movie star. There aren't many actors/actresses around who have the cache that Washington does. Oh, he's in a new movie? Sign me up. It doesn't hurt that with 2012's Safe House, it's also a good movie.

Having been stationed in Cape Town, South Africa for 12 months, CIA agent Matthew Weston (Ryan Reynolds) is at the end of his rope. His lone task is to care for and watch over a CIA safe house, one that in his year on duty has seen absolutely zero visitors. That is, until now. One day, a CIA extract team (led by Robert Patrick) arrives at the safe house with a prisoner, Tobin Frost (Washington), a rogue agent suspected of selling intelligence secrets to the highest bidder. Before the interrogation can begin though, the safe house is attacked with Tobin as the target. Weston takes him out and finds himself on the run, needing to hide long enough until help can arrive. What isn't Tobin telling him though? And how did the attackers know the time and place to attack? Someone most definitely wants Tobin dead, and Weston may be the collateral damage.

An espionage thriller set in South Africa with Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, and a crew of more than reliable actors in supporting roles? Oh, count me in. From director Daniel Espinosa, Safe House doesn't break new ground in the genre. There is a familiarity with the story and characters, but not that overdone feel of having seen everything done before and done to death. With its washed out colors and quick editing, it has the look and feel of a Tony Scott flick crossed with a Jason Bourne movie. It isn't like those movies, just similar. Espinosa handles the twisting, fast-moving story very professionally. As a viewer, you're always aware the revelations are coming (somewhat predictably), but the enjoyment comes from the ride along the way. The action is impressive, but there's not too much. The twists make sense and fit logically into the story. And the characters? Stock characters from the spy/espionage genre, but good ones at that.

Much of the appeal from Safe House will no doubt come from Denzel Washington as spy come in from the cold Tobin Frost. Washington isn't the type of actor who's in 9 or 10 movies a year, picking and choosing his roles more carefully. When they come along, you've got to enjoy and appreciate them. When he's on-screen, Washington is effortlessly cool, making him an ideal choice to play a possibly rogue agent looking to come in. Tobin is a master manipulator, highly intelligent, very capable of handling himself, and ready and willing to use a wide network of associates and contacts to help his cause. His motivations are kept in the dark to a point -- left in the dark -- but it's clear he's fed up with living a hidden life. He's the one who sets the action in motion, and when it starts, it never slows down. There are very few must-see actors, but Washington is one of them. The actor and character leave you wanting more.

As his counter, Ryan Reynolds shows again why he's one of the rising stars in Hollywood. We meet him in the beginning; an inexperienced agent looking for actual field work, wasting away in a pointless job. He keeps secrets about his job from his girlfriend (Nora Arnezeder), hoping to get reassignment somewhere. As he's thrust into the world he's only dreamed of up to this point, we see a transformation, a young agent learning in a do-or-die situation. His comedic abilities as an actor have never been in question, but with parts like this and 2006's Smokin' Aces, Reynolds shows he is very capable of being an action star. Let's not talk about Green Lantern which looked like all sorts of awful. Most importantly though, Reynolds isn't overshadowed by Washington. Their scenes together keep things flowing when the bullets aren't flying. Tobin is playing Weston to a point so can the inexperienced agent figure it out and fight back?

Who else to look for? Washington is the drawing card, but there's no drop-off between him and the rest of the cast. Back in Langley at CIA headquarters, Sam Shepard, Brendan Gleeson and Vera Farmiga play CIA supervisors trying to piece everything together. What exactly is going on in South Africa, and who's on who's side? Ruben Blades makes a quick appearance as Carlos, an old associate of Tobin's who helps him out as he tries to get out of South Africa. Patrick helps legitimize the small part as Keifer, the leader of the CIA extract team, with Liam Cunningham briefly appearing as an MI6 link to Tobin. Two other worthwhile parts include Vargas (Fares Fares), the killer tasked with killing Frost and Weston, and Keller (Joel Kinnaman), another safe house operative looking for any sort of excitement.

With a 115-minute long movie, director Espinosa keeps things flowing and never really lets up in the action department. Expansive, loud shootouts, harrowing car chases through Cape Town's crowded streets, and knock down, brutal hand-to-hand fights pepper the story throughout. The editing is lightning-paced, but you're always able to keep up and see what's going on. Thankfully, the brakes were tapped before 'Safe' reached Bourne-editing territory. The shaky camera never goes too far, but you do feel like you're there with the action. South Africa is an exotic, different location for the thriller as well, not the typical backdrop for an espionage story. A classic? No, but it's an above average flick with its fair share of unique qualities.

Safe House <---trailer (2012): ***/****

The Ninth Gate

2012-02-12T00:06:00.000-06:00

Based on a novel called The Club Dumas by Arturo Perez-Reverte, 1999's The Ninth Gate is an oddity among books-turned-movies. It's rare -- for me at least -- to like a book more than its source novel, but this definitely qualifies. More stream-lined and sinister than the novel, this relatively low-key thriller is a trippy, even odd, movie but in the end a good one.

An unscrupulous individual willing to work for the highest bidder, Dean Corso (Johnny Depp) is a book detective, specializing in tracking down and "acquiring" rare and expensive books. His most recent hire though is both lucrative and highly dangerous. A millionaire, Boris Balkan (Frank Langella), has hired Corso to track down and compare the three known, existing copies of The Nine Gates, a book believed to have been co-authored by the Devil himself. Balkan wants to know which one is authentic sending Corso on his way, but this detective has no idea what awaits. People around him are suddenly brutally murdered, and Corso can't help but feel he's next. What exactly has he stumbled into?

Quick comparison to the novel, and then we'll put that aside. In the novel, there are two storylines. One, Corso is investigating a copy of a supposedly lost chapter from Three Musketeers writer Alexandre Dumas, and two, similarly searching for the three copies of The Nine Gates. The book has a bit of a literary snob feel to it, showing off how smart it is. It's good, but some passages get bogged down in the details. Even skipping these passages, I felt like I missed little. Now the movie wisely and thankfully sticks to the darker Devil plot so here we go with that.

From controversial and highly talented director Roman Polanski, 'Ninth' is a smart thriller. Like its main character in Corso, it is low-key and rarely obvious while also being able to pick its moments as to when to scare or at least surprise you. With its basis in aged literature going back to the 1500s, there is a Gothic feel to the developing story. The globe-trotting investigator rings similar to a more intellectual Indiana Jones, and the shadowy, sinister characters has the feel of a film noir. Composer Wojciech Kilar's score is a gem, especially the main theme which I can only describe as playful. Give it a listen HERE. The whole score has a knack for lulling you to sleep, only to pull the rug out from under you. From Polanski's score to Kilar's score, the movie has a smart style to it, a self-assured feeling of knowing where it wants to get.

Part of that easy-going style comes from Johnny Depp as Dean Corso. Depp is a little too young to play the character, but he makes it work. Some of that stems from his look, his appearance. He has graying hair, a cigarette is always hanging from his lip, he always wears a bag over his shoulder, and his unkempt college professor look has a way of disarming whoever he's talking to. Underplaying the part of this very intelligent, conniving mercenary, Depp's talent still allows him to be at least a tiny bit likable. He's in it for the money but quickly sees he's getting more than he bargained for.

Because it is Corso's investigation, the other players are smaller, supporting parts, but they don't disappoint. Langella is basically there for three scenes, giving off such a decidedly and even evil air that the impression is a lasting one. Lena Olin plays Liana Telfer, a rich widow Corso meets in his investigation. Emmanuelle Seigner (Mrs. Roman Polanski) is the Girl, a mysterious woman who keeps popping up in Corso's travels. She clearly knows more than she's letting on, and the reveal doesn't come as a complete surprise, but it's a good one nonetheless. Also look for James Russo as Bernie, a dealer in rare books and friend of Corso. The odd thing with the casting is that Depp is too young for his part while Olin and Seigner are too old -- according to the novel anyways -- but all three put their own spins on their characters.

What has appealed to me on repeated viewings here is the unique feel to the whole movie. With the story, you're never quite sure where it's going. Is it really just a search for an ancient book supposedly written by Satan? If it's more, what's the end result? Go along for the ride because it's a good one. The acting and performances are uniformly good, the filming locations in Portugal and Paris are perfect, the score a great scene-setter, and the ending a whopper that is left open to your interpretation. A noir-Gothic thriller, and how often can you see one of those?

The Ninth Gate <---trailer (1999): *** 1/2 /****

Two For the Money

2012-02-10T00:31:00.000-06:00

A flop when it was released in theaters in 2005, Two for the Money has found itself a second chance on late night TV, or at least that's where I kept stumbling across it. Finally just caved and rented it from Netflix having seen the first 30 minutes twice on TBS at two in the morning. Was it worth it? Nope, not especially.

Having suffered a possibly career-ending injury in a bowl game, quarterback Brandon Lang (Matthew McConaughey) has possibly hit it big helping bettors by picking scores of NCAA and NFL college scores. He's done so well in fact that he's been noticed by Walter Abraham (Al Pacino), the owner of one of the country's most successful sports gambling/counseling companies. Walter takes Brandon to New York to join his firm, and all he asks is that he keeps on doing what he does so freakishly well, picking winners and making money. Brandon does just that -- picking winners at an alarming rate -- but can his extraordinary luck hold out?

When I did stumble across this on late night TV, I didn't necessarily love it, but I was intrigued if nothing else. Having seen the entire movie now, I wasn't even intrigued by the end of this overlong, dull and predictable story from director D.J. Caruso. Nothing about it feels real. It feels forced from the beginning, even entirely fake at specific moments. Some of that stems from the "NFL teams" and the footage of games that looks like it's from the 1980s in Canada. But more than that, 'Money' reeks of style over substance. There's never really any question where it's going, but even the ride getting there isn't entertaining.

The showiest part in the movie goes to Al Pacino as Walter, a former gambler turned hugely successful consulting company owner. This movie continued a trend of parts like this that had Pacino playing a caricature of himself more than actually playing a part. This is a part that could and should have been pretty good, but it's so ridiculously over the top and showy that I never bought it. He screams, he mugs, he gets intense. Rene Russo plays his wife, Toni, a woman with similar past demons. Jeremy Piven has a good part as Jerry, one of Brandon's in-company rivals, Armand Assante sneers as Novian, one of the world's biggest sports gamblers, and Jaime King apparently got blackmailed into a part as a conquest of Brandon's.

What throws me depending on the role is McConaughey's continued success in movies. His aw-shucks demeanor and overly confident -- even arrogant -- ways works in movies like Sahara or We Are Marshall. But in a quasi-dramatic role like this, it just doesn't work for me. Brandon is supposed to be ultra-confident, and I bought into it, but by the end of the movie I just hated this character. Hated. McConaughey doesn't do a great job developing him, and his rise and inevitable fall can be predicted from the moment the movie starts. Mostly though, I just don't think much of him as a true dramatic actor. Going up against Pacino and his exaggerated style, his underplaying style does not go over well. Not a good mix at all.

By the time the ending nears, I thought I'd seen every stereotype possible. 'Money' deserves to be beaten with the cliche stick. The rise and fall, the possible relationship with Russo's Toni, the back and forth dynamic, it's all there. And then there's the one big game where everything that went wrong can be righted. Didn't see that one coming, did you? I'm somewhat surprised by how negative this review has gone because as I finished the movie I thought it was pretty average if nothing else. The more I thought about it, the more I disliked it though. Who knows what would have happened if I waited another day to write?

Two for the Money <---trailer (2005): */****

The Hard Word

2012-02-09T00:10:00.000-06:00

An Aussie crime drama with a handful of recognizable actors, a story that is both highly dramatic and oddly funny, and in general a feeling of originality (if somewhat misplaced and odd) that a lot of movies just don't have. All these things work for and against 2002's The Hard Word, a genuinely weird movie that I still managed to enjoy.

Working as pawns for a greedy, backstabbing lawyer, Frank (Robert Taylor), and a group of corrupt politicians and policemen, three brothers, Dale (Guy Pearce), Shane (Joel Edgerton) and Mal (Damien Richardson) are three of the most successful bank robbers Australia has ever seen, always trying to pull jobs without violence. Now though they've been caught and are serving time, but Frank has a plan, a heist that will net them $20 million dollars while they're "on parole." None of the brothers, especially Dale, thinks much of it, but they're basically blackmailed into the spot. Their goal? Take down the gambling winnings from the Melbourne Cup, but with Frank sleeping with Dale's wife, Carol (Rachel Griffiths), nothing goes off quite as planned. Now all that's to be decided is whether the brothers can get out alive.

Not as a judgment against Australian films, but there is something indescribably odd crime drama. It is violent and harsh, but it also has some out of left field comedic moments (most of them incredibly dark and twisted). Director Scott Roberts must have had a lot of ideas brewing in his head, and he throws it all together. The weirdness of all those different elements have a surprising affect in that they work. How? Oh, I have no idea, but it does. Maybe because it is so genuinely different and unique, but I went along with it. Part of me didn't always believe what I was watching, and another part might not have even liked certain parts of the movie. Still, it's weird but that good sort of weird.

What works through and above and around that weirdness is the camaraderie we see among the three brothers. In jail or not, working a job, eating a meal, I believed in them. They have a bond that would be hard to fake. They bitch and moan at each other but all the while want what's best for the others. When Shane gets sick and is almost left behind, Dale and Mal fake a similar illness and stick around with him, putting the job off for a little. So we have these three brothers who are extremely close, and they just happen to be good at....robbing banks. They're good at it but never seem to have any money, constantly needing a new, better job. Pearce, Edgerton and Richardson are the best things going for the movie, all three brothers coming across as believable. And more on this later, but they're some of my favorite characters...the doomed variety.

Sifting through the odd comedy and off the wall, scatter-brained storytelling is the basis of a great crime drama featuring many aspects of a 1940s film noir. Those aspects are when the movie is moving along at a good pace, knowing where it wants to go. Griffiths as Carol is the femme fatale, a beautiful, smart and sexy woman who's going to do what she needs to do to survive. She loves Pearce's Dale but also knows she has to make it on her own while he's inside. Taylor as the slimy Frank is the real villain, the conniving lawyer who will no doubt get what he deserves in the end. There's also the insane hired gun, Tarzan (Dorian Nkono), the damaged but still strong woman, Jane (Rhondda Findleton), Shane's love interest and psychiatrist, and of course, the two corrupt cops (Paul Sonkkila and Vince Colosimo). All it needed was black and white film, some cigarette smoke hanging in the air, and some shadows here and there and we're talking full-on 40s noir.

Now almost from the start, the three brothers are pegged as the tragic characters, doomed individuals who have no way out from the predicament they find themselves in. The momentum keeps building, and the story seems destined to end that way. Heist movies have taught us that. The heist is almost always the easy part. The aftermath is where things get bloody. Even following the job, it seems like the movie will go one way but doesn't. That disjointed feel, the bizarre attempts at humor, it all stops the ending from being a classic. It ends on a surprising attempt at a laugh. It works while still managing to feel out of place. The movie is really a mess, but I can't help but like it.

The Hard Word <---quasi-trailer (2002): ***/****

Fistful of Lead

2012-02-07T09:53:00.000-06:00

My only connection to the Sartana movies is not a good one, the "comedic" Trinity and Sartana, a cheap, poorly made spin-off. Sartana was one of many successful spaghetti western characters who spawned official and unofficial movies, but that one? Take a pass. It didn't take long to find a winner in the unofficial series, starting with 1970's Fistful of Lead or as it's more commonly (and much cooler) known 'I Am Sartana, Trade Your Guns for a Coffin.'

A bounty hunter and gunfighter, Sartana (George Hilton) witnesses the robbery of a gold shipment, the attack led by a bandit named Mantas (Nello Pazzafini) and his gang. Looking for information, he rides into a nearby town and finds it. A local businessman/bank owner, Spencer (Pierro Lulli), runs the area and basically controls what gold gets out and what stays. An enormous shipment is set to depart under heavy guard soon, and Sartana sees the chance for a huge payday. The only problem? Spencer is expecting some sort of trick, and Mantas' gang is waiting to strike for their own chance. Double crosses, backstabbing, betrayals, twists and turns await, and no one is guaranteed to make it out alive.

The charm of so many spaghetti westerns comes from the weirdness factor, that low budget quality that allows you to enjoy it even knowing you're watching a bad movie. That's what this movie is. 'Lead' is more of a goofy spaghetti than the dark ones favored by Sergio Leone or Sergio Corbucci. Lots of gunplay, trick shots, general goofiness, and all the while it treads that fine line between fun and just plain stupid. Director Giuliano Carnimeo keeps it light and always entertaining, the score from Francesco De Masi unique and memorable without ripping off Ennio Morricone. The story is ridiculously convoluted, and the ending is beyond dumb but where others crashed and burned, 'Lead' manages to stay on the straight and narrow path. Dumb, even stupid, yes, but fun all the way.

Putting his own spin on the character first played by Gianni Garko, Hilton (real name Jorge Hill Acosta y Lara) certainly has some fun playing Sartana, a gunfighter who hasn't run into a shot he can't make. He throws one-liners whenever he's not gunning down bandits and in general is a quirky, eccentric fellow. Hilton's Sartana is constantly setting up little picnics for himself, eating a loaf of bread and one boiled egg. Style-wise, he's duded up to look like a younger Sabata in an all-black suit, and it even appears he's wearing some eye-liner! Hilton doesn't have to say much, but his spin on a familiar character keeps the story relatively focused (as needed) as Sartana navigates his way through killers and murderers all around him.

The fun in these movies can be the opposition though, the bad guys, and 'Lead' pulls out all the stops. Lulli is the most mainstream of the villains as Spencer, the polished businessman who's always pulling a fast one. He's smiling though as he betrays you so you'd never think it was him (Carlo Gaddi plays his main henchman). Pazzafini hams it up as Mantas, the ridiculously over the top bandit always ready with a maniacal laugh and a gang of disposable gun fodder for Sartana. The best though is Sabbath (Charles Southwood), the primmest and most proper gunman I've ever seen. A gay caballero? Maybe, clues pointing to yes with his parasol, immaculate white suit, and ever-constant book of poetry he quotes. His intentions though are less obvious because it's never clear what he's up to. Even Trixie (Erika Blanc), the saloon girl has some tricks up her sleeve. Some very worthy opponents for Sartana, and he gets a chance to face them all.

This isn't a hugely well-known spaghetti western, but considering the schlocky, truly bad entries to the genre that are out there, it's always nice to see ones like this. It isn't a classic on par with For a Few Dollars More or The Mercenary, but 'Lead' resists that temptation in making a mind-numbingly stupid comedic spaghetti western. How many movies will you see where a character -- Sartana -- throws a canteen into the air and shoots it over a fuse to extinguish said fuse? Or how about shooting a knife mid-throw and redirecting it? Yeah, not many. Just enjoy this one. I most definitely did.

Fistful of Lead <---full movie Youtube (1970): ***/****

Memphis Belle

2012-02-06T11:35:00.000-06:00

My favorite book, Joseph Heller's Catch 22, is a fictional account of American bombers in World War II flying over Italy, trying to survive the lunacy and craziness of war. It is an intensely funny story in its dark humor. At its base though, the story of the pilots and crews of the bombers and fighters is an incredibly heroic story, like it is documented in 1990's Memphis Belle.

It's May 1943 and World War II is very much still up for grabs. On a daily basis, hundreds of Allied planes fly over Europe -- especially France and Germany -- bombing key targets, but the daytime raids have produced heavy casualties. Among the crews of the Eighth Air Force is the Memphis Belle, a B-17 bomber commanded by Capt. Dearborn (Matthew Modine) with co-pilot Luke Sinclair (Tate Donovan), navigator Phil Lowenthal (D.B. Sweeney) and bombardier Val Kozlowski (Billy Zane). The Belle has made it through 24 missions virtually unscathed and now sits one mission away from being rotated home. Army public relations (including smarmy John Lithgow) has caught wind of the remarkable story and plans to make national heroes out of the crew. The 25th mission awaits though, a heavily guarded factory deep in Germany in the city of Bremen. Can the Belle's luck hold out once more?

The reviews from critics and fans are fairly positive, but not quite as positive as I thought they'd be. I loved this movie. It is cliched at times and relies on some well-worn story points, but the cliches have to come from somewhere, right? Like so many of the best war movies, director Michael Caton-Jones doesn't glorify war and all its brutality. Instead, he glorifies the men who fought the war. What they did regardless of personal beliefs and convictions was heroic, putting their lives on the line. Add in the element of being so close to going home, and that heroism and fear is ratcheted up. Even in the mission, there are moments where Modine's Captain could basically save them all, but they continue on with the objective. They fight through their worries, concerns and fears, working together to accomplish something bigger than them.

I was somewhat surprised that the movie focuses exclusively on that last mission, the 25th, because I was expecting more of a tour of duty story. Glad I was wrong though because having the story take place over 24 hours is a stroke of genius. The tension, the impending doom, the possibility of failure keep 'Belle' moving at a lightning pace. Much of the last 2/3 of the movie is set entirely in the Belle, giving a claustrophobic, closed in feel. You feel like you're flying over Germany with the crew, almost willing the plane and crew to make it. Not surprisingly, the mission doesn't go off without a hitch. The tension is unbearable as the mission continues, right up until the ending. Is it ever really in doubt? Not really, but Caton-Jones does a great job of at least keeping you guessing. Credit to him for keeping the viewers on their toes.

The ensemble cast here assembled is interesting because in 1990, these were a lot of rising stars. The catch? None of them ever became truly huge stars. The story at 106 minutes manages to give each member of the crew some much-needed characterization. It's not in-depth by any means, but we at least get a sense of who these men are. Modine, Donovan, Sweeney and Zane are nicely cast as the officers of the Belle. No one truly stands out because they're all just solid. That's a positive if it didn't come out that way. The crew includes Eric Stoltz (radioman), Sean Astin (ball turret), Harry Connick Jr. (tail gunner), Reed Diamond (nose gunner), and Courtney Gains and Neil Giuntoli as the waist gunners. Stoltz as the intellectual and Connick Jr. (even getting a chance to sing) stand out from the group. Also worth mentioning is David Strathairn as the group commander, making the most of a small part.

As far as war movies go, 'Belle' has a handful of truly powerful, moving sequences that make it memorable, rising above so many others. Connick Jr. sings Danny Boy quietly the night before the final mission to a silent hangar packed with people (watch it HERE). Riding out to the plane, the crew softly sings Amazing Grace to themselves. It could have been too artsy or pretentious, but it works. Arguing with Lithgow's PR officer, Strathairn reads letters he's received from the families of his pilots and crew members killed in action. The mission itself has too many moments like that, the feeling like you've been punched in your throat. It's the type of moments that make a good movie a great one. You can watch the entire movie HERE at Youtube.

Memphis Belle <---trailer (1990): ****/****

The Slams

2012-02-03T10:40:00.001-06:00

My first thought was that TCM's online schedule was messing with me. A 1973 movie starring former NFL star Jim Brown listed as a...musical?!? Nope, not buying it. That's what the genre specification said for 1973's The Slams. So out of morbid curiosity and some more genuine confusion, I had to at least give it a try. And yes, the schedule was wrong.

After pulling off a successful heist of over $1 million and drugs to boot, Curtis Hook (Brown) survives a double cross by his partners and manages to escape with the loot. He's wounded in the process though and is forced to stash away the cash while destroying the drugs and is caught by the police soon after, sent away to an inescapable prison in California. Everyone and anyone in the place knows who he is, and the mob has put a contract out on him for stealing their money/drugs. There aren't many friends inside, and everyone from the guards to the convicts to the warden want to get their hands on the stash. Can Hook manage to escape before it's too late?

The TCM description was blank, IMDB has one user review, and Wikipedia lists in fact that the movie does exist...that's all. This is a movie almost completely forgotten over the last 30-plus years and for good reason. It's not that good. Entertaining in an awful, guilty pleasure sort of way? Yes, most definitely, but that's about it. Relatively unknown cast other than Brown with directing powerhouse Jonathan Kaplan at the helm, I'm guessing 'Slams' was a drive-in feature, maybe a second run theater type movie. If there was straight to DVD in 1973, this movie would qualify. Made on the cheap by the looks of it, it is typical of so many lower budget 1970s movies. It's not a truly awful movie, but it's close so know what you're getting into if you can manage to find a copy.

I can't go as far to say this is a blaxploitation movie, but it's close. Lots of talk of The Man, all the white guys are racist mobsters and nameless henchmen, all the black guys are either anti-heroes or truly bad street dudes, and a crazy style that in general has to be seen to be believed. Lots of language -- including some rather forced f-bombs and mother f'ers in the opening -- with more than enough gratuitous nudity and plenty of brutal violence (especially the particularly grisly ending). The musical score from Luther Henderson is funk-heavy with a little R&B mixed in. It always sounds odd compared to what's going on in the movie, but it all adds to the ridiculous quota. Just don't expect a lot of production value -- translation: low expectations -- and you'll be fine.

Now if I didn't see Jim Brown's name as the star here, there's no way I'm so much as slowing down to investigate this movie. He's the one name star/actor here, playing a character he played a lot through the 1970s. Never a truly expressive actor, he's still pretty cool, maybe even too cool. He never seems worried that everyone wants to kill him. Eh, he's Jim Brown. I guess he doesn't have to care. Judy Pace plays his babely girlfriend Iris with Paul Harris playing Jackson Barney, Hook's old friend, a pimp on the outside working as an accomplice on the escape attempt. Frank DeKova is Capiello, the jailed mob boss who runs the place with an iron fist, Ted Cassidy playing Glover, Capiello's menacing enforcer. Frenchia Guizon has a small part as Macey, a former hit man/enforcer who may or may not be on Hook's side.

Keeping this one short because overanalyzing a movie like this is overkill. You're either going to love it or hate it, or maybe like me just go along for the guilty pleasure aspect. It is entertaining in its badness, and let's face it. Jim Brown whether he's rolling over defenders in a football game or bashing heads as a badass con is still pretty cool.

The Slams <---TCM trailer (1973): **/****

La Scorta

2012-02-02T00:39:00.000-06:00

I'm typically on the look-out for hidden gems when I'm browsing through Netflix's library of movies. You never know what you might find out there. That's what I thought when I stumbled across an Italian crime film, 1993's La Scorta. Reviews were generally positive, and it sounded like an entertaining, low budget flick. Well, this one may be hidden for a reason.

Reassigned to a precinct in Sicily after an incident in Rome, police officer Angelo (Claudio Amendola) is going home to a much more dangerous posting. A local judge has been assassinated, and the new judge, Michele de Francesco (Carlo Cecchi), has arrived similarly looking to make an impact in the community. Angelo is assigned as part of the judge's escort, a four-man team assigned almost around the clock duty as his body guard. The team is led by Corsale (Enrico Lo Verso), a young but experienced officer, who Angelo clashes with at first. Bigger things arise though because Francesco intends to be an upright and honest official, and the Mafia and the crime families want nothing to do with him. His escort is on high alert, attempts on the judge's life possibly waiting around every corner.

Here's a good sign the DVD you're watching is made for as little money as possible...it has no menu and no scenes. That's the case here. It was like watching a VHS except on a disc. Onto the movie though which does have a realistic feel to the developing story because it isn't a highly polished, stylish look at the judge's escort. The low budget effect works here because of that. Sicily provides a great backdrop for the crime story that certainly has its moments, but I'm not sure what director Ricky Tognazzi was going for. 'Scorta' was based on a true story, and it appears he hasn't embellished the true story in the slightest. Moments of brilliance interrupted by stretches of dullness that goes nowhere.

A judge arrives in town, he's assigned an escort, he tries to go up against the corrupt system including fellow politicians and Mafia families. Nothing new there, right? Familiar doesn't mean bad, but in choosing to stick with the true story, 'Scorta' basically leaves out anything interesting. The efforts taken by the judge and his escort basically accomplish nothing. Attempts are made on both the bodyguards and the judge, responses are made, and then the movie ended. Maybe it's just on me. My head was wrapped around an action movie similar to The Mission, made six years later. There is little to no action here. I'm just not sure. If a message was meant to be delivered, it came up short. If a straightforward story of a noble but pointless effort by an honest politician was the goal, that works to a point. I came away empty from this movie though.

Now as a fan of men-on-a-mission movies, I can't completely throw this one under the bus. The parts of the movie that work best are the ones focusing on Angelo, Corsale and the team, and later on the team's bonding with the Judge. The performances are uniformly solid. Like the movie on the whole, the characters are understated and subtle. There aren't a lot of theatrics that come across as fake. When possible hit attempts do come up, the scenes are dripping with tension and adrenaline. A parked car on a country road could be a car bomb. How to find out? One car drives right at it while the other car carrying the judge holds back. You understand the quick bond that forms among the escort and the Judge. These men are placed in a situation where death is a probable end result, not just likely. They have to trust each other or die. Simple as it gets.

The four members of the team are pretty stock characters, ones you've most likely seen in other similar-minded movies. Amendola as Angelo is the main character, the native Sicilian and a good police officer who's nonetheless come under fire for a past incident. He's hot-tempered but only because he knows how dangerous his job is. Lo Verso as Corsale is the leader, the officer quickly rising through the ranks. He worries about his family back home while balancing the constant threat of an attack. There's also Fabio (Ricky Memphis), the youngest and inexperienced officer of the bunch who's seeking a transfer out to a better posting, and Raffaele (Tony Sperandeo), a middle-aged officer with a fiance he keeps secret so he can stay with the escort. Cecchi as the Judge is compassionate and a fighter, making it easy to see why his escort is willing to put their lives on the line for him.

I feel like I've used this a lot recently, but La Scorta had a ton of potential but never quite delivers on it. I wanted to like it, but there just wasn't enough to bring me in and keep me there.

La Scorta <---trailer (1993): **/****

28 Days Later

2012-02-01T09:27:00.001-06:00

Not quite a zombie movie, not quite an end of the world apocalypse story, 2002's 28 Days Later falls somewhere in between. What it is? An oddity among horror movies with a bit of science fiction thrown in. I'm not sure what to make of it though, and even now I'm not positive how much I liked and/or disliked about it.

A virus has gotten loose in England, turning normal everyday people into raving, murdering psychotic lunatics that seemingly cannot be stopped. Some 28 days after the outbreak, a man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes up in a hospital bed to find a world unlike anything he's ever seen. The streets of London are completely empty like the people have been swept away. He's attacked by several infected people and barely survives thanks to Selena (Naomie Harris). They also meet Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his teenage daughter, Hannah (Megan Burns). On the radio, they hear a looped message about an army unit to the north holding out and surviving. Could there be more survivors? It may be a pipe dream, but they can only hold out for so long in London and decide to make the dangerous journey.

For coherent purposes, let's say this. Fans/haters debate whether this is a zombie movie because it's a virus and not a product of some bizarre quasi-apocalypse. I will be calling it a zombie movie because....well....I can't think of a better description. Is it possible for a zombie movie to be an art-house zombie movie? If so, director Danny Boyle accomplished it here. This is most assuredly not a run-and-gun, kill hundreds of zombie type movie, far from it. It instead focuses on a small group of survivors in a ravaged world occasionally running into zombies. The musical score is great, featuring some indie rock (including THIS epically appropriate song), the camera angles are different and aggressive, and there is a message to the story in a bizarre way. Don't expect Dawn of the Dead is all I'm saying.

Through this quasi-art house film comes all these different elements. In some truly remarkable set pieces, Boyle creates a whole new, unique world. It's believable watching this movie that there are few people left behind. The opening 15-20 minutes has Murphy's Jim walking through a completely vacant London in some of the coolest, most unsettling shots I've ever watched. To Boyle's credit, as a viewer I felt isolated. Can you imagine that setting, exploring a world you know well but it isn't quite that world? There is an emotional depth, an emotional quality to this movie that surprised me. Extreme fear and terror, complete isolation, looking for a reason to survive, it's all there. One scene has the small group trying to fix a flat tire as a dozen or so infected people sprint at them. Creepy much? A perfect chase scene that will assuredly get the blood pumping and the adrenaline flowing.

So why then with all these positives do I feel like I'm missing something? Reviews were almost uniformly positive, Netflix thought I would 'Really Like' it, and I typically go for movies like this. The little things I can put my finger on? Boyle films with video, producing a grainy, amateurish look that I didn't go for. He also uses the ultra-fast editing technique where any scene with movement is just a blur. But more than those things -- which I can go along with if I'm enjoying a movie -- is that I was disappointed with where the story went. There are moments where you're glued to your seat wanting and needing to know what comes next, and then whole scenes that lack any energy, killing the momentum that was just built up moments before. The ending too disappoints, a different tone from the whole rest of the movie. The DVD offers several better, darker finales.

With this low budget movie featuring a small cast, there are only 15 or 20 speaking roles in the entirety of the 113 minute long movie. Murphy is all right as Jim, supposed to be an everyman of sorts but lacking any real personality. Harris and Gleeson are the best things going here. Harris' Selena is a survivor who learned quick how to preserve her own life no matter how drastic or gruesome the measures are. Gleeson is a single father looking out for his daughter above all else. Christopher Eccleston plays Major West, the leader of a small group of soldiers holding out for the present and hopefully much longer into the future.

So all in all, some major positives and a few glaring negatives. The movie is good, no doubt about that, but I still came away disappointed. I did like it, but there was the potential to love it. Interested enough to see the sequel though, 2007's 28 Weeks Later.

28 Days Later <---trailer (2002): ** 1/2 /****

Haywire

2012-01-30T00:08:00.000-06:00

First appearing in the public eye as a mixed martial arts fighter, Gina Carano has made the jump from athlete to actress, and the early return is nothing but positive. For her first movie, she chose a role that's right in her wheelhouse, a fastball down the middle. She made a wise decision, picking an ideal role that gets to show off her immense physical talent and ability, starring in 2012's Haywire.

Working for a private contractor who works for the government, former Marine Mallory Kane (Carano) is as good as it gets when black ops work is needed. She takes jobs on an individual basis from her boss, Kenneth (Ewan McGregor), sometimes working alone, other times working with a team. After a successful job in Barcelona though, everything hits the fan. Suddenly, Mallory has been set up and international law enforcement is after her wherever she goes. Who burned her, and what's their motive? Left on her own and abandoned in Europe, Mallory must now find out who set her up before they complete their mission.

From director Steven Soderbergh, Haywire is just more proof of the director's already visible talent. Dark comedies, crime dramas, heist movies, disaster epics, historical period pieces, Soderbergh can do it all, and he manages to put a unique, personal spin on all of them. I really liked this movie from the talented director. His familiar style is there, but it's a no-frills sort of style. Title cards keep us abreast of where Mallory has traveled to, and what better music than a fast-paced jazzy score to accompany the action? Composer David Holmes does a variation on his Ocean's 11 score, a more subtle, sinister sound. Listen to the main theme HERE. The whole soundtrack/score is surprisingly worthwhile, appropriate in a quirky sort of way. It's a small-scale spy story -- somewhat similar to the Bourne movies -- that feels familiar with a 'been there, done that' quality, but Soderbergh and his cast are so good at what they do, you don't even notice. It's too good of a movie.

Appearing in her first starring role, Carano does not disappoint as the vengeful Mallory. There are too few female action stars out there -- legitimate ones that an audience can buy -- and Carano certainly has that potential to fill the void. Basically, don't expect her to do any romantic comedies anytime soon...although that could be interesting. This isn't a part that requires her to be a big, showy performer. It's a subtle, quiet performance that relies on intensity and few words. Most importantly, Carano is incredibly believable in the part. As an athlete/MMA fighter, she's quite capable, something she gets to show off in her handful of hardcore fight scenes. She does all of her own stunts (that I could see), and also important, more than holds her own in the fight scenes. Fight sequences between a man and a woman can look forced and stagey, but not here. A welcome addition to the action genre, I look forward to seeing where Carano goes from here as an actress. Incredibly talented and one of the sexiest, seductive spies ever.

It is a testament to Soderbergh's talent and reputation that countless actors/actresses want to work with, as is the case here. Haywire features a handful of smaller performances from some not small names and not a one disappoints. McGregor gets the most screentime as Kenneth, Mallory's employer and former boyfriend/lover, and makes the most of his supporting part. Channing Tatum plays Aaron, a fellow agent/operative who's worked with Mallory in the past and is now trying to piece things together. Michael Douglas is nicely cast as Coblenz, a government higher-up who hired Kenneth for some off the books work, and Antonio Banderas is appropriately mysterious as Rodrigo, a key part of the mission and deception. In a brutally efficient part, rising star Michael Fassbender again shows he's capable of bigger and bigger things, playing Paul, an Irish source for Mallory. Bill Paxton plays John Kane, Mallory's father, who knows what his daughter is up to, constantly hoping she leaves the business.

For better or worse, some of those performances are there for Carano's Mallory to beat the crap out of. With her mixed martial arts background, Carano leads the charge in the action department. That no-frills, brutal style is reflected in these fight scenes, one with Tatum and Fassbender each, among some other quality action. These are fights that leave the viewer hurting, and Soderbergh wisely shoots it without the frenetic editing. We see the fights, see the individual moves, all of them done so quickly they're almost a blur. Even better, no music is played over these scenes, all of the focus on the brutal hand-to-hand combat. This is where Carano shines, a physical presence who can stand toe-to-toe with her male counterparts. The sequences are so well done there's almost a dark beauty to it all, so good it makes you marvel at what's going on.

Above all else, that's what this flick is; an action movie. A chase through Barcelona, and later Mallory fleeing a SWAT team in Dublin are criminally simplistic. It isn't lots of quick cutting and crazy out of this world explosions and pyrotechnics, just one person on the run and/or chasing someone. Holmes's jazzy score plays over this portion that bounces back and forth between color and black and white photography. Stylish without being overdone, just enough to call attention to itself without being overly aggressive. The story itself is half flashback, half current time, and while they're explained, the betrayals and double crosses are almost unnecessary. From Barcelona to Dublin, upstate New York to the New Mexico desert, Haywire starts off at a sprint and never slows down at just 93 minutes. Simply put, a professionally made, beautifully choreographed espionage/spy thriller that is well worth a watch.

Haywire <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Zigzag (1970)

2012-01-29T00:10:00.001-06:00

No VHS, no DVD, no Netflix or Amazon Instant. I had never seen a second of 1970s's Zigzag much less heard of it. It has been almost completely forgotten over the last 40 years so when it appeared on TCM's schedule I took my chance. How many chances do you get to see certain movies? Not a ton. Here though it's fairly obvious why this flick has been pushed to the side.

Working for an insurance company, Paul Cameron (George Kennedy) is diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, his doctor estimating he has anywhere from a few months to a year to live. Cameron has a wife (Anne Jackson) and young daughter who he does not want to leave with a burden following his death, but what can he do to help them out? He goes through the files of an unsolved kidnapping/murder and knowing many of the facts, frames himself for the murder. Through a series of twists and turns, his wife will receive a reward for "solving" the murder. Somehow and some way, Cameron's plan works...to a point. Doctors discover he isn't going to die. Now Cameron has to prove he made the whole thing up, but can he?

A convoluted murder/thriller starring George Kennedy? My curiosity got the best of me. I had heard or read NOTHING about this flick. Movie nerd that I am, I've read through filmographies of many actors looking for hidden gems among the more well known movies. I didn't understand why Zigzag was a forgotten movie. It does have some positives if not many. The early 1970s style is fun to watch regardless of the tone of the movie, and Roy Orbison singing the theme song (listen HERE) is a guilty pleasure. As for the story, well.....

I'm all for convoluted and twisting stories that basically force you to stay glued to the screen the length of the movie. I enjoy a story that challenges you, defying you to figure out where it's going before the secret is revealed. That said, there is typical convoluted, and then there's Zigzag convoluted. There are plot holes and jumps you could drive a semi-truck through. Kennedy's Cameron implicates himself so perfectly that he's tried and found guilty of a kidnapping and murder? Are the police that fundamentally stupid? And how quick is this trial? I thought he had a few months to live, but the film judicial system is apparently pretty speedy. Some of the efforts are appreciated, especially the non-linear opening sequence and the use of scenes cut into other scenes, some flashbacks. Overall though, I got the feeling of trying too hard.

What kept me going through the film was the review I read prior to watching that ripped Zigzag and its ending to shreds. I'm a sucker for a stupid ending, mostly to see if I can see it coming. The "twist" is one thing, but director Richard A. Colla handles it in such a heavy-handed manner it loses all effectiveness. His use of slow motion is so ridiculously slowed down that the effort becomes laughable when we're supposed to be blown away by what we're seeing on-screen. A downer ending in the 1960s and 1970s is nothing new, but this one just ends. Game over, no other explanation provided. It is a surprise in a sense, but the techniques used to reveal that surprise ruin any chance it had of working.

Still, still....there were parts of the movie I liked. I've always been a fan of George Kennedy, and seeing him playing a leading role is an obvious bonus. In a ridiculous story, he manages to create an interesting character who even though he's doing something beyond stupid remains remarkably grounded. Eli Wallach plays his lawyer, Mario, with Steve Ihnat playing Gates, the prosecuting district attorney and William Marshall as Morris, an old friend of Cameron's and a bar owner. Mostly worth watching because of its rare availability, it certainly qualifies as a guilty 'so bad its good' pleasure.

Zigzag (1970): **/****

Pushover

2012-01-27T01:53:00.000-06:00

As I mentioned in my review of Billy Wilder's The Apartment, I have a hard time seeing Fred MacMurray as anything but the star of Disney movies like The Absent-Minded Professor and The Shaggy Dog or on the TV show My Three Sons. An all-American Dad if there ever was one so I have trouble going along with his darker roles like in 1954 film noir Pushover.

Working a case, middle-aged police officer Paul Sheridan (MacMurray) meets Lona (Kim Novak), the girlfriend of a gangster, Wheeler (Paul Richards) who's recently robbed a bank, escaping with $210,000 but killing a bank guard in the process. Bored with his life, Paul falls for her hard even when she figures out he's a cop. Upset with her situation of an absentee boyfriend, Lona similarly falls for Paul. Paul's precinct is working a stakeout in hopes of catching Lona's boyfriend, putting Paul in an interesting predicament. He comes up with a plan though, leaving his whole life behind him, taking the money if Wheeler shows up, and starting life over with Lona. Nothing comes easy though.

As a film noir, this has all the requisite pieces from the shadowy setting to the femme fatale in Novak to the anti-hero looking out for himself. Making her film debut, Novak is a bright spot as Lona McLane, the gangster's girlfriend frustrated with her situation. The 21-year old beauty was always gorgeous, but director Richard Quine shoots her like an angel....albeit one with a manipulative streak. Drop dead gorgeous came to mind anytime she was on the screen. Also a positive is the opening bank robbery, a silent sequence interrupted by gunfire. The early portions of the movie are especially good, MacMurray and Novak getting away with some risque scenes (for the time at least).

But as things start to develop with the gangster, the girl and the cash, my problems with MacMurray arose once again. I just don't buy him as a bad guy. Check that. He's not a bad guy, just a weak good guy who makes some epically bad, stupid decisions. The reviews pointed out that Novak manipulates MacMurray's Paul into stealing the stolen money, but I didn't see that. He is attracted to a younger, beautiful woman and sees a whole new life through her. The Paul character is still too much of a weakling though, and I had trouble buying him in the lead role. The other police officers include his partner, McAllister (Philip Carey), who's looking for a wife, Lt. Eckstrom (E.G. Marshall), the officer in charge, and Dolan (Allen Nourse), the veteran cop nearing his retirement and pension.

Once MacMurray's plan hits the fan, the story picks up to a pretty breakneck pace. It is 1954, and the Hollywood movie code still dictated that bad guys got their due. So in other words, once Paul starts making bad decisions, there's no end in sight. One mistake rolls onto another one, especially when Lola's neighbor (Dorothy Malone) sees Paul coming out of her apartment. It's only a matter of time before Paul's flimsy house of cards comes tumbling down, and when he does it is epically bad.

I should mention one thing though that ranks up there with MacMurray as some major issues in this 1954 film noir. A stakeout isn't exactly an exciting visual experience. Instead of spicing it up, Pushover actually shows it in all its excruciating detail. In an 88-minute movie, we get uninterrupted shots of policemen looking through binoculars, officers walking to a car and changing positions with other officers, that sort of thing. Pretty exciting, huh? Yeah, you bet. On the whole, the movie is pretty decent, but the negatives are hard to avoid.

Pushover <---TCM trailer/clips (1954): ** 1/2 /****

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

2012-01-26T00:32:00.000-06:00

With 1964's A Fistful of Dollars, director Sergio Leone put the spaghetti western on an international stage and in the process made star Clint Eastwood a hugely popular actor worldwide. Leone followed it up the next year with For a Few Dollars More, what some (including this guy) consider to be the best spaghetti western ever. It was all practice though for 1966's The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, a movie that is bigger than just a spaghetti western or even a western in general. It's one of the best movies ever made.

It's 1863/1864 in the American southwest, and the Civil War is raging as Union forces battle with fleeing Confederate troops. Amidst all the fighting, a Confederate payroll has been stolen and ultimately hidden, buried away in a grave in a cemetery with thousands of near identical graves. The payroll of $200,000 in gold coins seems destined to waste away for all time, but three men know about it and are dead-set on acquiring it. Running a bounty scam, a drifting gunfighter, Blondie (Eastwood) and a Mexican bandit, Tuco (Eli Wallach) stumble across the information, one knowing the cemetery, the other knowing the name on the grave. A third man, a hired killer, Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), is also on the prowl and never far behind. Who can get there first? Can they even make it alive?

I try not to throw this term around loosely, but The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is one of those rare perfect movies. Everything fits together like a jigsaw puzzle, all the little things working together seamlessly, impressive considering the scale of this movie. With the Civil War as its backdrop, it is a big, big western, the epitome of an epic. The scale Leone shoots his movie would be jaw-dropping in itself, but it's handled well. The Almerian locations in Spain become an additional character, using the land like so many other spaghetti westerns attempted but failed to do. It is an incredible visual experience. If not beautiful, it is powerful in its image. More details on all of this later, but Ennio Morricone's score is among the most instantly recognizable scores ever, the acting is perfect, the set pieces leaving a lasting impression, and a movie overall that won't easily be forgotten.

Like so many of the best directors, Leone had a knack for casting, and with Eastwood, Wallach and Van Cleef, the Italian director hits three home runs. Eastwood reprises his role from the first two Dollars movies, the man of few words gunslinger, Blondie (instead of Joe and/or Manco), who usually lets his gun do his talking. There's even an introduction of his infamous poncho. He is the prototypical anti-hero, the silent gunfighter looking for treasure. Van Cleef as Angel Eyes (Sentenza -- means Death Sentence -- in the Italian dubbing) is an all-time sinister villain, the hired killer who always seems to show up when least desired. Sinister, brutal, maniacal, all apply to this gunhand. The scene-stealer though is Wallach as Tuco, a well-traveled Mexican bandit. He's going 100 mph at all times, the fast-talking, quick-draw who is always crossing himself over his victims. These are all characters capable of carrying a movie on their own, but instead they work together to form one of the great lead ensembles ever assembled for a movie.

A couple smaller performances also deliver, regardless of how little screentime they have. Aldo Giuffre plays a Union captain who Blondie and Tuco come across in the midst of a battle. An alcoholic, he questions the lunacy of his orders but continues on because an officer must do his duty. Spaghetti regular Luigi Pistilli plays Father Ramirez, Tuco's brother who looks down upon what his brother has become, a lowly bandit. Spaghetti baddie Mario Brega plays Cpl. Wallace, a sadistic Union soldier looking over Tuco. Al Mulock plays a gunfighter gunning for Tuco after a past encounter. Fans of the genre should also look out for Benito Stefanelli, Aldo Sambrell, and Lorenzo Robledo as members of Angel Eyes' gang.

What ends up being another character is Morricone's score, as key an ingredient to the movie's success as any score/movie relationship I can think of. The main theme -- listen HERE -- is instantly recognizable, and basically everyone around the world has heard at it some point whether they knew it or not. The unique sound, the whistling, the tune, it all sets the stage for a score that goes from epic and huge to personal and moving with the snap of a finger. Used several times in the movie, Carriage of the Spirits is an ethereal, other-worldly beautiful sample of music that still sends chills up and down my back upon hearing it. That's what Morricone does, he makes his music effective and powerful no matter what the scene or setting. The best though of all -- even better than the GBU main theme -- is a track entitled Ecstasy of Gold, a hauntingly beautiful piece of music. Why's it so good? More on that later (sorry, I will get to it). All in all, an incredible score that serves an integral role in making this movie a classic. One of the all-time great film scores.

A handful of set pieces dominate the film -- several abandoned western towns, a shootout in a bombed out town, a huge, bloody battle between Union and Confederate forces -- but it all pales to the ending, the film's last 30 minutes or so as Blondie, Tuco and Angel Eyes all near the gold. The extended sequence starts with Tuco finding the cemetery, racing through rows and rows of graves trying to find the name Blondie has told him. Set to Morricone's Ecstasy of Gold, the sequence defies words. It's dizzying and unsettling, Leone's camera breathlessly following Wallach as he runs, finally finding the wanted grave. Watch it HERE. Then it's the showdown, one of the most respected, iconic (drinking game? How many times have I used that?) gunfights ever. Leone's trick though is the build-up. It's almost 5 minutes of positioning and mind games, the camera bouncing back and forth in close-ups and extreme close-ups, a blur of eyes, hands, and guns, all three men daring the other to draw. Watch it HERE, the single, greatest standoff in the history of movies.

Watching this recently on a big screen -- thank you, Doc Films -- I realized something odd and unique about the movie. It took an Italian director in Leone to make the best Civil War movie around. I think that gets lost sometimes with the scale and epicness of the movie. Wrapped up in it all is an anti-war message, and an effective one. All the soldiers we meet are cripples, drunks, corrupt, and dying. We see bodies littered on trails and in streets like discarded garbage. A thief is callously shot down by a firing squad. A Confederate spy's body is lashed to a cow-catcher on a train as a warning to others. Without beating us over the head with his message, Leone effectively shows the horror of war but also the lunacy and stupidity of it all. As Eastwood's Blondie states while overlooking a battle, "I've never seen so many men wasted so badly."

There it is, an epically long and rambling review for an epically great movie. Dark and cynical, it is oddly funny -- Tuco's 'When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk' and the running 'There are 2 types of people in this world' line providing some good laughs -- and shows off an underrated script with a story that spans months and hundreds of miles. It is that perfect movie. A buddy-journey story set in the American Civil War with perfect performances, an immensely giant scale, a great musical score, and choreographed action which has been attempted over and over ever since. The definition of what a movie should be. It doesn't get better than this.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly <---trailer (1966): ****/****

To Please a Lady

2012-01-24T00:10:00.000-06:00

When I stumble across auto racing -- Nascar, IRL, you name it -- on TV, I can't change the channel quick enough. The idea of watching other people drive (however skilled, however talented) around tracks doesn't appeal to me in the least. So how does it make sense that I love racing movies like Le Mans, Grand Prix, the Love Bug movies? Go figure, but we can add 1950's To Please a Lady to the list, other than the whole tame 1950s porno name.

Writing a nationwide syndicated column and hosting a radio show, Regina Forbes (Barbara Stanwyck) is one powerful person, able to build someone up as quickly as she can take them down. Her latest target is Mike Brannan (Clark Gable), a midget car racer and former WWII hero in the Marines. Brannan has earned himself villain status on the racing circus, and Regina takes him down when he's involved in an on-course accident that kills a driver. Brannan is blacklisted and not allowed to race...at first. He climbs back up, joining the big racing circuits and hopefully getting back to the top. But if he thought he was rid of Regina and her efforts, he would be wrong. The high-powered writer isn't done with him yet.

The user reviews at the IMDB are decidedly mixed, but I liked this movie nonetheless. Some of that can be chalked up to a nostalgic factor ranging from the footage of late 1940s and early 1950 racing to the portrayal of the newspaper business (think of Stanwyck as a female Burt Lancaster from Sweet Smell of Success). Not surprisingly, a mutual interest arises between Gable and Stanwyck. I know, I didn't see it coming either. The story isn't the deepest of stories, and there are some odd moments (a quasi-phone sex scene between the two stars is kinda weird) but the end result is still entertaining.

Why is it entertaining? I don't care how simplistic the story is, when you put together actors the caliber of Gable and Stanwyck, it's going to be worthwhile to watch. There is chemistry, and then there's the chemistry these two have. It looks to be effortless. They're fighting after first meeting, and you believe it. They have little to nothing in common other than being dominant, Type-A personalities, but they're drawn to each other. Their scenes together are perfect, Gable as cool, smooth and suave as ever, Stanwyck as equally strong-willed and sexy in her confidence. Adolphe Menjou plays Gregg, Stanwyck's partner/adviser/secretary who's always needling her with Will Geer playing Jack Mackay, Brannan's team owner and pit crew leader.

Now chemistry is one thing, but I do have to mention one thing. It's never really in doubt that Stanwyck's Regina and Gable's Mike will end up together. It's just a matter of when more than if. How does it come about though? Regina basically blackballs Mike's career, and then goes and sees him about it as he tries to build his career. In arguing about the situation, Mike slaps Regina pretty forcefully (it looks like a real slap dealt by Gable). Only then does the relationship start to develop, like Regina needed a wake-up call. Call it over-analyzing, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it didn't sit right with me.

I'm figuring if you've made it this far you're looking for some sort of race analysis. This 1950 movie is a gem for racing fans, motorheads, and anyone who appreciates a good car. The footage here is insanely good, including three sequences that don't montage a race to death but show much of it in its entirety. The finale at the Indianapolis 500 is a great ending too. From midget cars to stunt shows to the stronger, more powerful cars at the Indy 500, racing fans will be more than appeased. It's a time capsule, and a good one in a surprisingly good movie overall.

To Please a Lady <---TCM trailer (1950): ***/****

Warrior

2012-01-23T00:00:00.000-06:00

When I stumble across an actor/actress I really like, I'm a happy camper. It's like finding an author you like to read or a TV series you missed out on. You can catch up, seeing them in all the things you previously missed. Take Tom Hardy and Joel Edgerton, two actors who've been around for years but really came into their own over the last two or three. Nowhere are their talents more evident than 2011's Warrior, a movie that quickly climbs into my list of favorite movies.

Thanks to his drinking for years, Paddy Conlon (Nick Nolte) has torn his family apart. Years have gone by since he's even seen his sons until one night his estranged son, Tommy (Hardy), shows up on his doorstep in Pittsburgh. He's popping pills and doesn't say much. He asks Paddy to help him train, start fighting again after years away from it, years away from his high school career as a state champion wrestler. In Philly, Paddy's other son, Brendan (Edgerton), is married with two kids but struggling to make ends meet. He's months away from being foreclosed on his house. Neither brother has seen each for years, and Tommy is even going by his deceased mother's maiden name. Both have fighting experience though and manage to get into Sparta, a 2-day, 16-man tournament of single elimination MMA bouts. The pay-out? $5 million, winner take all.

The best sports stories -- in film or real life -- are those that are personal. We can't always relate as viewers to a multimillionaire pulling down ridiculous amounts of money. This movie is Rocky. It's Rudy. It's Remember the Titans. This is one of the great sports movies of all-time in a quickly developing sport, MMA (mixed martial arts). Director Gavin O'Connor is clearly invested in his story and it shows in the film. Sports in all their emotions can hit you right in the gut, packing quite the emotional wallop. Just like its fights though, 'Warrior' doesn't let up. It whales away at you, emotionally throwing punch after punch. It is an incredible, realistic, humanity at its most base type of story. I love this movie. LOVE it.

Playing brothers who have long since drifted apart, Hardy and Edgerton are revelations as Tommy and Brendan. I've seen and knew they could both act, but their performances are perfect in their familiarity. Hardy is a caged animal and a wounded one at that. Intensity doesn't begin to describe him. He doesn't look like he's acting. He appears ready to literally rip your head off. His Tommy is an Iraq war vet just brimming with hatred, anger and demons that threaten to tear him apart inside. Edgerton is the high school physics teacher and family man, married to Tess (Jennifer Morrison) with two kids. His family has fallen on hard times with some medical issues, and Brendan is out of options. What more can you ask? Tommy is fighting to right a wrong, to save himself in a way. Brendan is fighting for his family and their future. Edgerton's Brendan is the more obviously sympathetic of the two, but you're rooting for both. Great, great performances.

With this script, O'Connor does something impressive. It is familiar. It isn't particularly new. If you've seen a sports movie, you've seen variations on it before. In a lot of ways right down to the music (great score from Mark Isham, soft and subtle but driving emotionally), Warrior reminded me of Friday Night Lights. More or less, you have a good sense of where it's going in terms of story. Getting to that end goal, that final fight though is the fun. O'Connor takes what we know as a viewer and manages to tweak it just enough to not only make it worthwhile and enjoyable, but to make it unique and original. I can't even put my finger on it as to why this works so well. Supporting performances are uniformly good, starting with Morrison as the loving but obviously quite worried wife, Frank Grillo as Frank Campana, Brendan's out-of-the-box thinking trainer, Kevin Dunn as Zito, the principal of the school Brendan works at, and Bryan Callen and Sam Sheridan as themselves, providing ringside commentary for the fights.

Clocking in at 140 minutes, Warrior has time to breathe. The first 75 minutes set everything up, putting characters where they need to be and hinting at the backstories for all these individuals, hinting but never spelling anything out. A scene between Hardy and Edgerton on the beach in Atlantic City the night before the fights begin is a tour de force scene, intensity exploding off the screen as the two brothers talk for the first time in years. I didn't think you could top the emotion of that scene...for about 5 minutes, and then the fights start. Hardy's Tommy is a brawler, fighting with brute strength and power, Edgerton's Brendan fighting technically, waiting to strike with an array of moves. As a non-fan of MMA, I came away impressed with the brutality of these fights, movie or not. They keep building and building on momentum until you can't take it anymore. The final fight -- no SPOILERS here, but come on, think about it -- is one of the more gut-wrenching, emotionally charged scenes I can even think of. The final shot of the movie is a thing of beauty too, couldn't have asked for a better one.

I'm searching for something, anything to rip about this movie, and I can't. Hardy and Edgerton carry this movie both physically and emotionally with Nolte not far behind as a father who admits he did a hell of a lot of wrong things to his family growing up, driving his wife away and scarring the kids. I hope there's a Best Supporting nod for Nolte. His scene late with Tommy in a hotel room is picture perfect; two individuals who are scarred and beaten down, one holding the other. The scene the night before in an Atlantic City casino is just as heart-breaking, making it all that much more effective. Underdog, fighting against the odds, fighting to save themselves and their loved ones, this has it all. Too many moments like that to even bring up. There aren't any easy answers for this torn-apart family, and the movie doesn't try to fix things thankfully. This is a movie in real life, and that real life thing, it's messy. It ain't easy, and you can't always fix it.

I loved, loved, LOVED this movie. Easily one of the great sports movies of all-time, but more than that, it rises above a genre distinction. It's just a great movie.

Warrior <---trailer (2011): ****/****

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

2012-01-21T11:12:00.000-06:00

My usual stance on remakes is pretty simple; if the original is good, why bother? If the original is awful with some sort of potential, okay, go ahead with it. Of course, there's exceptions to every rule. A minor classic in its own right based solely on entertainment value, 1960's Ocean's Eleven didn't need to be remade. If you're going to remake a quality movie, you better improve on it, and 2001's Ocean's Eleven is the rare remake that's better than the original.

After being released from prison following a four-year sentence, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) has plans...huge plans. A thief and con man, Danny heads to Los Angeles where he signs on friend and fellow thief, Rusty (Brad Pitt), to join him. What's Danny's plan? He's going to do what no one has ever done; rob not one, not two, but three Las Vegas casinos and their impregnable vault on a fight night when over $160 million will be waiting if the job can be pulled off. The owner of the casinos? Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia), the cutthroat businessman now going out with Danny's ex-wife, Tess (Julia Roberts). To pull the job though, Danny's going to need help so he starts assembling a team of con men, thieves and specialists. Impossible for this group? Nah.

This is a fun movie. There, that's all I really need to say. Everything else is just fluff. This 2001 remake is the definition of what a fun, entertaining, popcorn movie should aspire to. It's smart but not condescendingly smart. It's funny but it doesn't try too hard. It's ridiculously unrealistic, but who cares?!? Look at that cast! Director Steven Soderbergh made one of the most polished, stylish caper movies ever, improving on the groundwork set up by the 1960s Sinatra version. Las Vegas is a crazy, over the top place and that translates well to the movies. A score/soundtrack from David Holmes is a funky, cool retro mix of music, as fun and energetic as the story itself. HERE is the main theme. I defy you to not bob your head, tap your foot as you hear it.

The script is great here, the thing that keeps it all moving. It sounds so simple, a well-written script in a dramatic but not heavy drama film. It is a smart script without being in your face smart. Putting the team together, Danny asks Rusty "You think we need one more?" Rusty's face is buried in his arms, and he says nothing. Danny answers "You think we need one more," a statement now. He finishes "We'll get one more." The script gives a very talented cast a chance to shine and interact, especially Clooney and Pitt, but there's not a single character who isn't given a chance to shine. What came first in a chicken or the egg scenario? Does a good script boost a cast, or does a great cast make a script better? Short answer....who cares? The movie's great either way.

An ensemble-cast worthy of a 1960s epic, I still wonder how a cast this big was assembled. Clooney, Pitt, Roberts and Garcia would be enough for most movies but not here. Danny's crew includes Frank (Bernie Mac), the inside man working in the casino, Reuben (Elliott Gould), the former Vegas casino owner and bankroll, Virgil (Casey Affleck) and Turk (Scott Caan) Malloy, two brothers providing transport, Livingston (Eddie Jemison), the tech specialist, Basher (an uncredited Don Cheadle), the explosives expert, Saul (Carl Reiner), the aging con man, Yen (Shaobo Qin), the acrobat, and Linus (Matt Damon), a young pickpocket and thief on the rise. You couldn't ask for a better cast. The scene post-heist is a gem too, the team standing in front of the Bellagio fountains to Claude Debussy's Clair de Lune. Watch there <---- and listen HERE.

Fun and entertainment value aside, this is a heist film, and the casino vault heist doesn't disappoint. Now anyone who's been to a casino knows how ridiculous security is, but that's the fun of it. Could a job like this ever really work? No, but I'm sure Clooney, Pitt and Co. could pull it off nonetheless. A full 45-minutes, the heist goes down on a fight night, the 11 pulling a long list of cons and tricks to take down the vault. Things have been hinted at but nothing specific so seeing the twists and turns provide a great ride. Even on repeated viewings, the twists still work. How often can you say that? It's a great movie, one you can watch over and over again.

Ocean's Eleven <---trailer (2001): ****/****

Super 8

2012-01-20T00:01:00.000-06:00

With his involvement in one of my all-time favorite TV shows in Lost, director/writer/producer extraordinaire J.J. Abrams cemented himself as a must-watch sort of guy in the movies. That was the case for his most recent movie, 2011's Super 8, when it was released last summer. Even hearing negative reviews, I was definitely intrigued by this sci-fi throwback, a movie that looked like a modern Close Encounters and E.T.

It's the summer of 1979 in Lilian, Ohio, and 14-year old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is still dealing with the sudden death of his mother several months prior. He lives with his dad, Jackson (Kyle Chandler), a deputy sheriff in town. Mostly though, Joe spends his free time helping his friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) make a zombie movie with his Super 8 camera. One night while filming a scene with Charles and four other friends, they accidentally film a train derailment, and within minutes the Air Force and Army are on the scene. Weird, unexplainable things start to happen all over town. What was on the train? And more importantly can it be caught and stopped?

Like Abrams' 2008 film Cloverfield, I was sucked into Super 8 because of a teaser trailer. Check it out HERE. Mostly it's the 'what if?' factor that works so well. As was the case with some of the best episodes of Lost, Abrams' sci-fi flicks are at their best with that sense of mystery. He keeps you guessing, letting your own imagination fill in all the blanks as needed. Your imagination will almost always be scarier than what you actually ends up seeing. Super 8 isn't nearly as dark as Cloverfield in tone or depiction of an alien visitor, and the comparisons to both Close Encounters and E.T. are very, very fair. Steven Spielberg even worked with Abrams as a producer here so there's clearly a ton of talent working here.

When was the last time a movie with a big twist, a huge surprise lived up to that building anticipation? It doesn't have to be a sci-fi thriller. It can be anything. I'm guessing 9 times out of 10 I end up being disappointed with the reveal. Super 8 is one of the nine unfortunately. The fun of the movie (and the main reason I'll give an above average, positive rating) is because of the build-up, the first 80 minutes of a 110-minute movie. Those last 30 minutes? Like Cloverfield, Abrams hides the creature for the most part, only revealing him in glimpses and shadows. The full reveal just isn't as good. The unknown is always creepier than the known/visible. The whole sugary sweet tone of the last half hour just doesn't work. The creature has been tortured and abused and just wants to go home....oh yeah, he rips people's heads off too. Are we supposed to feel pity or see him get killed? The resolution is disappointing to say the least.

Drawing the comparisons to Close Encounters and E.T. is a huge positive. Setting the story 1979 serves as a great throwback addition to the story. Super 8 is a little slice of Americana in the 1970s. Lilian, Ohio is a close-knit town built around a mill where much of the population lives. It's a little town, but not too little. And in that town are a group of kids making the jump from being kids to teenagers. The performances from the younger actors are great, starting with Courtney as Joe, the quiet but well-meaning kid coping with the death of his mother. He has a crush on the seemingly unattainable Alice (Elle Fanning in an excellent, moving part) Griffiths is especially good as Joe's best friend Charles with Ryan Lee, Gabriel Basso and Zach Mills representing themselves well as the rest of the group of friends. A coming of age story in the midst of a possible alien invasion? Who would have figured that would work?

That's the main reason I can give this movie a positive recommendation in spite of the disappointing ending. It is a personal story, the story of a kid growing up in the most chaotic of situations. So even through all the craziness, there is that personal attachment and involvement with the story. Chandler does a good job as Joe's dad and Noah Emmerich is appropriately mysterious as Nelec, the Air Force commander leading the investigation, but this is a movie about the kids. Does a different ending drastically alter the overall rating? Maybe, but probably not without altering the tone of the entire movie. I'm not a fan, but I can see what Abrams is going for. Still very much worth seeing.

Super 8 <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Crisis

2012-01-18T11:09:00.000-06:00

In a career that spanned four decades, director Richard Brooks was at the helm of more than a few classics, ranging from Cat on a Hit Tin Roof to The Professionals, Elmer Gantry to In Cold Blood. He started off in the 1940s writing screenplays and in 1950 finally got his first crack at a feature film, the simply titled Crisis.

Vacationing in an unnamed South American country with his wife, Helen (Paula Raymond), American doctor Eugene Ferguson (Cary Grant) is planning to head home when he is stopped and taken into custody by police and army officials. He is told nothing and forced to travel by train to the capital city where he meets the country's ruler, a vicious dictator, Raoul Farrago (Jose Ferrer), who desperately needs his help. Farrago has a brain tumor that is quickly crippling him, but he has no surgeons in-country capable of pulling off the extremely difficult surgery. In steps Eugene, a brain surgeon from John Hopkins. Will he be pressured into performing the surgery? Farrago's opponents intend to do their best to convince him otherwise.

Even with his first film, Brooks shows a knack for putting together a quality story. It has the look and feel of a film noir -- albeit set in South America in a revolution-torn country -- while keeping it on a personal level. Bigger things are certainly at stake, but the story comes down to one character deciding if he will help another. Set almost entirely in Farrago's palace, I get the distinct impression this was a stage-based story, but I would be wrong. Yet will all the good things and positives you can take away from 'Crisis,' I came away mildly disappointed with the end result.

Right at the top of his fame, Cary Grant does a good job portraying Eugene as a doctor. You believe him as a highly-respected surgeon. But too often, it looks like Grant is sleepwalking through his part. For someone who was kidnapped and forced against their will to do something, he never seems genuinely angry. Perturbed, maybe a little upset? Yes, but his passive aggressive response doesn't work. Grant was always smooth on-screen, and that's no different here, but there is little to no energy or emotion in the part. Ferrer on the other hand relies almost solely on energy and emotion. He can be a little too much at times, but it works for the portrayal of a dictator who rules with an iron fist and is always concerned about fighting off any uprisings against his government.

The portrayal of a revolution-ravaged South American country is a worthy one, honest without being too theatrical. The only downside is when "big" conversations come up, Ferguson and Farrago talking about free will, individual rights and freedom...check that, Freedom. It gets to be a little pretentious at times, the American arguing with the brutal dictator. Neither man is going to change the other one's mind so the scenes drag. Showing Farrago's country, I wanted to see and hear more. We're dropped into a country under martial law but hear little about how it came to be this way, or even see why he's such an awful, bloody dictator. Yes, I'm not completely slow. I can figure it out, but when we're supposed to root against a character -- even hate him -- it helps to see why we should feel that way.

Heading toward an ending that will inevitably be an unhappy one, the last 30 minutes are much more interesting than the build-up. Grant's Ferguson must decide if he will go through with the surgery having been approached by a revolutionary group (headed by Gilbert Roland) to "accidentally" have the surgery go south. No one would know the difference, but Ferguson's hippocratic oath says otherwise. The ending features a couple good twists, one better than the other. The final shot is a doozy, an ironic ending that surprised me for sure. For a movie released in 1950, it was ahead of its time.

'Crisis' is a decent enough movie and story, but I just struggled to get into it. I was never too interested in Cary Grant's character, and the whole thing went downhill from there. Raymond is very good as his wife Helen with Signe Hasso as Farrago's devoted wife, Ramon Novarro as Colonel Adragon, a loyal officer in Farrago's army, and Leon Ames as an American oil driller rounding out the cast.

Crisis <---trailer (1950): ** 1/2 /****

This Man Can't Die

2012-01-17T08:37:00.000-06:00

A B-movie star in the 1950s and most well known for playing Wild Bill Hickok for seven seasons on The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok, Guy Madison's star had faded some by the 1960s. He went the route so many actors went in that decade, heading to Europe for a variety of westerns, epics and war movies, including a 1968 spaghetti western called This Man Can't Die.

Working as an undercover agent for the cavalry, Martin Benson (Madison) has been assigned a mission where he must break up a gang of gunrunners who are selling and trading repeating rifles and whiskey with the Indian tribes. He somewhat unwillingly takes the job, but the gunrunners are on to him. The gang attacks the Benson ranch, killing Martin's parents, but his brother Daniel (Alberto Dell'Acqua), sisters Susan (Lucienne Bridou) and Jenny (Anna Liotti) and youngest brother Arias all survive the attack. Tracking the gang, Martin finds out about the attack. Hoping that with his help the now-hiding family can hold off the gang, Martin races home.

This is pretty typical of many of the spaghetti westerns made in Italy in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is neither classic nor awful, just entertaining in a mindless sort of way. Because it is in that middle ground, it has little to no following with very little information even available on it wherever you look. The cast listing is especially bad with some main characters/villains not even listed by the names they're addressed as. Dell'Acqua is listed as 'Rooney' but is clearly called Daniel. The person listed as his younger brother -- Steve Merrick -- would have been 46 years old at the time. Now something ain't right there. Those "criticisms" aside, I did enjoy it for all its dumb qualities, some in a 'so bad it's good' fashion.

Looking like he aged quite a bit since his TV days in the 1950s, Madison looks somewhat out of place in this western. If he was getting paid by the line, the studios got off cheap. His Martin has maybe 12 lines of dialogue the whole movie, and on top of that, he's dubbed by someone else. It just sounds a little off. He also looks like he got lifted off the set of an American western and dropped into this Italian western, but I'll give credit when it's due. He handles most of his own stunts -- and there's a lot of them -- and does bring a cool, laid back appeal to the hero part. I wish they could have paired Madison and Dell'Acqua's Daniel earlier because the revenge-seeking gunslinging brothers could have been a cool addition.

Introducing someone to spaghetti westerns, I never claim the acting is anything special. Making it better or worse is that dubbing can ruin an already wooden or over the top performance. The villains here are pretty weak starting with Graham (Rik Battaglia), the leading businessman in town who's secretly running this gang of gunrunners. The gang leader isn't credited by the name I heard so I can't list him, but he's a creepy enough dude. When he rapes Jenny in the attack, you know it won't end well for him. Dell'Acqua is a solid, cool second banana, French beauty Bridou looks pretty, and Rosalba Neri makes the most of a smaller part as Martin's girl, Melina, a saloon girl.

Like any spaghetti western, there are some odd to really odd moments. For one, the score liberally borrows from Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars. It's weird because the rest of the score is good if not great, and then all the sudden BAM! You're thinking 'I recognize that score," and you should. The violence is ratcheted up with the appearance of blood after some shootings, and 'Can't Die' features more nudity than I've seen in other spaghetti westerns. Those bad guys, they're always trying to rape somebody. It is a fun movie though, especially the last half hour with gunplay around every corner. There's better and there is worse, but not bad as far as spaghettis go. You can watch the full movie HERE at Youtube.

This Man Can't Die (1968): ** 1/2 /****

Memento

2012-01-16T00:13:00.000-06:00

With the first two Batman movies and 2010's huge hit Inception, director Christopher Nolan has cemented himself as one of Hollywood's go-to directors. Anyone who makes such high quality finished products -- a true movie experience -- is okay in my book. Just his second movie directing, 2000's Memento is similarly one held in high regard by fans and critics alike.

Staying at a cheap motel, Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) is looking for the man who raped and murdered his wife. The clues have built up as he tracked him down, and now he seemingly is closer than ever to finding him. Leonard has a problem though, he sustained a head injury by his wife's killer and because of the incident has short term memory loss. He can remember everything that happened before the murder, but everything since? He can't create new memories. How then can he manage to track down the killer? Everything is difficult for him from finding his car to remembering which hotel room he's staying in.

Crazy ridiculous innovative and unique storytelling technique. Like nothing I've seen before. Nolan tells this story backwards, showing the ending at the beginning. Trippy, huh? As one reviewer pointed out, it takes a premise from a classic Seinfeld episode, but that's another story. Leonard's short-term memory loss allows for this technique to work. He remembers only what is in front of his face, constantly writing down notes and even tattooing his body to remind himself of major clues about the killer. So what we remember is obviously more detailed than Leonard, especially as more people get involved with the murder we see in the opening five minutes. One scene following another explains what we've just seen while adding another layer. It's something else to behold in one of the more original premises I've ever seen for telling a story.

Nolan helps pull this off through two techniques, albeit not simple ones. Starters, a flashback of sorts, Leonard sitting in his motel room on the phone, explaining his routine to help him "remember." He's also on the phone with someone -- who? We don't know -- telling about his pre-accident life as a husband and insurance investigator. He worked a case with a husband and wife (a great Stephen Tobolowsky and Harriet Sansom Harris) who went through something similar to Leonard's current situation. Then there's the present-time story (relatively present time) as we move backwards through the investigation. Each little flashback breaks up Leonard's actions, serving as almost a default start over button. He starts over each flashback, clean slate for the memory.

With this sort of storytelling technique or anything so unique in movies, the acting can get lost in the shuffle. Important but far from essential, a performance has to be more workmanlike. Pearce does more than that though playing the memory-challenged Leonard. It's something else how he brings this character to life, both equal parts confidence with a complete helplessness to the world around him. Think how easy it would be to mess with someone with no short term memory, and that person would have no idea in about 2 minutes. Pearce keeps the story grounded as we root for him to find his wife's killer. Without revealing any of the twists, I can't say much about the cast, but both Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano are equally as good in key supporting parts.

Innovative storytelling technique. Check. Interesting characters with solid performances. Check. Even throw in an eerie, moving score from composer David Julyan, which you can listen to HERE. All those positives were there, but I just didn't love the movie. Going ending to beginning was something I've never seen before in a movie, but the gimmick -- for lack of a better word -- didn't sustain the whole movie for me. Finding out more isn't necessarily as interesting as I thought it would be. It even gets tedious at times. The end of the movie (actually the beginning of the story) does deliver a punch, but even that feels like it's missing something. The movie is still something any movie buff should see, and I'm recommending it, but not as much as I would have liked.

Memento <---trailer (2000): ** 1/2 /****

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

2012-01-13T11:00:00.000-06:00

I love reading, always have and hope I always will. So when I saw a trailer this past summer for a spy movie based off a book from English novelist John Le Carre, I wanted to check out the book before seeing the movie. I can't tell you how much I struggled through the book, forcing myself to finish it because if a movie was made, the source novel has to be good, right? Thankfully, 2011's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was infinitely more enjoyable than its source novel.

When a mission is badly botched in Budapest, Control (John Hurt) and his right hand man, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), are forcefully pushed out the door at MI6. A new power system rises to the top, and most of a year later with Control dead, Smiley is approached with an important mission. More and more intelligence points to a high-up official in British intelligence being a mole working deep, deep undercover for Russia. The suspects have been narrowed down to four key individuals, but none of them seem any more likely to be the mole than the others. With the help of a younger but very capable agent, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley is tasked with exposing the mole. Can they do it in time?

Le Carre's book is something else. Countless characters, seemingly endless passages of dialogue on top of dialogue, and a non-linear story that I for one had trouble keeping up with. I hate calling a book dull or boring because it sounds very high school, but I struggled to maintain an interest in the very slowly developing story. Even when things were revealed, I had to re-read and double check just to make sure I'd read right. It defines a low-key, subtle spy story with little sense of urgency. Thankfully the movie streamlines the characters, the dialogue and the story, all the while remaining true to Le Carre's novel. It certainly isn't a movie for everyone, and it has its flaws, but 'Tinker' is quite the thinking man's spy movie.

Let's start with the tone and look of the movie. Like the novel, it is incredibly low-key, almost comatose in its development. For a story revolving around a high-level mole, no one seems particularly worried. The story utilizes flashbacks and bounces around constantly, throwing new characters in and out of scenes as needed. You know, just know, they're somehow related, and for the most part they do fit together in the end. It is a self-assured movie, and will probably lose some viewers with its leisurely pacing. The look of the movie is incredible from the sets and costumes to the camera work. The spies all wear suits and ties, constantly smoke cigarettes, and always have some liquor close by. This was the Cold War fought by gentlemen, not the gung-ho, shoot 'em up James Bond and Jason Bournes. These spies did their best when not seen by their opposition, slinking in and out as quickly as they arrived.

My biggest motivation for finishing the book was the cast assembled in director Tomas Alfredson's spy drama. I'll begin with Gary Oldman as George Smiley, a part that has already started to earn the actor some Oscar buzz for Best Actor. Like its story, Oldman is understated beyond belief as Smiley, a veteran agent with years of experience under his belt. He's experienced more than most can dream of, and the wear and tear shows. Pushed out of a job he was damn good at, his Smiley holds some earned resentment at the government and superiors that turned their back on him. Above all else, he is a professional though. He's a dogged investigator, able to piece together clues and information as needed, always thinking how the pieces fit together. I love Oldman as an actor -- playing good or bad guy -- but it's great seeing him truly acting, not just hamming it up. Great lead performance.

That's saying something considering the rest of the cast. The treacherous suspects include Alleline (Toby Jones), Haydon (Colin Firth), Esterhase (David Dencik), and Bland (Ciaran Hinds), both Jones and Firth making the best impressions. Cumberbath too holds his own at Oldman's side, an agent with a possible secret of his own, and Hurt is Hurt, legitimizing his small part because he's John Hurt. One of my new favorite actors, Mark Strong, has a solid supporting part as Prideaux, an agent who's stumbled into a botched mission and must pay the consequences. Another favorite of mine, Tom Hardy plays Ricki, a "scalphunter," an agent usually relegated to the more sinister missions, this time trying to move up a level with some info he stumbled into. Kathy Burke and Stephen Graham have key parts as former Intelligence members Smiley investigates. Not a false performance in the bunch, an ensemble working perfectly together. Not showy at all, just professionals doing what they do, seemingly effortlessly.

The movie isn't perfect though, but I did enjoy it considerably more than Le Carre's novel. Problems persist though. We learn little to nothing about the suspects so even when the mole is revealed, it makes little impact. A throwaway line explains the reasoning in a weak wrap-up. I would have liked some reasoning, some background on these men, allowing us to connect emotionally in some way whether it be hatred, respect, whatever. The story drifts at time -- like the novel -- in an 127-minute movie. Still, it's almost a must-see movie because it is so rare to see a movie of this quality, especially among the spy genre. The ending especially is a winner, a montage set to French song La Mer, later Americanized by Bobby Darin's Beyond the Sea. Style and acting to spare, just know what you're about to watch.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

2012-01-12T00:00:00.000-06:00

It seems not a few days or weeks go by before another political corruption story hits the news circuits. Idealized maybe, but we vote elected officials into office to represent then us, and inevitably we find out that so much more was going on behind the scenes -- cough Blago cough -- that we never find out about. One of the best looks into political corruption, 1939's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, is a true classic.

When a U.S. senator dies in an unnamed western state, naive and idealistic Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) is named to the vacant seat. The young Smith has no idea that he's been chosen to keep the seat warm for two months before reelection, an unknowing yes man to the more experienced senator from his state, Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). Jefferson is a newspaper publisher who helps run a camp for boys and has no experience in politics. He quickly finds out that he's been chosen only to serve as a dupe but decides to make the best of it, working with his assistant, Saunders (Jean Arthur), to put a bill through the Senate. He's unknowingly stepped into a high-level bill that will force him to deal with all sorts of political corruption, but can he maintain his idealist views?

As far as successful years go in Hollywood history, 1939 is basically 1, 1A and 1B. Any other years pales in comparison, and 'Mr. Smith' more than deserves it standing as one of the year's best. Teaming with Stewart (later reuniting for It's a Wonderful Life), director Frank Capra is at the helms of one of the all-time greats. It avoids some of the sappiness so prevalent in his other films and still manages to get its message across. To a 1930s audience still suffering through the Great Depression, it's message of the underdog sticking to his beliefs and cause must have hit home more. A political machine and system (Edward Arnold as the business kingpin in a frightening, real role) looking out for itself and willing to pressure and intimidate its way to riches? All too realistic. Not a heavy-handed attempt at delivering the message either, an obvious positive.

Okay, casting an idealistic, naive, well-meaning and intelligent young man stepping into a powerful government position, who better to choose than Mr. All American himself, Jimmy Stewart. I can't think of a better actor -- living or dead -- to play Jefferson Smith. His 'aw shucks' demeanor was made for this part. If this movie is going to work, you need to buy Stewart as Jefferson and everything about him. Mission accomplished then. Nominated but ultimately not winning for Best Actor, Stewart was a rising star here. You believe him and genuinely like him through all his innocence and naivete. His Jefferson Smith has become one of the more iconic movie characters ever, and it's easy to see why.

His most memorable scene is a whopper, and an entire 40-minute sequence carries this movie into another higher level. Made to look like he is one of the corrupt politicians and trying to save his good name -- among other things -- Jefferson is forced to filibuster, a political procedure that basically stalls for time. Talking and talking, the hours roll by as he tries to prove his point. This is where Capra's message comes across best, an effort by thousands of Americans -- on both sides, for good and bad -- work to help their side win. A remarkable sequence, and one that's remembered for a reason. Stewart earned his nomination with this scene alone.

The rest of the characters are painted with some broad strokes -- good or bad -- but the performances are almost uniformly strong. Jean Arthur actually received top billing (odd in a movie called Mr. Smith), playing well with Stewart as they show off an easy-going natural chemistry. Claude Rains as Paine, the veteran senator, is the darkest part, a man who wants more politically but knows it will come at a cost; his integrity. Thomas Mitchell plays Diz Moore, Saunders' friend and a political correspondent and reporter. Guy Kibbee, Eugene Pallette and Arnold play Jefferson's main opposition with Harry Carey stealing his scenes as the President of the Senate.

It's nice to go into a classic film and get just that...a classic. So often they're disappointing but not here. Filming on location in Washington D.C. gives a sense of realism and authenticity, and it's a beautiful city to begin with. The sets, especially the Senate chambers, become a character all to themselves. Mostly though, this is a classic about people and their beliefs, how far they're willing to take it when fighting for what they believe is right. A must-see film for movie fans.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington <---TCM trailer/clips (1939): ****/****

Blade Runner

2012-01-11T00:00:00.000-06:00

For years, I wanted to see Ridley Scott's 1982 sci-fi classic Blade Runner. Can you be intimidated by a movie though? I never sought it out because there always seemed to be a new version being released. Where was I supposed to start? Which one was the best one? Without reading up on it -- for fear of stumbling across some spoilers -- I dove in, renting the Director's Cut version. It was worth the wait.

It's 2019 in Los Angeles, a city vastly changed from the one we know. The Tyrell Corporation has created an incredibly human-like robot, called a replicant, that can almost pass as completely human. These replicants have caused problems though and are now outlawed on Earth, shipped to other planets where they work as slaves to create new colonies for mankind. Back on Earth, policemen called 'Blade Runners' work to make sure there are no replicants remaining, ready to execute anyone found. Among them is Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a burned out Blade Runner brought back to the job to find four replicants (led by Rutger Hauer) running free after murdering their human holders. Can Deckard bring them in?

Reading up on Blade Runner, I found there are a handful of different versions out there, changes made to each of them, some big, some small. I'm not judging the others or the movie on a bigger level, just this version. I really liked it, but I didn't love it. Science fiction stories are great because they open up whole new avenues of unexplored worlds that can ask 'What if?' 'Blade' is a step above the rest because it is a great, unique visual and creative story, but there's also a message, a deeper meaning. That comes across best in Hauer's Roy Batty, leader of the replicants. What separates humans from these replicants? Are they really so different, or are we just trained to believe that?

What is remembered so fondly about Blade Runner is the world Ridley Scott creates. It was nominated for two Oscars for its visual look, somehow losing to Gandhi and ET. The visual appeal of the movie is hard to describe. This futuristic version of Los Angeles has that crowded claustrophobic feel of modern Tokyo, the shadowy and smoky feel of a 1940s film noir, and the people and crowds out of the Mos Eisley Cantina in Star Wars. It is a gorgeous film to look at, utilizing special effects that don't look dated now in 2011. You feel like you're part of this futuristic city as Deckard investigates the whereabouts of these four replicants. How often can you see such a well-made science fiction film noir? My list stops at 1.

Two stars jump out from Blade Runner as the most impressive, but really all the acting is spot on from small performances to the starring roles. Harrison Ford is the tortured cop -- a staple in film noir -- doing a job that he has begun to question. His stylish look; the long, knee-length jacket with collar turned up, the gunbelt at his waist, the close and cropped hair, just adds to the appeal of the character, almost a modern day gunslinger. Hauer too delivers an amazingly layered performance as Roy, the replicant who has begun to question his existence and his being. He goes from straight and easily read villain to a much deeper look into a character that hopefully will have you question your judgment of him.

Most of the rest of the performances are smaller, revolving around either Deckard or Roy. Sean Young plays Rachael, a high-end replicant who Deckard meets in his investigation. Like Roy, she begins to question everything she thought she knew. Edward James Olmos and M. Emmet Walsh play Gaff and Bryant, two other Blade Runners Deckard must work with in his case, Olmos especially making a sinister impression. The other fugitive replicants include Daryl Hannah in a nice supporting part with Brion James and Joanna Cassidy. William Sanderson, James Hong and Joe Turkel are some of the engineers/creators involved with the Tyrell Corporation.

What I enjoyed most in Blade Runner was the last 25 minutes, bordering on the surreal at times but managing to ground itself in the end. A scene between Deckard and Roy is one of the more moving scenes I've ever come across, science fiction or not. Hauer is phenomenal in the scene, Ford doing a lot without saying a word. The ending too leaves it up to your own interpretation, not quite ambiguous but a bit of a cliffhanger. A good one though, not a 'You're kidding me! That's the end?!?' type endings. An all-around solid science fiction story, hopefully regardless of the version you see.

Blade Runner <---trailer (1982): *** 1/2 /****

Meek's Cutoff

2012-01-09T00:00:00.000-06:00

What truly defines a movie? Is it a highly stylized story heavy on visuals and twists and turns with an in your face camera technique? Or is the opposite, a minimalist style focusing on a more realistic visual, a slice of life storytelling? The answer of course is both and neither, falling somewhere in between. It comes down to personal taste what an individual viewer likes or dislikes. Falling in the minimalist style is an indie film from 2010, Meek's Cutoff.

It's 1845 and Americans are starting to drift west, some looking for new lives and others for riches. Among those travelers is a three-wagon train headed by trail guide Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood). Traveling with her older husband, Solomon (Will Patton), young Emily (Michelle Williams) is part of the little train heading for Oregon. Meek has decided to leave the main trail, heading west separate from the known route. The settlers go along with the plan, assuming the guide knows what he's doing. Does he though? The water supply starts to get dangerously low. Meek and Solomon manage to capture an Indian that's been tailing the group, leaving them with a decision. Do they entrust the Indian to guide them to water or continue blindly, hoping to find some? It's a decision that doesn't come easy.

Let's get this out of the way early. I hated this movie. We're not talking an indifference like I was disappointed or a mild dislike. Hated this movie. Seeing reviews and all the awards it won at film festivals all over the world, I was curious. Something has to be positive here that so many critics and moviegoers saw an appeal in it. Right? You would think so. And now reading the generally positive reviews, I don't feel like I missed a thing. If anything, I feel like so many others got duped. But that's for you to decide, not me yelling at you.

Minimalist, existential, lyrical, all these thoughts went through my head as I watched this movie. With a 104-minute movie, basically nothing happens at all. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Director Kelly Reichart makes a conscious effort to make this a real story. The camera is placed in front of the actors, and that's it. No close-ups, no movement, just the action (using that word loosely) unfolding in front of us. Whole scenes of wagons moving across the horizon drift on and on. Minutes go by with not a word spoken. When the dialogue does come along, it's mind-numbingly repetitive and pointless. I applaud Reichart for the approach she took. It's different, I'll give her that much. But a 104-minute movie that feels like it took days to watch? An epic failure.

The approach Reichart takes is that small window into the lives of these settlers. We know little to nothing about any of their past lives and learn little else by the end of the movie. Existential picture of the individuals in a survival, life or death scenario? Possibly. As a result though, I had no personal investment with any of these people. I was rooting for Michelle Williams and Will Patton, not Emily and Solomon Tetherow. They're representative of people, not actual flesh and blood people. The other settlers include Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan as one couple and Neal Huff and Shirley Henderson as another with son Tommy Nelson. Greenwood gets the most showy of all the parts, but that's not saying much. Stuntman Rod Rondeaux plays the Indian.

Then there's the ending, the definition of ambiguity. Open-ended doesn't begin to describe how 'Meek' ends. Add another check in the 'Surprise Column' that viewers thought it was a potentially happy ending. For me, it is an epic downer ending. The whole tone and style of the movie points to a downer, more realistic ending, but I could be off-base. Moral of the story? It's a judgment call that each viewer will have to make for themselves.

I just don't know what to make of this movie at all. Is it supposed to be of that existential variety, making a bigger, broader statement about survival, about living and dying? Or is it just the story of a small group of settlers moving westward desperately fighting for survival? On either level, 'Meek' didn't work for me. I hate judging a movie as 'boring' because it sounds too easy on my part. That's the problem though. No energy, no interest, no positive impression at all. Give this one a wide berth and steer clear.

Meek's Cutoff <---trailer (2010): */****

Escape from L.A.

2012-01-08T01:00:00.000-06:00

If you're going to do a sequel, you might as well commit and do it right, right? You'd think so, or at least that's usually my hope when I stumble across a sequel -- especially an unnecessary one. That is partially why I avoided John Carpenter's 1996 sequel Escape from L.A.. The 1981 original doesn't need a sequel so somewhat skeptical, I dove in.

It's 2013 and the United States is very much a dystopian country still, even 16 years since Special Forces soldier turned criminal Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) rescued the President in New York. Now though, an immensely powerful earthquake has ripped Los Angeles apart, the city now an island destination for any "undesirables." Now a new religious fanatic (Cliff Robertson) has become the President, and his extremist daughter (A.J. Langer) has hijacked an item that could destroy the world, retreating to L.A. to work with fellow extremist Cuervo Jones (Georges Corraface). Snake's services are called on once more. Blackmailed and working against a deadline of death, Snake must sneak into L.A., retrieve the item, kill the daughter, and only then will he be safe. Can he pull off the impossible again?

I didn't love the original Escape from New York, but I certainly liked it. Made on a small budget, there was a certain B-movie charm to Carpenter's film. It was cheesy and ridiculous and over the top and most importantly of all, fun to watch. The dystopian setting of an America that is nothing like the country we know now is ideal, opening the door for all kinds of outlets to take a story. Carpenter and Russell worked together a handful of times over their careers, clearly enjoying making movies together. Russell liked it so much -- and playing Snake too -- that he worked with Carpenter on writing a sequel. It was held up for years, finally coming to fruition in the mid 1990s. With that long of a wait and this much talent involved, why then is the sequel so bad?

The obvious answer is that it is basically the same movie. Sequels are fine when they add another step, a new layer to a pre-existing world and characters. But making the same movie -- quite literally -- with all the same features, characters and settings? Replacing New York with Los Angeles isn't unique or new. It's a road trip. I guess I just expected more. If you've got 15-plus years to write a sequel, couldn't you manage something better than this? It bombed in theaters, not making a profit, so I'm not the only one with complaints. The repeat of New York's success is one thing, but this 'Escape' has too much really awful CGI, too many similar characters, and did I mention the almost identical story?

What carries both movies on different levels is Kurt Russell. 'New York' is just a genuinely good B-movie that's aided and boosted by Russell. 'L.A.' is basically watchable only because of Russell. Snake Plissken is Russell's most iconic character from a successful career, and there's nothing about him that isn't cool. Okay, check that, the odd, fetishisized leather outfit is a little much. But other than that, Snake is the perfect anti-hero. A high profile crook with a reputation, he has no regard for any authority and only goes along with the plan because his life depends on it. Yes, he growls everything he says. Yes, he makes some awfully stupid decisions. But is he cool doing it? Yes, Kurt Russell is awesome, and he's cooler than you.

While the rest of the cast and characters are pretty ridiculous, Carpenter nonetheless assembles quite a cast. Start with Robertson, having some fun taking some jabs at the religious nuts. His U.S. President is one big stereotype, hamming it up like nobody's business. Stacy Keach plays Malloy, Snake's "handler" of sorts, with Michelle Forbes as his assistant. Steve Buscemi, Bruce Campbell, Valeria Golino and Peter Fonda play just some of the eccentric nuts trying to survive in Los Angeles who Snake runs across, Buscemi and Fonda making the best impressions. Look also for Pam Grier as Hershe Las Palmas, a drag queen who Snake used to work with on other jobs. I've gotta admit though, it's a little unsettling hearing a man's voice coming from Grier's mouth.

So watching a rehash of the more enjoyable Escape from New York, there are some saving graces in this most unnecessary of sequels. The ending features a couple very cool twists, some you can see coming if you're paying attention, but enjoyable nonetheless. Was there ever any doubt Snake was going to get duped repeatedly by these morons? I think not. Cool character, cool ending, but that doesn't save the movie.

Escape from L.A. <---trailer (1996): * 1/2 /****

The Deserter

2012-01-06T00:00:00.000-06:00

When a poster at a message board brought the movie up, I didn't believe him, thinking the movie he talked about was made up. As a western fan, how had this one slipped past me? Somehow it did, probably thanks to no U.S. DVD release and an old VHS (thank you Amazon vendors). The movie? A spaghetti western of sorts, think The Dirty Dozen in the West. It's 1970's The Deserter.

Returning from a patrol, Captain Viktor Caleb (Bekim Fehmiu) finds his wife on the brink of death, raped and tortured by an Apache war party. He mercifully ends her suffering, shooting her, and abandons his post but not before shooting the commander, Maj. Brown (Richard Crenna), who he blames. Two years pass and the cavalry Border Command has a new commander, General Miles (John Huston). Caleb has spent two years waging his own war on the Apaches, but Miles needs his help. An Apache chief, Mangus Durango, is organizing a huge war party that threatens to wipe out everyone in the territory. Their only hope? Caleb selects a small group of men and train them to fight like Apaches, striking the Apache camp in Mexico before the slaughter begins.

From American director Burt Kennedy, 'Deserter' isn't your prototypical spaghetti western. It was filmed in Almeria, Spain -- with some familiar locations for spaghetti fans -- and features a quirky but memorable score from Piero Piccioni. Listen to the main theme HERE. As opposed to bandits and gunslingers, the story obviously focuses on the cavalry and the Apaches so it's a cool change of pace. Mostly though, it is an above average men on a mission story, one of my favorite sub-genres in movies. A small group of men, all experts and specialists in their own way assigned an almost impossible, nearly suicidal mission. The movie follows the cookie-cutter formula, but in a good way. First, lay things out and assemble the team. Second, train them. And third, unleash them for their mission.

My rating far down below may be high in the eyes of some readers, but there's a reason. This isn't a great, classic movie that will live on in movie history. On the other hand, it is a great, fun and entertaining movie that quickly climbed into my list of favorites upon first viewing. Kennedy was a workmanlike director more than an auteur, but he knows how to manage this movie. The screenplay by western regular Clair Huffaker is a gem, nothing original but full of great one-liners, the perfect dialogue for a team of tough as nails "volunteers." This always sounds like a cop-out to me, but it's just a fun movie. Sit back and enjoy 100 minutes of running and gunning action in the desert.

Read some reviews about this generally forgotten western, and you'll find plenty of criticism of the casting of star Fehmiu in the lead. A Yugoslavian actor, this is one of his few English-speaking roles. I had absolutely no problem with him as Caleb and even think his steely-eyed, ice water running through his veins acting style is a high point of the film. Caleb doesn't care about living or dying, just avenging his wife's brutal death. That can be an appealing trait in a lead character. While I came to like Fehmiu as Caleb, what drew me into this movie was the supporting cast.

Big names? No, not especially, but reading the cast listing should put a smile on any western fan's face. Crenna is solid as needed as Caleb's opposition, and Huston is a scene-stealer as General Miles, chewing the scenery like only he can. Then there's Caleb's squad, a who's who of western characters. Start with Slim Pickens and Ricardo Montalban as Tattinger, a crotchety veteran scout, and Natchai, an Apache scout, both of them Caleb's closest friends. Not enough? There's also Chuck Connors as Reynolds, a dynamite-wielding chaplain, Ian Bannen as Crawford, an English soldier touring the Southwest, Brandon De Wilde as Ferguson, the young, unproven officer, Woody Strode as Jackson, the strong man and troublemaker, Albert Salmi as Schmidt, the soldier with a grudge against Caleb, Patrick Wayne as Robinson, the Gatling gun operator with his brother, Doc Greaves as Scott, the doctor, and recognizable spaghetti face Fausto Tozzi as Orozco, the knife fighter.

Good cast much? If you can't go along with that group, westerns probably aren't your thing. It is a men on a mission movie, and that means....wait for it...action! Most of it is saved for the last 40 minutes, but the training sequences leading up to it are equally as fun, a quick montage highlighting all the mayhem. The mission is the high point though, and even though some night scenes are limited by obviously indoor sets, it isn't a deal breaker. Men on a mission movie means casualties though, and the results here were surprising as to who makes it and who doesn't. Violent, bloody and chaotic, a worthwhile end to an underrated western.

Now this link won't be to a pristine, widescreen print, but it you're curious about seeing the movie you can see it at Youtube HERE. It's a Public Domain print and looks to be missing about 6 minutes from the VHS I have, but when a movie is as hard to find as this one, take what you can. Hope you enjoy it as much as I do!

The Deserter <---trailer (1971): ****/****

Ice Station Zebra

2012-01-05T00:00:00.000-06:00

Part Cold War thriller, part submarine movie, 1968's Ice Station Zebra has a lot going for it. Good story, better cast and solid directing. For years, it gained more of a cult status because it wasn't even available on DVD. It's even known as one of Howard Hughes' favorite movies. How's that pointless trivia for you? So what happens to it? Somewhere along the line, 'Zebra' goes off the tracks.

Patrolling in the North Atlantic, Capt. James Ferraday (Rock Hudson) and the U.S.S. Tigerfish, a US nuclear submarine, receives a new set of orders. The Tigerfish is to pick up a new passenger, a British agent named Jones (Patrick McGoohan), and head north to find Ice Station Zebra, a civilian weather station floating on a polar ice cap. Jones can say nothing else about the importance of the mission, only that it must be accomplished. Picking up two other passengers, Boris (Ernest Borgnine), a Russian defector, and Capt. Anders (Jim Brown), a Marine officer, the Tigerfish heads north. Ferraday quickly figures out that there is a traitor among the group and maybe even his crew. Can they find out who it is as they desperately attempt to complete their mission?

'Zebra' is based on a novel by adventure/espionage master Alistair MacLean, author of The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare. This past summer I read 'Zebra' for the first time only to discover it was a mess. I struggled to go along with it unlike any other MacLean novel I'd read. Directed by John Sturges, the film suffers from some of the same problems. In 1968, a nuclear submarine was big news, especially a portrayal on said sub. Much like Tom Clancy would years later, 'Zebra' gets bogged down in the minutiae of day-to-day life on the submarine; traveling under an ice pack, using radar and advanced technology to locate icebergs and drifts, finding a suitable spot to break through the ice. None of this makes for an exciting visual story.

That's a start though, but not a finish. Leisurely doesn't begin to describe the story here, clocking in at 148 minutes with Overture, Intermission, Entre'Acte, and Exit Music. An epic is one thing -- the 1960s were full of them -- but there is no urgency, NONE, through the first half of the movie. Before the intermission, almost nothing happens. Top that off with an explanation of the mission being held off until 105 minutes into the movie, and yeah, we've got a problem. An espionage guessing game is one thing, but almost two hours of guessing? A little much. The MacLean novel wasn't much better, throwing consistently new twists at the reader out of the blue and as needed.

Part of the charm though and cult classic status earned by 'Zebra' over the years is the casting. Big names, yes, especially some solid action stars. Some are utilized better than others. Hudson makes the best impression as Ferraday, the quiet, confident sub commander not really interested in cloak and dagger and espionage. McGoohan too is subtle in his mysterious nature, intensity brimming under his cool, even cold exterior. Borgnine gets to ham it up as Boris Vaslov, a Russian defector turned British agent, managing a quasi-Russian accent of sorts. Unfortunately, Jim Brown is wasted, his Capt. Anders almost serving as a red herring to the twists and turns. Not Brown's fault though because he's trying. Also look for Lloyd Nolan as Admiral Garvey and Tony Bill as Lt. Walker, one of Anders' Marines.

Through all the sometimes tedious underwater shots of the sub and the slow-moving story, there is that charm that I mentioned before. Not quite camp value, but something along those lines. Once some twists are actually laid out, the story picks up speed at a lightning pace. The last 45 minutes are both highly enjoyable and incredibly frustrating, keeping the action flowing and the answers revealing themselves, making me wonder why the rest of the story couldn't have had this urgency. All that said, I like this movie...sometimes in spite of its flaws.

Ice Station Zebra <---TCM trailer/clips (1968): ** 1/2 /****

Jackie Brown

2012-01-03T01:00:00.000-06:00

One of the breakout stars of 1970s movies, Pam Grier shot to fame in blaxploitation movies like Coffy and Foxy Brown. She was tough, sassy and sexy, and not surprisingly became a fan favorite. Her best performance though is an easy one to peg, Quentin Tarantino's 1997 film Jackie Brown.

After being busted years before for transporting drugs, stewardess Jackie Brown (Grier) again finds herself in trouble with the authorities. Working for a low-level airline, Jackie is transporting large shipments of cash for an arms dealer, Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), stationed out of Los Angeles. Not looking to do jail time and avoid probation at all costs, Jackie has to figure out what to do. The authorities (including ATF agent Michael Keaton) are pressing her, but with some help from a friendly bail bondsman, Max Cherry (Robert Forster), Jackie comes up with a complicated if hopefully successful plan to get out clean....and with a boatload of money too.

As I've mentioned before, Tarantino as a director can be a tad bit polarizing among fans. Watching his movies, I've come to be a huge fan, enjoying some movies and loving others. It's a given going in. You can expect a hip soundtrack, style in general to burn, some characters and acting you might not expect, lots, lots of dialogue and some startling violence. For Tarantino haters, this might be a good intro. At 154 minutes, it is a little long in the tooth. The dialogue is a little self-indulgent and too much, but because of the immense talents involved you go along with it. The violence is probably at an all-time low for Quentin with a story focusing more on the characters, the betrayals and the double crosses. So if you despise Tarantino, give this one a try.

More of a sex symbol in the 1970s than an actress, Grier shows that without a doubt, no question about it, she can act and do it well. Part of it is the script (based off an Elmore Leonard novel), but this is a great character. Grier puts her own spin on it. Jackie is backed into a corner with nothing left to lose at this point. She's looking at minimum at probation, more likely serving jail time. With no ace up her sleeve, she plays everyone around her -- except for one person -- to her own benefit. The catch? We're rooting for her. She's likable (okay, I thought so). We want her to succeed. Oh, and just an FYI, at 48 years old....still sexy. Just saying.

What I don't understand with Tarantino haters is that whatever you dislike about him personally or his style as a director, he consistently gets original, unique, and entertaining performances from his cast. You know what's a good sign of a deep cast? Read the plot synopsis, and it doesn't even mention Robert De Niro. Not bad when a movie uses De Niro as a supporting part, involved but not essential to the story. He plays Louis Gara, an ex-con working with Jackson's Ordell, underplaying his part to the point you question if he's acting. Bridget Fonda plays Melanie, one of Ordell's girlfriends, spending most of her screentime in a bikini and stoned out of her mind. Keaton plays Keaton, a kinda finicky, eccentric ATF agent while Chris Tucker has a small part as Beaumont, one of Ordell's "associates."

Right up there with Grier though, I thought the best performance was from Robert Forster as Max Cherry, a bail bondsman with 20 years of experience and some 15,000 bonds written. When he meets Grier's Jackie, he's instantly drawn to her and ends up getting involved in her scheme like he never planned. I don't know what it was about the performance, but I liked it. Like most of the acting here, it's underplayed and subtle. Max has a bright spot in his life when Jackie enters. His voice mail message checking in with her says it all, a rambling stream of thought providing every single one of his contact numbers. It's a human part amidst all the quick, fast-paced dialogue, just one aging guy looking for something in his life. Oh, and Samuel L. Jackson is intimidating and an all-around great bad guy.

Add another win for Tarantino with this one. Similar in some ways to his other films, it is also very different. However you feel about him though, it is well-written and the performances keep you interested from beginning to end. Not a bad follow-up to Pulp Fiction at all.

Jackie Brown <---trailer (1997): ***/****

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

2012-01-02T01:00:00.000-06:00

It's already been 15 years since the first Mission: Impossible movie was released in theaters in 1996, and boy, how the time flies. The highly successful franchise spawned sequels in 2000, 2006 and the newest entry in the series, 2011's Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. Espionage and action galore. Fans will not be disappointed.

Busted out of a Moscow prison, IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is quickly assigned another mission. With a short window of time, Ethan must break into the Kremlin and get out with an important file that could trigger a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. The mission goes under on a double cross, the Kremlin blown up in the process, and now Ethan and his team are being blamed. Who's responsible? A brilliant Russian scientist/analyst, Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), who intends to "balance" the world by unleashing a nuclear missile in the United States. As he searches for the device and the launch codes, a disavowed Ethan and his team are the only thing in the way of stopping global nuclear war.

First off, I'm a sucker for spy movies of any sorts. When they are quality spy movies? Like shooting fish in a barrel, and I'm the fish. I love where the series has gone, keeping things fresh. The first was a twisting smart thriller, the second an action extravaganza, the third more of an old-fashioned popcorn movie, and the fourth a mix of them all. 'Ghost Protocol' is the combination of all of those things, blending a twisting, turning story with crazy action and ridiculous amounts of entertainment. It's got the smart qualities that have been present in all the M:I movies, the style, charm and gadgets of the Bond movies, and the stylized action of the Bourne movies. All the while, it keeps things entertaining and maintaining its own unique flavor and style.

Through the ups and downs of his career, I've long been a fan of Tom Cruise (even when he was jumping up and down on Oprah's couch). He is an actor, but he's also a movie star, and those are few and far between nowadays. He's aged obviously since 1996, but he's still Tom Cruise. Ethan has a revenge motive here, giving this very capable secret agent an even darker edge. He's looking for vengeance while also clearing his name. More detail on this later, but he also does most if not all of the crazy, ridiculous, off-the-wall stunts. And don't be confused. They are crazy, ridiculous and off the wall. His IMF team includes Brandt (Jeremy Renner), a supposed analyst, Benjy (Simon Pegg), the tech expert, and Carter (ass-kicking and sexy Paula Patton), an agent new to the scene who's also got revenge on her mind. Also look for Lost alum Josh Holloway in a small but cool part and the always reliable Tom Wilkinson as the U.S. secretary of state in a one-scene cameo. Even franchise alums Ving Rhames and Michelle Monaghan appear, albeit very briefly.

A whole review could very easily be devoted to just M:I4's action sequences, and there are a lot. Big, flashy action movies have been watered down by CGI and in general, a quality of 'been there, done that' and most specifically 'seen that.' Director Brad Bird and his script take your typical action sequence, and amp up the ante. We've all seen countless car chases so what do you do? You have a car chase in a Dubai sand storm. Heist-like situation? How about having it in the world's tallest building where you have to scale it from the outside? All I'm typically looking for in an action movie is to try and do something different, throw something at us as an audience we haven't seen. If it flops, so be it. You tried. When it works though? You've got a real winner on your hands.

Where to start with Ghost Protocol's action? The movie opens with the Moscow prison break continues to the Kremlin infiltration, jumps to a chase through Moscow in the dead of night and then goes globe-hopping to Dubai and Mumbai. It's not of the hyper-kinetic Bourne variety either. You can see all of it....which is kinda nice. The action is the type where 18 different things are going on, all dependent on the other happening at the precise, necessary time, especially the ending involving a Mumbai parking garage with rising and falling platforms. As with any movies, you need one character laying things out, explaining the ludicrous nature of what's being attempted, Renner's Brandt handling it nicely.

The high point though -- and it isn't even close -- is the middle portion of the movie, the mission taking the team to Dubai and the Burj Khalifa, the world's tallest building, to pull off a switch with international assassin Moreau (Lea Seydoux) and Hendricks' man, Wistrom (Samuli Edelmann), and a briefcase full of nuclear launch codes. Ethan has to scale part of the massive building 130 stories up, just a pair of high tech "glue" gloves holding him up. Credit to Cruise for doing most of his own stunts hundreds of feet up, but in general to Bird for providing one of the adrenaline-pumping sequences I can remember. Total it runs about 20, maybe 25 minutes, including the fallout when things don't go quite as planned, culminating in the sand storm car chase. The movie's action is a step above on the whole, but this extended sequence will certainly be a major factor in this spy flick being remembered down the road.

My first reaction was to give this 4 stars, but I can't quite go there....yet. Maybe down the road I will. All the movies can be judged/criticized/loved/hated on their own so it's hard to compare them. Initial thoughts, it ranks with the original 1996 movie as the best of the series. This is what movies should be like. Fun, damn entertaining and just an enjoyable experience. Throw in Michael Giacchino's score -- using the retro theme from the TV show, listen HERE, and a great title sequence -- and everything here is firing on all cylinders. Cruise leads a great cast, and original action like you haven't seen before. GO see this movie....NOW.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Vigilante Force

2012-01-01T02:23:00.000-06:00

My history with 1976's Vigilante Force is a little checkered, going back a couple years. "History" is a little strong for a bomb of a movie that still manages to be entertaining I suppose. I saw the end of the movie on a Spanish TV station one time, forgot to record the rest a second time, and recently managed to sit through the entire thing. What a mess of a movie...if entertaining.

The peaceful California town of Elk Hills is in trouble. The oil workers called in to drill the oil fields have basically taken over the town, killing, robbing and stealing on a daily basis to the point where no one in town is safe. Single father and business owner, Ben Arnold (Jan-Michael Vincent), is asked by the town's committee if his brother, Aaron (Kris Kristofferson), would agree to come in and clean up the town. A Vietnam vet who survived three tours, Aaron agrees, bringing in a four-man mercenary crew to help him get the job done. The problems get cleared up, but Elk Hills has bigger problems now. Aaron and Co. are on a power trip.

Stumbling across this 1970s cheapie on late night Spanish television probably says a lot about the quality of the movie....for those who were wondering about it at least. Granted, there is a certain nostalgic memory from the movie as I spent a couple years tracking it down. There was more of a 'so bad it's good quality' that stuck with me since watching the last 15 minutes of 'Vigilante.' The picture of Kristofferson and his "gang" decked out in band uniforms shooting it out with an overall-clad Vincent and his crew of fed-up townspeople was too much to even consider forgetting. So what's the verdict now that I've seen the whole movie?

It's a dud, and overall a pretty lousy movie, but it is entertaining. Directed and written by George Armitage, 'Vigilante' has that cheap, low budget feel that I often think of as synonymous with the 1970s. Clearly not made with much of a budget, it has the look of a studio backlot with characters, story and gunfights thrown into a blender. Whatever sticks, that's what makes it into the final version. Top it off with an oddly-toned soundtrack heavy on a light banjo theme, and you've got a winner.

So many years later, the ending is by far the best thing going for 'Vigilante.' And I don't mean that as some sort of backhanded compliment like 'The movie's over...that was the best part.' The build-up to that final confrontation can be a tad on the slow side, but Armitage must have decided he'd had enough. A power-hungry Aaron has gone too far so brother Ben must stop him no matter the cost. Automatic weapons, bazookas, grenades, and did I mention Kristofferson dressed up as a band leader, complete with red and gold braided outfit. On the oddity scale, it's close to a 10, especially with Vincent chasing him wearing overalls. I guess they were comfy and meant for a good chase/gunfight.

If you're looking for great acting, first off a movie titled 'Vigilante Force' should have been a clue you were watching the wrong movie. Second, it's fun to see Kristofferson and Vincent play off each other. Kristofferson's Aaron is the cool Vietnam vet who with the snap of a finger basically goes insane. No explanation provided, he just wants money. He spends most of the movie shirtless standing around being shirtless. Not an actor with the most range to begin with, Vincent is a bit stiff with his delivery, but let's face it. I can't rip him too much. The script doesn't exactly give him much to do or work with. Also look for Bernadette Peters and a pre-Dallas Victoria Principal as the love interests, Brad Dexter as the Elk Hills mayor, and Judson Pratt as the can't win sheriff.

Mindlessly dumb movie, but one I still enjoyed for what it is...a mindless dumb movie. Nothing more, nothing less so don't expect much, and you'll moderately enjoy it.

Vigilante Force <---trailer (1976): ** 1/2 /****

Christmas in Connecticut

2011-12-30T20:03:00.001-06:00

One of if not the best and most recognizable femme fatales in film noir movies of the 1940s, Barbara Stanwyck excelled at seductive, cold, ruthless female characters early in her career like Double Indemnity. Even when she wasn't glamming it up, she was a more dramatic actress. It's change of pace time, and one of Stanwyck's best and most different roles was 1945's Christmas in Connecticut.

A highly successful and very popular syndicated writer, Elizabeth Lane (Stanwyck) has created quite the elaborate lie. She publishes a monthly column about life on her farm with her husband, baby, and assorted adorable animals. The only problem? Elizabeth lives in a small New York City apartment. Her problem gets bigger when a sailor, Jefferson Jones (Dennis Morgan), rescued after 18 days on the open ocean has requested he meet Elizabeth and be treated to an All-American Christmas. Her publisher (Sydney Greenstreet) has complied, putting Elizabeth in quite the spot. With Jones and her boss on the way, can she continue to pull off a ruse with some help from friend and possible suitor, John (Reginald Gardiner)?

Let the 1940s crazy shenanigans begin! The premise is funny but ridiculous from the word 'go.' How do you pull off a ruse like this? Lies, lies and more lies. It reminded me of an extended episode of I Love Lucy, a crazy scheme that in no possible way would ever work....working. There are some very funny running gags including an appearance-changing baby, a judge (Dick Elliott) constantly trying to marry Elizabeth and John, and Greenstreet's publisher consistently muscling his way into problems. It's a 1940s romantic comedy, and that's a good thing. Stupid? Yes. Ridiculous? Oh, you know it. On the other hand.....

It's a sweet, innocent story that could only work in 1940s America. Romantic comedies released recently are mind-numbing, stories of "old maids" who can't get married, girls/guys talking about their conquests, and dreamy guys who always end up with the can't find a man "I'm so unlucky" woman. Some of that is on display here, but because it was made in the 1940s as opposed to the 2010s, it just works better (in my messed up head anyways). You can probably predict the ending now without seeing the movie. But the funny story, better script, black and white camerawork, a great cast, it all rolls up together into a winner. It just does. Would a story like this work now in 2011? Nope, and that's a good thing.

For all the movies I've seen (and are trying to see), I've only seen Stanwyck in one other movie I can think of even if I was aware of her screen presence as a seductive femme fatale. She does comedy here effortlessly. Her line deliveries are perfect as she navigates her way through "her life," not knowing how to care for a baby, to keep up a house, to cook, to do all the basics a wife might be able to expect. The humor is dry, her deliveries mostly subtle, and the looks she gives are priceless. It's always nice to see someone step out of their box as a performer, and Stanwyck nails this part. Her Elizabeth Lane is a great central character, her predicament seemingly getting worse by the moment.

Other than fellow noir alum Greenstreet, 'Connecticut's' supporting cast doesn't have a lot of star power or name recognition. Morgan as Jones is somewhat dull, the all-American soldier returning home to a hero's welcome, but he does have a good chemistry with Stanwyck, and that's all that really matters. Greenstreet too has a lighter part (with a somewhat darker side) as the money-minded publisher, Alexander Yardley. Gardiner as John Sloan is the dupe, keeping a seat warm until Elizabeth realizes she likes Jefferson. Heavily-accented Hungarian actor S.Z. Sakall is a scene-stealer as Felix, Elizabeth's friend and expert on cooking, with Una O'Connor playing Sloan's Irish live-in maid, Norah.

Not a Christmas classic up there in the vein of Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Miracle on 34th Street, but this is a winner. I'm disappointed I took so long actually sitting down and watching it. Definitely a movie that qualifies as one of those rare "They don't make them like they used to." Funny, charming, and sugary sweet, and a great movie overall.

Christmas in Connecticut <---TCM trailer/clips (1945): ***/****

The Peacemaker

2011-12-28T00:30:00.000-06:00

Been in somewhat of a rut at Netflix recently so I'm revisiting the 1990s. Growing up, I either missed a lot of good movies, just wasn't aware of them, or was too young to see them. I saw part of this movie on AMC a few weeks ago, and frustrated with the crazy amount of commercials decided to stop watching. Glad I chose 1997's The Peacemaker at Netflix.

Somewhere in southern Russia, two trains collide -- one of them carrying a nuclear device that destroys the country for miles. The world is thrown for a loop with the explosion, and in the U.S., the White House nuclear expert, Dr. Julia Kelly (Nicole Kidman), leads a task force to handle the situation. Kelly is teamed with an Intelligence liaison, Lt. Colonel Tom Devoe (George Clooney), who believes the train collision was a cover-up to steal nine other nuclear warheads on board. Now the clock is ticking. Who is responsible for the hijacking, and more importantly, can they be found in time? They make no demands so how do you stop an enemy with hidden goals?

As happens surprisingly often, I was surprised by the IMDB rating for 'Peacemaker,' just around 5.9 out of 10 at the time of this review. Did I love it? No, it's not a classic suspense thriller by any means. Did I really like it? Very much so. Director Mimi Leder has put together a smart, well-told, exciting and even subtle at times thriller. Scenes and situations develop with ease, not that overly done, rushed feeling that permeates action thrillers. Violence is startling but not gratuitous, action fast-moving but perceptible, and let's face it. A chase for a terrorist extremist with a nuclear device is pretty hard to mess up in the thrills department. Maybe a little cliched, but Leder has some fun with it.

Starring together in 1997, George Clooney and Nicole Kidman are interesting choices for the leads. Clooney was Mr. ER in '97, but he was clearly headed for bigger and better things. His Devoe is a solid lead; a driven, goal-oriented Intelligence officer who's fed up with the bureaucracy and wants results instead. His character is a little over the top at times, but it works mostly because Clooney was and is one of the more likable stars to grace the screen. As for Kidman, I think of her as more of an actress than a movie star so it's fun to see her in a more mainstream action flick. Neither character is developed much, just a duo hopping all over the globe in hopes of squashing this terrorist nuclear threat. Good performances when that's all a movie requires is not a bad thing.

To be memorable or at least positively reviewed, an action thriller has to have some worthwhile set pieces or action scenes. 'Peacemaker' has three high quality, memorable sequences like that. The opening train heist is a gem and sets the tone for the rest of the movie. The story truly finds its rhythm around the hour mark when Clooney's Devoe leads a helicopter assault across territorial lines into Russia (a no-no for those scoring at home). Ending in a shootout on a bridge over a gorge, it's a great chase sequence that is one-upped about 30 minutes later in the finale, a chase through downtown Manhattan in New York. As I think more about these scenes, maybe they are cliched, a little too familiar, but I fell for it. I went along with the action and enjoyed it right to the end.

Now onto the villains, always a nice thing to have in an action thriller. The script calls for two of the best, combining Russian Army renegades (including Aleksandr Baluev) with Serbian extremists (Marcel Iures and brother Rene Medvesek). The rogue Russian general is out for the money while the Serbians and their reasoning are at least partially explained. There is also a small but excellent part for Armin Mueller-Stahl as a Russian intelligence officer who's worked with Clooney's Devoe in the past.

Another case of ignoring the reviews. Just a good, old-fashioned and well-told action thriller. Oh, and George Clooney is cool.

The Peacemaker <---trailer (1997): ***/****

The Bishop's Wife

2011-12-24T01:34:00.001-06:00

Ah, it's almost Christmas season. The toys and gifts, the decorations, the music, the bad sweaters. This is a holiday that's got it all. What do I love most about the Christmas season? Besides all of it I guess. Well, you're reading a movie review blog so if you guess.....movies, you win a cookie. Happy Kwanz-Hana-Solstice-Mas! Today's hopefully timely review, 1947's The Bishop's Wife.

Bishop Henry Brougham (David Niven) is in trouble. One of the youngest appointed bishops in the country, Henry is desperately seeking funds to build a new cathedral. His efforts are all-encompassing, taking over all aspects of life. His wife, Julia (Loretta Young), is drifting away, and Henry can do nothing about it. One night seeking guidance, he prays and what appears? An angel in his office by the name of Dudley (Cary Grant) who hopes to help him however he can, but now how Henry would have anticipated. Does the bishop truly believe Dudley is an angel? And what exactly does Dudley plan to do?

Comedies to drama, musicals to cartoons, I can find something redeeming in just about every Christmas movie out there. Coming up with a positive for 'Wife' was not difficult. The word(s) that come to mind? Sweet and charming. Definitely a qualifier for 'they don't make them like this anymore.' In terms of quality and emotion (not to mention some casting repeats), it would run as quite a double bill with It's a Wonderful Life. It has a message but doesn't hit you over the head with it. It's funny but doesn't try too hard. It's sweet but isn't sappy. Director Henry Koster keeps a nice balance among all those elements.

If you're going for charming, is there a better actor in the history of movies to pick than Cary Grant? I'm trying to come up with a name and keep on drawing a blank. Oddly enough, this part was one of Grant's least favorite. Why? Who knows because I think it's perfect casting. Playing the angel Dudley, Grant has that right mix of charm, intelligence and genuine interest in helping others. What separates the role from good and great is the tragic element in the character. Trying to bring Niven's Henry and Young's Julia together, Dudley falls for Julia but knows nothing can come of it. The ending for Dudley is far from a happy one, but a necessary one for the movie, and in a bigger sense that's more than just him; a perfect happy ending. Great part for Grant.

Now I debated diving into this at all because talking about religion never ends well. NEVER. So with that said, let's talk some religion! A movie about an angel will no doubt divide some viewers, but I loved the portrayal. Dudley explains his job and means of going about it several times, a guide along the way who helps make decisions. Once the decision is made though, he's gone, leaving it on the individual like they came to that point on their own. The supernatural aspect is played up at times with Dudley's abilities, and the script is pitch-perfect with a long list of one-liners and sight gags; Dudley saying he'll talk to God about a blessing, talking about his centuries-long life, and so much more.

This romantic comedy does not fall just on the shoulders of Grant, both Niven and Young helping carry the load. Niven is the viewer, the doubting Thomas who questions Dudley's reality while Young is the wife who wants back what she always had, a loving and attentive husband. Monty Woolley plays Prof. Wutheridge, an old friend of the Brougham's, James Gleason plays amiable cabbie Sylvester, Gladys Cooper is Mrs. Hamilton, a manipulative money donor, Elsa Lanchester is Matilda, the Brougham's maid, and Karolyn Grimes (year removed from playing Zuzu in 'Wonderful Life') is Debby, the Brougham's daughter. Just a good movie from top to bottom, and a Christmas classic.

The Bishop's Wife <---TCM trailer/clips (1947): ****/****

She

2011-12-22T00:09:00.000-06:00

No point in wasting time with some lying in the intro. I didn't watch 1965's She because it sounded interesting or the names in the cast jumped out at me. I watched because Ursula Andress was in it, and.....well.....she's nice to look at. So yeah, that's it. The Swiss beauty is gorgeous.

Having survived World War I, three friends, Leo (John Richardson), Holly (Peter Cushing), a former college professor, and Job (Bernard Cribbins), Holly's servant, are wondering what to do with themselves in 1918 Palestine. Leo meets a mysterious woman, Utane (Rosenda Monteros), who leads him to an exotic villa where he's introduced to a beautiful and even more mysterious woman, Ayesha (Andress), who speaks ominously of him joining her, all his dreams coming true and whatever he desired....if he can find her somewhere in the African desert in a supposed lost city. Curious of what awaits them, Leo is joined by Holly and Job, but none of them truly know what to expect, what awaits them.

A movie from Hammer Film Productions, 'She' has quite a bit of schlock value. It is in no way expected to be a classic, or even a good, average movie for that matter. What little budget existed seems to have been bookmarked for the indoor sets of a long-lost city in the desert, the rest saved for Andress' costumes. There isn't so much a story as a series of somewhat related scenes loosely tied together. In the meantime as viewers, I'm guessing we're supposed to stay involved seeing if we can see through Andress and Monteros' nearly sheer outfits. Not so fast though, it is the 1960s. No nudity here although Andress certainly is half naked much of the movie.

I guess what threw me off is that for about 30 minutes, maybe even 45 minutes, I was enjoying this movie. The post-WWI beginning in the Middle East is a unique, interesting set-up. The relationship among the three vets -- Leo, the young, suave bachelor, Holly, the aged and intelligent professor, and Job, his ever loyal man servant -- is a good if familiar start. What to do after surviving a war? Normal, everyday life sounds dull so let's embark on another death-defying adventure! Not quite a 'Men on a Mission' story, but there are traces of that sub-genre. The appeal of possibly unearthing a lost city is just too much to pass up.

Now as bad as the movie can be at times -- real bad -- there is too much talent with certain members of the cast for it to be a complete waste. Two masters of British horror, Cushing and Christopher Lee, make sure of that. Both consummate professionals, they're going to commit to their parts and go for it. Cushing is a sidekick more than a lead character, but his scenes with Richardson and Cribbins are a high point. Lee has a somewhat smaller part as Bilali, Ayesha's high priest suspicious of Leo's arrival. Intimidating and imposing, Lee makes the most of what little screen time he has.

Then there's Andress and Richardson. Depending on the film and script, Andress could be a solid if unspectacular actress. 'She' has neither. Her part is completely about her physical appearance, an immortal goddess looking for a man to spend all of eternity with. On that note, Andress is great because she does in fact look gorgeous. I know what you're thinking. It's a stretch for her, but she pulls it off. A year before Richardson would woo Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC, he woos Andress and shares several long, even uncomfortable make-out scenes. He must have been doing something right because he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Not very good performances at the top.

Definitely wasn't expecting a classic, but I was expecting to enjoy the movie a bit more. A general feeling of cheapness and a story that never really goes anywhere, even Cushing, Lee and Andress' physical appearance couldn't save this one. Good start, but the momentum dies about 30 minutes in.

She <---TCM clips (1965): **/****

Mission: Impossible

2011-12-19T13:39:00.000-06:00

Counting down the days to the fourth M:I movie, dubbed Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and thought it was as good a time as any to look back on the movie that started this highly successful franchise, 1996's Mission: Impossible. An espionage thriller with top-notch action, it's still the best of the M:I movies....for now. Let's see how Ghost Protocol goes, but the fourth entry has its work cut out for it.

Leading an operation in Prague, MIF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) sees his team ambushed and murdered during the mission. Meeting a supervisor in the bloody aftermath, Hunt realizes he's been set up, made to look like a treacherous mole who's been working against MIF for years. Now he must find out who set him up. With the only surviving member of his team, Claire (Emmanuelle Beart), and two similarly disavowed MIF agents, Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and Kreiger (Jean Reno), Hunt goes on the offensive. He seeks out the actual mole by going through his only link, a black market arms dealer, Max (Vanessa Redgrave), who wants one thing and is willing to pay heavily for it; a list of all undercover MIF agents worldwide. Now Ethan has to decide how far he wants to go to prove his innocence.

I'm not particularly proud of that plot synopsis, but I think it's the best I'm going to do. It took me two or three viewings to even understand the plot in the late 90s, and that's about all the information I can give without revealing too much. What do you need to take away from that plot? Ethan Hunt needs to do some impossible things to set up a meeting with the traitor who set him up. That's the movie in a nutshell. An actual understanding of that story would be unnecessary. It's good, old fashioned secret agent fun. Go along with it, and if you're like me, at some point the story will click into place.

This is Tom Cruise at his best. The man is a legitimately good actor, but he seems most at ease in these types of movies; popcorn movies with great characters, greater action and ludicrous action sequences that let him show off his physical ability. Like he would do four years later in M:I2, Cruise does most if not all of his stunts here. He's intense, believable and because this is a secret agent requirement....he's impeccably cool. It doesn't hurt to have some fellow bad-asses around, especially Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell, computer hacker to top all hackers, and Jean Reno as Kreiger, a livewire who is as unpredictable as the missions they're on.

A good action movie -- espionage or just straight crazy ridiculous shootouts and hand to hand combat -- needs one thing to be memorable; set pieces that rise above the movie. Mission: Impossible has three, dominating much of the movie's 110-minute running time. Let's start at the beginning. The first 30 minutes is the botched mission in Prague, setting a tone where nothing will be predictable (okay, maybe a little, more on that later). Ethan's team (including uncredited parts for Emilio Estevez and Kristin Scott Thomas) is wiped out in one of the great shocking openings ever. It's just different. You figure we're watching a team of agents we'll get to see, and then BAM! They're all dead. One of my favorite movie openings ever.

That's just for starters though. Mid-movie, Ethan and Co. infiltrate CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in a sequence that all action directors should watch and analyze. Dropping into an impregnable vault that is virtually inaccessible with sensors for heat, sound and movement, Ethan must steal the NOC list, the names and locations of every MIF agent worldwide. An extended sequence with little dialogue, it is the definition of tension, the type of mission where the tiniest thing could ruin it all. And the ending? A chase through the subway under the English Channel with a helicopter strapped to the speeding train? Ethan battling it out on top? EPIC. One, two and three very memorable set pieces when just one would have made it worthwhile.

Some twists late in the movie aren't exactly surprising if you're paying attention, but the reveal of the treacherous mole is handled so well via flashback you shouldn't be disappointed. Rounding out the cast is Jon Voight as Phelps, Ethan's long-time mentor and team leader, and the always creepy Henry Czerny as Kittridge, the CIA agent gunning for Ethan. What else to mention? Action-driving music from Danny Elfman, including the always fun M:I theme, listen HERE. Director Brian De Palma has a real winner here, a great start to a great franchise. I don't want to spoil much, but starting HERE Youtube offers nine different key clips. Can Ghost Protocol be out now?!?

Mission: Impossible <---trailer (1996): *** 1/2 /****

Tank Force

2011-12-16T09:39:00.000-06:00

Running for two season in the 1960s, The Rat Patrol was a fun, little show following the exploits of the real-life Long Range Desert Group. Yes, it was ridiculous, four men taking on seemingly the entire German army in North Africa without taking casualties, but it was entertaining and a lot of fun to watch. Released in 1958, British war flick Tank Force seems almost like a dry run for the short-lived TV show.

Caught up in a chaotic back and forth battle, two British tank crews, one commanded by an American, Sgt. Thatcher (Victor Mature), and the other by Sgt. Kendall (Leo Genn), are captured by German forces. They are transported to a makeshift prison camp where hundreds of other Allied prisoners are being held in the Libyan desert. Kendall goes along with the flow, joining the escape committee and joining in on the effort to pull off a successful escape. Thatcher on the other hand is looking out for himself, planning his own escape without checking in with the rest of the camp. His efforts piss off the other prisoners, but he has his reasoning. An SS officer is headed to the camp to interrogate Thatcher who has no intention of being around for that questioning.

Directed by future James Bond director Terence Young, 'Tank' is a forgettable if entertaining WWII story. I enjoyed it, but didn't love it and probably won't feel the need to revisit again anytime soon. Part tank battle, part POW escape story, it's heavy on action and short on story and any sort of reality. It is entertaining though, and a WWII story that focuses on the 1942 North Africa campaign is rarely dull. Desert warfare always makes for interesting, unique viewing, and an escape across that desert with murdering Arab tribesmen, Italian and German forces on patrol and waiting is a cool premise.

American and British, a natural and historical rivalry, so in step Mature and Genn. Their dynamic is easily the best thing going in 'Tank.' They both want the same thing but go about it in polar opposite fashion, Mature's Thatcher on his own and Genn's Kendall as part of the team. Only when their backs are against the wall do they decide to work together. Their rivalry actually consists of a handful of scenes where they argue back and forth, but seeing the brooding intimidating American -- with an interesting backstory at that -- and the stuffy shirt, prim and proper British soldier going at it certainly keeps the action going.

Filling out Tank's Rat Patrol is a small but international bunch, starting with Anthony Newley as Pvt. 'Tiger' Noakes, Kendall's driver and all-around optimist. Nothing seems to rattle him, and he's always ready with a joke like most of Newley's supporting parts were. Bonar Colleano plays Walewski, the Polish POW who teams up with Thatcher in his escape efforts. Ready and willing to kill to preserve his own well-being, it certainly adds a darker dimension to the group. Some other familiar faces include Sean Kelly, Percy Herbert, David Lodge and Alfred Burke as the other British prisoners. Future Bond-girl/villain Luciana Paluzzi has a small part to as Carola, an Italian woman aiding the escape effort.

Not surprisingly, the action is what will draw most viewers in. Escaping the prison camp, Thatcher, Kendall and crew cut a swath through North Africa a mile wide, taking out Germans and Italians wherever they go. It's a fun movie overall that isn't great and isn't bad. Entertaining and forgettable but not much else. Probably worth a watch if nothing else.

Tank Force (1958): ** 1/2 /****

The Jack Bull

2011-12-13T08:21:00.000-06:00

Made for TV typically has a pretty negative connotation, but it doesn't have to. Made for HBO in 1999, The Jack Bull is a western with a lot of potential coming from a strong cast and clearly some production value. The story though gets tedious and repetitive, wasting away what is obviously a lot of talent in front of and behind the camera.

Running his modest but successful spread in 1880s Wyoming, horse trader Myrl Redding (John Cusack) has been wronged by local rancher Henry Ballard (L.Q. Jones). In lieu of cash, Ballard takes two of Redding's prize stallions as payment only to mistreat the animals to the point of near-death. Seeking retribution, Redding steps into a world of trouble when the crotchety Ballard refuses to even admit a wrong was done. He tries to go about it the legal way but is met by the rancher's corrupt ways. When all else fails after his family gets involved, Redding goes down the route of vigilante with a small army of gunmen. With Wyoming seeking statehood, the conflict is magnified as the state government tries to step in.

The western at its most simple -- and often times its best -- is typically the always present and always topical good vs. bad. Simple as that. As the west expanded in the 19th Century, individuals were often led to that choice. Stand up in the face of bad/evil, or fold and let good be defeated. That's the premise here in 'Jack.' More than anything, a man must stand up for what he believes in, even when it seems a foolhardy venture. There is right and wrong so pick your side as Cusack's Myrl does. That premise is fine and dandy, but it gets beaten to death in this story. We get it. Myrl wants justice done no matter what it takes. Repeat that for two hours.

While I've always been a fan of John Cusack, that doesn't necessarily mean I think he's a great actor. This part clearly shows his acting ability. His Myrl is the prototypical good hero. He's a family man (with wife Miranda Otto and son Drake Bell) who wants to build up a life, a successful one. Myrl is a man of principle though, a trait that gets him in more trouble than he ever imagined. Cusack brings a humanity to the part, a necessary feature of the lead character here because otherwise his intent gets lost if we don't side with him. Some of the best scenes in the movie are those quiet moments with his families or his crew, including cowboy Woody (John C. McGinley) and Crow Indian and horse wrangler, Billy (Rodney A. Grant). There is a tragic element to the character, but like so much here it gets lost in the shuffle in the movie's second half.

So I love a good old-fashioned gun fight like anybody else, but I can appreciate a more cerebral western too. Directed by John Badham, 'Jack' tries to be more intellectual, leaving the shoot 'em up angle by the wayside. The problem is that without much in the way of action, we're left to focus on the dialogue and the drama and a story that does a lot of meandering getting anywhere. By the 30-minute mark, I was bored. The story is interesting, but the execution of that story lacks any energy at all. It bounces around far too much, and by the last 30-45 minutes it completely comes off the rails. It was marketed in the wrong fashion to me at least (nice job there, Netflix) so maybe I was just expecting something different. Whatever the case, a slow-moving story without much of a payoff is not a positive.

Boring story maybe, but the cast is pretty solid top to bottom. It's great to see western icon L.Q. Jones playing the bad guy, and he looks to be having a lot of fun doing it. John Goodman plays Tolliver, a judge called in to deal with the quickly escalating case with Scott Wilson, Jay O. Sanders and Kurt Fuller playing other varieties of corrupt government officials. McGinley and Grant are excellent in supporting parts as Myrl's hands at his little ranch to the point where the story would have been infinitely better with more of them around. Disappointing in the end though because the potential was there. Probably best for die-hard western fans more than anyone else.

The Jack Bull <---trailer (1999): **/****

Apache Blood

2011-12-10T11:49:00.000-06:00

Included as part of the 44-film spaghetti western collection I bought last year, the description of 1975's Apache Blood should have sounded alarm bells in my head. I didn't recognize anyone in the cast, and it sounded like a cheap knock-off of Chato's Land and Man in the Wilderness. I take that back. That is an insult to both those movies. This movie is awful, simply awful. One of the worst I've ever seen.

When his village is wiped out by a cavalry troop, Apache warrior Yellow Shirt (Ray Danton) goes on the warpath with a small band of braves. A small five-man patrol commanded by Lt. Hawkins (Troy Nabors) has received orders to return to the fort, but is slowed down when their scout, Sam Glass (Dewitt Lee), is attacked by a bear. Badly wounded, Sam is left for dead by the patrol and must now fend for himself. Nothing is going to stop Yellow Shirt though, and with no supplies and barely any water, Sam must race across the desert to safety before the Apaches catch up to him.

Through the good, bad and awful, spaghetti westerns almost always have their charm (however twisted and/or bizarre). The only problem? Apache Blood is not a spaghetti western. It was made by Americans with Americans for Americans....very poorly. Filmed on a shoestring budget in the Arizona desert, there is little redeeming about the effort. Lee was the writer here, but from the finished product, I'm guessing he came up with an idea more than an actual script. Dialogue? Yeah, that must have been left on the cutting room floor. Here's a quick synopsis. Scout hurt, scout left behind, scout runs, Indian chases him. That's literally the entire movie with maybe 20 lines of dialogue the whole way.

That all leads me to a somewhat out there conclusion. Is this dreck supposed to be some sort of existential hogwash, a western story at its most simple? Survival above all else, is that all it could be trying to say?...............No, it's just an awful movie. The above questions would require some sort of pre-production planning that I'm pretty sure didn't happen in preparation for Apache Blood. It reeks of amateur, homemade movies, friends going out into the desert with a video camera and goofing around for a couple hours. Acting? Not so much. Interesting story? That neither. Let me get back to you on something worthwhile, even mildly positive.

'Apache' clocks in at an epically long 89 minutes. Want a shortcut? With so little dialogue, I watched it on fast-forward in about 40 minutes. Whole scenes have Lee's Sam walking across the desert, the camera following him. Cut to Danton's Yellow Shirt doing the same albeit at a quicker pace. Repeat that 10 to 15 times, and you've got a movie. A chase story could/should have been interesting, but this is dull, repetitive and did I mention dull?

A saving grace out there is that this is an exploitation western. Lots of violence -- somewhat graphic -- "highlights" the Apache on cavalry action. It is bizarre in a sense concerning the violence. It can't get anything else right, but the frontier violence? Oh, they hit that one on the nose. The ending itself borrows generously from the infinitely better The Naked Prey, but it packs a surprising punch. One of the meanest, dirtiest, downright vicious endings I've ever seen, and then in a 3-minute recap of sorts, we see everything else from the movie's first 80 minutes. Bizarre doesn't begin to describe this train wreck. In a sick, weird way, the general oddness of the last 10 minutes makes the first 80 or so somehow worthwhile.

If for some reason you enjoy torturing yourself, this movie is available in its public domain glory to watch at Youtube. It starts HERE with Part 1 of 7. Enjoy....if you can.

Apache Blood (1975) zero stars/****

The Iron Mistress

2011-12-07T11:59:00.000-06:00

Born in 1796, Jim Bowie packed a hell of a lot of living into his 40 years. An adventurer, a frontiersman, a slave trader, land owner, and knife fighter, Bowie did it all before his death at the Alamo in 1836. Most famously, he's known for inventing a particularly nasty-looking knife that was named after him, the Bowie knife. Why then with a life as adventurous and exciting as his is the 1952 bio-pic The Iron Mistress so dull?

Traveling to New Orleans in 1825, Jim Bowie (Alan Ladd) is looking to sell lumber from his family's mill. A backwoodsman more comfortable in the bayou, Jim is more than a little uncomfortable in the big city. He meets Narcisse (Douglas Dick), a well-to-do French land owner, and is then introduced to his sister, the very pretty Judalon (Virginia Mayo). Jim is drawn to her instantly but quickly discovers trouble surrounds her wherever she goes. The young knife fighter wants bigger and better things though, wants riches of his own. Land, cotton, slaves, it doesn't matter. Young Mr. Bowie intends to take the world by storm.

To say that this 1952 biography plays fast and loose with the history is a generous statement. What's true? There was a man named Jim Bowie, he had a wicked-looking knife created for him, and he was in Louisiana and Texas in the 1820s and 1830s. Other than that? This could be any movie about an enterprising young businessman. I'm a fan of Bowie historically and anything remotely connected to the Alamo, but even I can find little redeeming in this story. It drags along at 109 minutes -- but feels much, much longer -- and is bogged down in the period look from the costumes down to the sets. The story simply tries to do too much, never focusing on anything specific, or for that matter....interesting.

The movie's fatal flaw comes in the casting. I'm not a huge fan of the typically wooden Alan Ladd to begin with, but he is a poor choice to play Bowie. The real-life Bowie was a particularly nasty guy so right off the bat Ladd is backed into a corner with this 1950s whitewashing of the historical, real life person. But whitewashing or not, Ladd appears to be sleepwalking. He gives Bowie little to no personality through his adventures. Even Sterling Hayden in The Last Command was better than Ladd. Of a big cast that leaves little positive impressions, Mayo is all right as the manipulative Judalon, Joseph Calleia plays Moreno, Bowie's opposition (later starring in John Wayne's The Alamo), Anthony Caruso the treacherous Sturdivant, and George Voskovec as a Quaker friend of Bowie's.

A movie about a famous knife and its creator doesn't disappoint in that regard. Several knife fights highlight the otherwise slow-moving and dull story. One has Bowie strapped at the wrist to Caruso, fighting in a ring surrounded by a mob. Another has Bowie running from armed riders trying to kill him, and even the infamous Sandbar Fight is dealt with in surprisingly gruesome fashion. The best scene by far has Bowie -- armed with his knife -- fighting a man armed with a sword in a darkened room. A beautifully put together, tension-packed sequence, great to look at and exciting on top of it. Also a plus, the scene where blacksmith James Black (David Wolfe) creates the original Bowie knife.

Returning to the actual history, the story picks up in the last half hour as Bowie heads to Texas where he meets future wife Ursula De Veramendi (Phyllis Kirk), the daughter of the governor. This last half hour has solid pacing and actually picks up some momentum heading into the finale. The ending itself is ridiculous, basically setting up the last few years of Bowie's life without his knife. It is a deeply flawed biography of a very interesting historical figure with just enough going for it to mildly recommend.

The Iron Mistress <---TCM trailer (1952): **/****

The Pelican Brief

2011-12-03T09:58:00.000-06:00

Serial killers, lunatic murderers, freaky alien attacks, deranged animal assaults; all creepy and scary in their own way, all played up in all sorts of movies. What could be the creepiest thing? How about a government meant to protect and look out for its people up to all sorts of shady activities? Conspiracies left and right with millions and even billions of dollars on the line to the point where a few lives don't matter. Nothing flashy, just good entertainment, 1993's The Pelican Brief.

Two U.S. Supreme Court judges have been assassinated, and no one knows where to start. A Tulane law student, Darby Shaw (Julia Roberts), starts her own investigation and gives her findings to boyfriend/law professor, Thomas Callahan (Sam Shepard). The brief she's written seems a little far-fetched, but in the intelligence community it has hit a nerve. Anyone associated with the brief starts turning up dead, leaving Darby to assume she's next. She turns to an investigative reporter, Gray Grantham (Denzel Washington), working in Washington D.C. for help. Darby and Gray begin to look into her findings, realizing they've stumbled into something bigger than them. Can they prove the brief as accurate before they too are taken care of?

Any movie based off a John Grisham novel is off to a flying start so 'Pelican' earns points before the movie has even started. Directed by Alan J. Pakula, this government thriller is polished and professional, well-told and well-executed. It keeps you guessing, giving you that uncomfortable feel of a shady, sinister government up to no good. Would you expect anything less from the director of All the President's Men? The movie is maybe a little long at 141 minutes, but it doesn't drag, staying true to Grisham's novel. James Horner's score is a good one, using samples from Glory and Braveheart among a few other recognizable stings.

Starring together in 1993, Roberts and Washington were two of the rising stars in Hollywood. As so many reviews point out, no one does distressed and terrified quite like Julia Roberts. Playing Darby Shaw, Roberts does a good job of making her character frazzled without being obnoxious. Seeing what she sees? I don't blame her being frazzled. She composes herself and turns it outward, intending to prove her theory right. As the bloodhound-like investigative reporter, Washington has the best part as Gray. He can sniff out a story and get it to print like few others can. Once they meet about halfway through the movie, 'Pelican' picks up some, Roberts and Washington showing off an easy-going, likable chemistry. Good performances to lead the way.

Like any good thrillers, this is a movie that unsettles you in an incredibly smart way. They aren't 'Gotcha!' moments. Instead, they're quiet moments that build up the tension. Is someone waiting around a corner to kill you? More importantly, who's behind all this killing? The idea/premise of a government agency with all its resources trying to kill one person is what so many government thrillers are based in. What's one little murder to people like that? You never know when they'll strike or where, and that's where 'Pelican' works so well.

The performances in support of Roberts and Washington are something else. With a long list of speaking roles, most are only around for two or three scenes so enjoy them, and don't blink! Robert Culp is particularly memorable as the President of the United States, Tony Goldwyn playing his shifty Chief of Staff. Stanley Tucci is startling as Khamel, an assassin with seemingly no rival. John Lithgow plays Smith, Gray's beaten-down but trusting newspaper editor. Playing the head of the FBI, James Sikking is just the right amount of ability and paranoia, balancing out someone turning on him at any time. Even Hume Cronyn makes a quick appearance as an aging Supreme Court Justice. That is by no means all of the names worth mentioning, but the list could go on for several more reviews. Lots of talent assembled here, lots of recognizable faces.

I was surprised to find a relatively modest 6.3 rating out of 10 at IMDB for this movie. It isn't anything that new, and the ending is a little too tidy, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. Well-written and with good performances from top to bottom. You can't ask for too much more in a movie.

The Pelican Brief <---trailer (1993): ***/****

Target Zero

2011-12-01T00:04:00.000-06:00

Cliched, familiar, flawed, been there and seen that, all things that came to mind while watching 1955's Target Zero, a Korean War story of a lost patrol trying to make it back to their own lines. I've seen this movie before with a different title, and typically I always like them. With a fun couple tweaks here, I liked this one too even if it could have been a B-movie classic.

After a day of heavy fighting, U.N. staffer/nurse Ann Galloway (Peggie Castle) finds herself behind enemy lines with no way to get back to safety. A British tank crew (commanded by Richard Wyler) stumbles upon her and picks her up, the battle-scarred tank running across the remnants of an American patrol, commanded by Lt. Flagler (Richard Conte). Working together, the ragtag group hopes to make it back to American lines, Flagler insisting they head for a strategic hill position. Can they make it through a gauntlet of North Korean soldiers? Will anyone even be at the hill if they make it?

The Lost Patrol, The Steel Helmet, Anzio, this story has been done before and will most likely be done again. The story of a small group of survivors banding together to make it through enemy-infested territory is nothing new to any war movie, Korean or not. But as is the case here, it's just familiar enough to be a fun ride to go along with. Flagler's patrol unknowingly walks into a minefield, hides out as a North Korean patrol walks by, fights among themselves. You name it. You've seen the stereotypes elsewhere if you've even seen a couple war movies. If you can get past the cliches -- or at least go along with them -- you'll most likely enjoy this movie at least a little bit.

Filling out the unit, I had trouble going along with Conte as Lt. Flagler, the idealistic officer who lives for his company and nothing else. Conte's a better villain than a leading man, and I don't see the appeal or respect his men have for him in 'Target.' His patrol includes Charles Bronson as the loyal sergeant, Chuck Connors as Moose, the radioman, L.Q. Jones as O'Hara, the fast-talking Southerner, Strother Martin, Abel Fernandez as Geronimo, an Apache, Don Oreck as Della Nueva, a Latino boxer, and an uncredited and unlisted Richard Park as Pvt. Man Koo, a South Korean soldier. The British tankers include John Alderson and Terence Marney while John Dennis and Aaron Spelling play two American soldiers picked up carrying a mortar tube and little else. Cool little group, Bronson standing out along with Connors and Jones.

Early on, I was more than pleased to see Castle's Ann introduced into the story. A female nurse along for the trip was certainly a unique addition to the story. It takes about 30 minutes before she falls madly in love with Conte's Flagler. She loves him because he's good to his men, because he's driven, because he's a good leader. Yeah, that's awesome. Their scenes together try to explain war, figure it all out, talking about death and moving on, finding a way to cope. Someone picked up War Movie Dialogue Cliches 101 and turned it into a script. Castle's performance is fine -- nothing against her -- but these scenes are painful to watch.

At times playing like an episode of Combat (that's a compliment, I love that show), 'Target' is at its best dealing with the action. It was filmed at Fort Carson, an Army base in Colorado, and it has a great look of a stark land -- in black and white at that -- where anything could happen and anyone could be hiding. Thanks to the filming location, there's also some great aerial footage of fighter jets helping the patrol. The ending certainly influenced 1962's Hell is For Heroes, the patrol stranded on a lonely hilltop ready to face an attack from the North Koreans.

The set-up and intro to that action finale is impressive, but the execution -- or lack of -- is a little disappointing. With a unit picture, usually some men in said unit get picked off, dying in battle. Not here (that page of War Movie Cliches must have fallen out). Everyone makes it. A darker ending is hinted at, including killing Castle's Ann before the North Koreans can get her, but 'Target' doesn't go that far. It's still an entertaining if flawed movie, worth a watch.

Target Zero (1955): ** 1/2 /****

The Bandit of Zhobe

2011-11-28T00:13:00.000-06:00

Late this summer I reviewed 1956's Zarak, a quasi-historical epic that was entertaining for all the wrong reasons. Epically bad choices in casting, lack of story and character development, all lost in a search for that epic scale which was never really there to begin with. So how do you improve on it? Well, long story short, you don't. Made three years later, 1959's The Bandit of Zhobe is almost scene-for-scene the exact same movie.

A chieftain of an Indian tribe (India, not Native American) on the frontier, Kasim Khan (Victor Mature) has his family and life torn apart from him, his tribe massacred in a brutal massacre led by Azhad Khan (Walter Gotell), a rival chief who leads the attack with his men dressed as British troops. With a small but loyal group of followers, Kasim becomes a bandit, terrorizing British interests in the area. The regional commander, Major Cowley (Norman Wooland), would like nothing more than to get his hands on the bandit, but Kasim avoids him at every turn. Cowley's daughter, Zena (Anne Aubrey), believes Kasim deserves a chance to know the truth, but can she get him to believe what actually happened?

I gave a marginally positive review for 1956's Zarak (read HERE) in July. The TCM website inexplicably listed this quasi-sequel/remake as a western, but it was apparent almost immediately that this was basically the same thing as Zarak. Check that, it's not basically the same thing. It is the same thing. Mature plays the same character risen from the dead, Wooland the capable British officer trying to arrest him, and Aubrey the oddly out of place possible love interest. Maybe studios thought audiences were stupid enough to forget. Maybe the studios just didn't care, seeing a cheap chance to make some money. Yeah, that second one sounds more appropriate.

For whatever reason and having seen the two movies about four-five months apart, I liked 'Bandit' considerably more than its predecessor. Go figure because I certainly can't. The same problems are there -- little story, just a running series of battles, no character development -- but I went along with it this time. Hoping to capitalize and make some easy $, the studio reuses countless shots and whole sequences. Watch them back-to-back and you'll see at least 15-20 minutes of footage pop up in both films. The battle scenes are ripped from Zarak in their entirety and dropped into this movie. The positive? The Zarak battles scenes were the best thing going for that movie, and not surprisingly they work here too.

Looking like he's phoning it in for a paycheck, Mature says about 18 words the whole movie. Those words are growled and muttered. He is the star of the movie with name recognition only, nothing else. The focus instead turns to his British counterparts. Anthony Newley plays Cpl. Stokes, the somewhat goofy British soldier placed in charge of watching the major's daughter and not enjoying his duty at all. Some comedy but not too much thankfully. Aubrey is the innocent one, sure she can figure everything out without anything bad happening, Wooland the veteran officer trying to avoid a full-scale war breaking out.

So this isn't much of a shocker, but for a 1959 British movie generally forgotten and made on the cheap, there isn't much info out there about 'Bandit.' I'd like to say where the movie was filmed, but I honestly have no idea, and I can't find that information anywhere. So what to say? In Italy or Asia or wherever 'Bandit' was filmed, it is a starkly shot but certainly visually interesting film. The TCM print was in pan-n-scan too, and it still looked good. That speaks to something. An average movie for sure, but one I enjoyed. I'd say watch Zarak too, but the pure awesomeness might blow your mind.

The Bandit of Zhobe <---Youtube scene (1959): ** 1/2 /****

The Man Inside

2011-11-25T00:28:00.000-06:00

One of Britain's great character actors, Anthony Newley was honored on Turner Classic Movies recently with a day devoted to his films. A familiar face who often play sidekicks and partners to the star, Newley was always a welcome face when I stumbled upon him in cast listings. While he provides some odd yet still funny comedic timing in 1958's The Man Inside, even Newley and an impressive cast can't save the movie.

Having planned the robbery for 15 years, Englishman Sam Carter (Nigel Patrick) walks into a diamond exchange in New York City and steals a diamond worth over $700,000. The success comes from the simplicity of the job, and now no one -- including the police -- know where to start looking for Carter or the diamond. Milo March (Jack Palance), a private detective, is called in to see what he can find trying to pick up the crook's trail. March finds himself globe-trotting, following Carter to Lisbon, Madrid, Paris and London, always one step behind him. He keeps running into a mysterious Austrian woman (Anita Ekberg) who similarly has an interest in acquiring the diamond, and that's not all. Some very bad, very hard men don't care who gets hurt as they search for the rare diamond.

As I found out afterward, 'Inside' is not available on VHS or DVD so I was glad to stumble across it on TCM's schedule. It's nothing special and drifts along with its story more than a pointed, driven effort. Still, director John Gilling keeps it interesting if not always hugely entertaining. There are villains, but the type you assume will never successfully hurt a good guy. Said good guys betray each other, but you know they'll end up working together in the end. Part film noir, heist, and European tour guide, 'Inside' never really decides what it is. Drama? Comedy? Never great and never awful, decent enough way to spend 97 minutes.

Newley didn't get a mention in the plot review because like a lot of sidekicks, his part isn't essential to the story. The very British Newley plays the very Italian Ernesto, a taxi driver and guide in Madrid who meets Palance's March and ends up helping him around the city. He plays surprisingly well off the always intense Palance, providing some lighter moments with some running comedic bits that just shouldn't work, but well, they end up working. It's a good supporting part for Mr. Newley who always seems to be having fun no matter the role he plays.

It always feels like a cop-out when I write about this in a review, devoting an entire paragraph to this particular aspect, but as was the case here in 'Inside' it is really good. Yes, here I go again with on-location shooting, Gilling filming much of his movie in Lisbon, Madrid and Paris. Filmed in a very stylish black and white, this very visual movie helped me as a viewer slog through some of the slower portions. And while it sounds obvious, a movie is just better when you see the actors actually in the locations, not a poorly done green screen effect. It's always pretty clear when the actor isn't actually in those glamorous European cities. To some, maybe it's a little thing, but it's a major selling point for me, and 'Inside' doesn't disappoint on that level.

The good and bad here is that the cast assembled is a good one, but they're not always given anything to do. Lots of travel scenes, lots of pointless talking that waste an otherwise talented cast. Palance's March is a step back from his usual psychotic character he perfected over his career. Still intense, but pulled back a notch or two. Human Barbie doll Ekberg is the femme fatale, playing all sides for her own gain. Patrick is the shifty Carter, the diamond thief who we know little about. Some more background would have been nice about the character, his motivations, his reasoning, something. Also look for Donald Pleasance as a Spanish organ grinder, Sid James as March's friend and supervisor Franklin, and Bonar Colleano and Sean Kelly as two hire guns after the diamond.

All things considered, a pretty forgettable movie. The cast is above average though, and it's a great movie to look at so there's just enough to recommend here. Barely, but still recommending it.

The Man Inside (1958): **/****

Horrible Bosses

2011-11-22T09:36:00.000-06:00

For the lucky ones among us, work ain't so bad. It's tolerable and even enjoyable at times. But who at some point in their adult life hasn't had one of those God awful, truly horrific bosses that make you want to rip your own ears off? If you don't qualify there, congratulations to you. Turning that fantasy of killing your boss into a feature length comedy -- this past summer's Horrible Bosses -- has never been so funny.

Friends since high school, Dale (Charlie Day), Nick (Jason Bateman) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) are all in some rather difficult situations at work in one way or another. With the economy in the tank though, they can't up and quit their jobs, much less tell their bosses off like they'd rather do. Drinking together one night, the three joke about killing their bosses, solving each others' problem with three nice, little murders. Okay, maybe it isn't a joke as all three decide this is their best alternative. With some help from a streetwise ex-con, Motherf**ker Jones (Jamie Foxx), who provides some "murder advice," the three friends go about planning some murders.

There's no way a comedic Strangers on a Train should work, but wouldn't you know it? It does. Murdering your boss(es) doesn't exactly sound like a bucket of laughs, but director Seth Gordon handles it in the right fashion. It isn't a drama with some comedic moments or even a dark comedy with some sinister laughs. This is down and out stupid funny movie with no pretensions of being anything else. Three long-time friends with no criminal background/experience in any way murdering their bosses? Bumbling their way through some 'recon' and 'intel'? The results are surprisingly hilarious with a very funny script from three different screenwriters (I'm too lazy to type and link all three names. Besides, do you care?)

Now onto the bosses, three roles that the actors are clearly having some fun with. The biggest part goes to Kevin Spacey as Harken, Bateman's manipulative tool of a boss with an ego the size of a blimp. Nobody does pretentious and smarmy like Spacey, having a ball playing a ridiculous over the cop comedic part. Jennifer Aniston gets to sex it up as Dale's boss, Dr. Julia, a dentist who takes every opportunity to sexually harass a recently engaged Dale. It doesn't seem so bad as his friends say. Aniston plays against type in a raunchier role than usual, and yeah, she looks phenomenal. Just saying.... And last there's an unrecognizable Colin Farrell as Pellitt, Kurt's cocaine-snorting freak of a boss. He's underused, but what's there is very funny.

As a long-time fan of FX's It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, I love Charlie Day's work as Charlie Kelly, the illiterate, generally clueless and all-around goof who can't mange to do anything right. Playing Dale here, he's by far the funniest of the three friends. Goofy at times to the point of crazy, Day shows that same talent he has in Sunny, if a little lighter and not as sinister. The same for Sudeikis who seems destined for bigger and better things than Saturday Night Live. The only misfire is Bateman who seems to be sleepwalking at times. He has some funny lines -- his exchange about street racing with a Prius is classic -- but he doesn't look too interested.

Along with Foxx in a scene-stealing part as MotherF'er Jones, the cast features a couple other small but worthwhile parts. Look for Donald Sutherland, Bob Newhart, Julie Bowen, comedian Ron White, and Ioan Gruffudd in small but extremely effective bit parts.

Something is missing from all the zaniness that I can't quite put my finger on. The movie is funny with some great one-liners coming out of a ridiculously preposterous predicament, but is it too goofy at times? They never seem to really take serious what's going on. Eh, maybe they don't need to. It's funny.

Horrible Bosses <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Hearts of the West

2011-11-21T00:17:00.000-06:00

Who among us at some point hasn't wanted to be a movie star? Even if it was just for a second, the glamour of the big screen looks awfully inviting. So how about a young country bumpkin getting started in the movies and finding out it isn't quite as glamorous as it looks? In steps 1975's Hearts of the West.

Hoping to become a western novel writer, young Lewis Tater (Jeff Bridges) heads west to what he believes is a writing school only to find it is a correspondence school and a con job at that. Still wanting to pursue his dream, Lewis runs afoul of the con men (Anthony James and Richard B. Shull) and ends up with some of their money. On the run, Lewis stumbles onto the set of a western being filmed in the desert and quickly finds work. He wants to be a writer above all else but starts off as a background player and stuntman, meeting Howard Pike (Andy Griffith) and a handful of other vets of the business. Somewhat naive and a little idealistic though, Lewis finds out everything isn't quite what it's made out to be.

Following your dreams and coming of age stories are pretty familiar story-lines, but that's not a bad thing. Bridges at 26 years old is probably a little old for the Lewis character, but he makes it work. A tad pretentious at times because he's so assured of his writing abilities, Bridges gives Lewis that solid mix of naive youngster and over the top, energetic where you can't help but like him. He meets people both good and bad, finding out that trusting others isn't always the easiest or best thing to do to advance yourself. Bridges is one of my favorites, and his performance here -- while not one of his most well known -- is a very strong role to lead the movie.

What works so well with director Howard Zieff's movie is the portrayal of an ever-growing business, movies. Set in the early 1930s, 'Hearts' is right in that time when studios were still trying to figure out how to make the transition from silent films to sound films, the focus here on the cheap western serials made with a quick turnaround. The good guys were very good, the bad guys very bad, and the stunt guys? Well, they just want to get paid. It is the little scenes and moments that made me laugh. Alan Arkin plays Kessler, a director who can manipulate like nobody's business, "motivating" Lewis by telling him the money they'll lose if a scene doesn't work. Bridges' ridiculously theatrical "death scene" has him twisting and turning, moaning and groaning before finally falling to the ground with a thud. A little window into one of Hollywood's most interesting eras, and a good window at that.

In an impressive supporting cast, Arkin and Griffith both stand out for all the right reasons. Arkin's Kessler is a supporting player to the story and not a necessarily important one, but Arkin makes the best of it. He isn't chewing the scenery, but it's close. He gets to ham it up a bit working with his cast, stunt men, script supervisors and film crew. Kessler goes from zero to 60 like nothing, providing some truly funny outbursts. In between The Andy Griffith Show but before Matlock, Griffith gets to show off his range, a fun character who's had years of experience in the business who also has a darker side. Bridges' Lewis clearly looks up to him, something that could come back to bite him. It's a great performance, both of them are, the strong parts that can bring a movie up a notch or two overall.

That's not all though with a very deep cast assembled for this movie-making film. Blythe Danner plays Miss Trout, a script supervisor who Lewis meets on-set. She similarly feels sympathy for him while also liking him and his genuine willingness to make something of himself. Donald Pleasence makes a quick appearance as A.J. Neitz, a movie producer with lots of pull all around Hollywood. Alex Rocco is underused as Earl, one of Arkin's assistants. Matt Clark and Burton Gilliam are two of the stunt crew who work with Lewis and Howard, putting themselves in harm's way for a small payday. Good cast from top to bottom.

Not much else to say here. Just a good movie, funny, sweet and a great look into the movies from behind the camera.

Hearts of the West <---TCM clips (1975): ***/****

The King and Four Queens

2011-11-20T16:36:00.000-06:00

Where to start with 1956's The King and Four Queens? You know, other than "I really didn't like it." Billed as a comedy western, it never amounts to anything and had me wondering where all that comedy went. Some interesting casting and a good director, but it is a story that would have benefited from a much darker, more cynical approach. Of course I say that about a lot of movies, but here goes anyways.

Riding into a lonely western town, Dan Kehoe (Clark Gable) has possibly stumbled onto riches more than he ever imagined. A bartender tells him of $100,000 worth of gold but with an interesting backstory. The four McDade brothers pulled off a robbery of the gold, but three were killed and one escaped and has been hiding ever since. The gold is believed to be guarded at Saddle Mound, the McDade ranch run by Ma McDade (Jo Van Fleet), and the four possible widows of the brothers. Dan has $ in his eyes, and he intends to get that gold, even with the protective Ma around, guarding her daughter-in-laws and the gold with her rifle. Let the charming and seduction begin.

This movie has 1950s American western syndrome. It has all the elements of a potentially entertaining, successful western but never finds a way to gel all those elements together. Even late in his career, Gable is a worthy leading man, and director Raoul Walsh was a more than capable hand with a story like this. Shot on location in Utah, the locations are stunningly beautiful, providing a great backdrop for a lackluster story that never goes anywhere. Composer Alex North's score doesn't leave much of an impression, positive or negative.

Like so many 1950s American westerns, 'King' goes more for the psychological edge which sounds weird considering it is a comedic western. At least, it's listed as that. It isn't funny in the slightest, and the story of a saddle tramp -- even one as charming as Clark Gable -- wooing four lonely, attractive and man-happy widows and their controlling, intimidating mother-in-law just isn't funny at its most basic. If you're going to make this a comedy, just commit. Make it ridiculous. Make it stupid, but you have to try and provide some sort of laughs.

This is going to sound ridiculous after I ripped the movie the last two paragraphs, but there were times watching this western where I couldn't help but think of a well-written play, if not Shakespeare along those lines certainly. If Walsh didn't want to commit to a slapstick comedy, then go the other way. Make this western the darkest thing you've ever seen. A saddle tramp charming, seducing and manipulating four attractive young widows to gain the gold they're hiding sounds like a naturally pretty dark scenario, but that's not the case here. Disappointing end result. Maybe there's potential for a Skin-a-max movie with this story. Who knows, it couldn't be much duller than this movie.

Working with what they've got in terms of a script, the cast does their best with what's in front of them. Gable is okay as Kehoe, but it isn't the most energetic part or most interesting. Jo Van Fleet has the strongest part as Ma McDade, family matriarch who's seen her family torn apart and is desperately trying to hold on to what's left. The widows include Eleanor Parker as Sabina, smart and crafty and up to something, Jean Willes as the fiery and hot-tempered Ruby, Barbara Nichols as Birdie, the dance hall girl, and Sara Shane as Oralie, the quiet, even meek widow. Look for Jay C. Flippen as a helpful bartender, Arthur Shields as a priest, and Roy Roberts as a curious sheriff.

Never a good sign when the best thing a movie has going for it is the location shooting. Dull western that wastes a decent cast. Thankfully it's only 84 minutes long. Still.....pass.

The King and Four Queens <---early scene (1956): */****

The Big Caper

2011-11-19T09:09:00.000-06:00

Nothing flashy, nothing new to the genre, I still very much liked 1957's The Big Caper. Solid cast, interesting B-movie characters, and some bad guys as part of a heist crew that are just too much to believe. A classic? Nope, but it's pretty good for what it is, an entertaining heist movie that doesn't try to be anything that it isn't.

Several months removed from his last successful job, Frank Harper (Rory Calhoun) has ran out of money and has found a new job, one that he could retire on if it goes through. A poorly guarded bank with minimal security twice a month holds the payroll for the Marine base and Camp Pendleton, and to Frank, the money is begging to be taken. He approaches partner and bankroll, Flood (James Gregory), who agrees to go along with the plan. As a set-up, Frank and Flood's girl, Kay (Mary Costa), move into town, buy a gas station and a house, setting up shop as a young, married couple. Creating an alibi, they live there several months in preparation for the job, and then Flood's crew shows up. Let the trouble begin.

The one twist on the familiar noir-heist thriller was the 'what if?' concept added into the story. Setting up a nice, little life for themselves, Frank and Kay become a part of suburban life. Frank makes a profit at his gas station, Kay creates a home for the "couple" and things are looking all around pretty good for them. Kay wants nothing more than to get away from the menacing Flood while Frank's tortured past and childhood seemingly won't let him appreciate what he has. Kay tries like crazy to convince him otherwise. We're not talking Shakespeare here, but it was nice to see at least some effort by a movie made to bring something new to the heist flick. The effort is very much appreciated.

A Just Hit Play favorite, Calhoun does what he does best here, the bad guy who maybe isn't so bad. He does the tough guy like nobody's business, treading that fine line between straight villain and flawed hero. It's good to see him in a non-western too where he got pigeon-holed throughout the 1950s. There's a definite chemistry with Costa, bringing some heart to their scenes together in idyllic suburban life. For you trivia fans, Costa was the voice of Princess Aurora in Disney's Sleeping Beauty so there you go. Being the more obvious sinister villain that he was born to play, Gregory is a scene-stealer, the crime kingpin who puts everything in motion. He doesn't seem like that bad of a guy until some problems arise pre-heist, and well, things go downhill from there. Not big names leading the way, but all strong performances.

This is a 1957 B-movie noirish heist story, and the bad guys have to be very bad to make Calhoun's Frank be sympathetic. Mission accomplished in that department. Let's start with some of Flood's crew, beginning with Zimmer (Robert H. Harris), an explosives expert who will create several diversions during the robbery. His flaw? He's an alcoholic pyromaniac who can never have too much gin. Next, there's Roy (Corey Allen), a fitness freak with some rapist tendencies, or at least some sexual issues that Flood plays up. There's also Harry (Paul Picerni), a ladies man and all-around dope, and Dutch (Florenz Ames), the safecracker who wants nothing to do with the crew or the take, just a flat rate for his services. Quite a crew to say the least, one of the more eccentric, eclectic heist crews I can think of.

So has any heist in a movie ever gone smoothly, including the getaway? Okay, the Ocean's 11 remake doesn't count. Of course George Clooney and Co. are going to pull off the job. It's pretty clear that this heist won't go smoothly. For starters, it's a supposed "easy" job, and we all know how that goes. Translation = Epic fail. The heist sequence -- about 20 minutes long -- is solid, ratcheting up the tension, but it is in the aftermath where 'Caper' falls short a bit. Yes, it's Doom and Gloom time. I wanted an epically downer ending, but the story and/or script just doesn't have the guts. It is far from a happy ending, but more could have been done. Still good, but it could have been great.

This movie across the board has a lot going for it. Director Robert Stevens keeps things moving with an 84-minute movie that is aided by some California locations and a jazzy score from Albert Glasser that is good in that really obvious way, music blaring to tell you what's coming next. Basically a completely forgotten flick, well worth checking out if you stumble across it.

The Big Caper (1957): ***/****

36 Hours

2011-11-18T00:26:00.000-06:00

Though I've written about this before, it's hard to avoid repeating it. Imagine a secret the whole world wants to know in this modern ultra-connected world and keeping that secret for months...successfully. In 1944, Allied forces kept a secret of the coming European invasion, keeping Normandy under wraps as the spot of the attack. How far would the Germans go to discovering that location? In steps 1965's 36 Hours.

It is May 31, 1944 and U.S. Army intelligence officer Major Jefferson Pike (James Garner) is sent to Lisbon to meet with a source who may have info on the German's knowledge of the coming invasion. He is one of the select few among the Allied forces who knows not only the location of the coming invasion but all its intricate details....and the Germans know it. He's drugged and kidnapped. How far will the Germans go to get that knowledge? Using a radical procedure developed by Dr. Walter Gruber (Rod Taylor) for a different result, the Germans intend to trick Pike into thinking it is 1950, and that World War II is long since over. With the invasion looming and working in a small window, can Gruber get the info out of Pike in time?

Intensely unique and original. That's the best description I can think of for director George Seaton's film, but somehow it is not enough, not appropriate enough. It is the execution of the first 75 minutes that make this movie special. In 2011, imagine a secret as big as the Normandy invasion.....exactly, you can't. This is a secret that kept the world captive for months and wasn't revealed. The D-Day invasion of June 6, 1944 was a world changer, an event that altered the course of history. Is the story true? Who knows for sure? It stands to reason though that with a coming event that could change the future of the world, one side would pull out each and every stop to see if they could influence that event.

So how does Dr. Gruber do it? Pike is kidnapped and drugged. His hair is dyed, a chemical is placed on his skin to age it, a solution dropped in his eyes to blur his vision, and he wakes up in a U.S. Army hospital in......1950?!? This is a vast conspiracy to get the information out of the Intelligence officer, Gruber telling him he has retrograde amnesia that cancels the last six years of his life. I won't go into a ton of details or reveals, but the movie and the story -- even resorting to an amnesia ploy -- works. It just works. Could Pike fall for it? Could he reveal Normandy as the location of the coming invasion? Would the German High Command even believe him if he told them? One of the most unique, well-told "gimmicks" (for lack of a better word) I've ever seen in a movie.

Three stars do the heavy lifting here in support of said-unique story. Garner is the unknowing dupe, the target. His performance isn't great because the movie doesn't require him to be great. His Pike doesn't have much to do other than look confused. Garner is still himself though, and his laid back, ultra-cool persona works....until he doesn't have to be laid back or ultra-cool anymore. Then watch out there, Germans, because you're in for it. Eva Marie Saint plays Anna, one of Gruber's "assistants," a nurse posing as Pike's future wife. Anna has been lifted from a concentration camp to help, her life used as a bargaining chip. Her character and its relevance certainly adds some gravity to the film, giving a heart to a WWII thriller.

The best part though is saved for Rod Taylor as Doctor/Major Walter Gruber. The brilliant mind behind the plan, Gruber is an American-born German, returning to Germany with his family when he was 16. His original intention with the plan of future-amnesia hypnosis (best description I can think of) was to "save" German troops returning from the Russian front, and it worked, helping them relax only to find out it's a few days later, not years. He has faith in his plan if not its intentions, and Taylor does a great job there. He balances the deception with a genuine concern for Pike, Anna and Germany as a whole as he feels pressure from the S.S. (including interrogator Werner Peters). He seems to know it but plods on anyways. Gruber is fighting a losing battle because he gets the information, he gets the Normandy location, but no one believes it. A great performance from Taylor with a tragic-tint to it.

With a story that unique and entertaining, it would be nearly impossible to keep up the momentum, and the last 30 minutes just isn't as good as the first 80 or so. It loses some of the perspective as the smart, well thought out angle heads back to the more traditional chase sequences. Still, the movie is a gem. It is beautifully shot in black and white and composer Dimitri Tiomkin's score won't disappoint. Even look for Hogan's Heroes' Sgt. Schultz, John Banner, in a small but key role late. Looking for something different in a WWII movie? Start here.

36 Hours <---TCM trailer (1965): ***/****

Vera Cruz

2011-11-17T00:21:00.000-06:00

When audiences saw 1954's Vera Cruz in theaters, I'm curious what their reaction was. Did they appreciate it, realizing they were seeing something new and different? Was it too much of a departure for western fans who liked their good guys very good and their bad guys very bad? It's easy to look back now and see the impact it made on countless other westerns, even heavily influencing the whole sub-genre of spaghetti westerns.

With the Civil War ended and his Louisiana plantation destroyed, former Confederate officer Ben Trane (Gary Cooper) heads south into Mexico looking to start over. He meets Joe Erin (Burt Lancaster), another American if somewhat younger, looking to prosper from the Franco-Mexican War. Joe has with him a gang of gunfighters, adventurers and saddle tramps so Trane joins them, signing on with the French forces, including Marquis Henri (Cesar Romero). They're hired to escort Countess Marie (Denise Darcel) to the port city of Vera Cruz, but something doesn't seem on the up and up. On the trail Ben and Joe figure out why. The Countess' wagon is loaded with $3 million in gold, and now all bets are off.

The Magnificent Seven, The Wild Bunch, Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy (For a Few Dollars More specifically), those are just a few of the movies heavily influenced by director Robert Aldrich's 1954 western. Vera Cruz was one of the first westerns to take a heavily cynical look at the west and all its violence and greed. It has a mean streak painted right up its back that few other movies couldn't even think of at different points. Little kids are used as hostages by main characters (supposed good guys), brutal betrayals wait around every corner, and the violence can be a little startling in its execution; not often shown but implied. One character gets lanced through the throat, others are shot point blank in the face, one Mexican revolutionary is cornered and run through by French lancers. Startling and effective, always entertaining.

The reason I mention 'Few Dollars More' is the relationship and uneasy partnership formed between Cooper's Trane and Lancaster's Joe, an obvious influence on Clint Eastwood and Lee Van Cleef in Leone's spaghetti western. Both fast on the draw, they form that partnership out of necessity and a certain respect, but that doesn't mean they have to trust each other. Cooper is the unquestioned hero/good guy, but even he has a darker side. Lancaster is easier to read, his Joe telling you whatever you want to here and going along with it as long as it benefits him. He'd betray you with the snap of a finger. Lancaster's devilish grin says all you need to know about his Joe Erin. They have a great back and forth consistently throughout the movie, two legends playing off each other effortlessly.

Filmed in Mexico -- similar locations to The Wrath of God -- Vera Cruz has a feeling of authenticity, of being right there in 1866 as the Mexican Juaristas fight Maximilian's French forces. Aldrich filmed in Technicolor, and the movie has a distinct look to it, somehow colorful and washed out. There are some great individual shots Aldrich does with the camera, one reveal of a plaza ringed with revolutionaries, the other a possible betrayal showing a line of gunmen waiting to turn. Hugo Friedhofer's score is probably the most mainstream thing going for the movie, a more traditional score, but that's not a bad thing. Little things definitely work here to boost up some cool, even iconic scenes like Ben and Joe showing off their abilities at a ball in Maxmilian's court.

Aldrich specialized in guy's guys movies, and his cast is impressive. Along with Romero is Henry Brandon as Capt. Danette, a smarmy French officer looking down on Erin's gang. Darcel is Lancaster's perfect female counter, a beautiful woman ready to betray anyone for her own good, with Sara Montiel playing Nina, a young Mexican woman hovering around the escort. Joe's gang of ruffians and gunslingers should please most western fans with some future stars involved, including Charles Bronson, Jack Elam and Ernest Borgnine while also including Archie Savage as Ballad, a black former Union soldier, James Seay and James McCallion. All smaller parts, but fun ones still, Bronson even getting to play a harmonica, foreshadowing Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West.

Clocking in at just over 90 minutes, Vera Cruz never really slows down, macho head games, showdowns, chases, ambushes and betrayals around every corner. Definitely stick this one through to the end. A Juarista assault on a French garrison has a ton of action, and the shootout among the gang is a doozy, especially the surprising ending. An above average, exciting and influential western, Vera Cruz is a must-see.

Vera Cruz <---TCM trailer/clips (1954): *** 1/2 /****

The Bedford Incident

2011-11-16T09:40:00.000-06:00

The Cold War produced countless worthy movies ranging from the intensely dramatic like the classic Fail Safe to the insanely sardonic and comedic Dr. Strangelove. One that has been criminally forgotten over the years is much more in the vein of Fail Safe and is a semi-classic in its own right, 1965's The Bedford Incident.

Assigned to write a story about navy life aboard a U.S. ship, journalist Ben Munceford (Sidney Poitier) is flown by helicopter to join the U.S.S. Bedford in a patrol somewhere off the Greenland coast. Aboard the destroyer, Ben meets its captain, Eric Finlander (Richard Widmark), a career officer with a long list of accolades. Finlander is after results even though the United States is not officially at war. Ben finds a crew pushed to their limits, ready to split at the seams as they "hunt." Off the Greenland coast, sonar spots a Russian submarine where it shouldn't be. Finlander orders the Bedford to track it, hoping to receive orders to make the sub surface and identify itself. Ben begins to question though. What is the captain really up to, and what does he hopes will happen?

Tension doesn't begin to describe this movie from director James B. Harris, and why it's been forgotten or not remembered with Fail Safe I will never know. Harris films in black and white, the Bedford the one and only location for the length of the movie. It's cramped and claustrophobic, an odd feeling in the immensity of the ocean. But with Finlander's crew, we feel pushed to far too. We're waiting for something to happen, a confrontation we always wait for but never comes. It becomes almost unbearable as the Bedford hunts a Russian sub -- dubbed 'Big Red' -- with Finlander pushing and pushing, but for what? What does he hope to accomplish?

That of course leads to the ending, one of the best final 20 minutes in a movie ever. In terms of its ability to leave you feeling unsettled and even a little queasy, 'Bedford' and its ending are top notch. It rivals Fail Safe for pure shock and surprise value, and in the same way tries to deliver a message about the lunacy of the Cold War, a very timely message for 1965 and one that still rings true now in 2011. I want to discuss the ending in more specific detail, but I don't want to take away the emotional impact it can and should have. Stick with this one through to the end, a sense of doom and tension building until the very last shot.

Having worked together twice previously, Poitier and Widmark show off a chemistry together that actors dream of. Poitier is the intellectual, the journalist trying to understand exactly why and what this destroyer is doing. Nothing adds up for him. Widmark is one of my favorites, but I think this may be his best and by far most impressive character. He's a strong leader but a flawed one, driven to the point of obsession, a patriot but maybe too far. His Finlander will protect America at all costs, no matter the cost. Their interview midway through the movie is a highlight, two very talented actors going toe to toe, Harris filming in a close-up of each man's face the whole time.

The DVD packaging pushes those two lead actors as selling points, but that's just some of a handful of impressive supporting parts. Martin Balsam plays Doctor Chester Potter, the new medical officer who arrives with Munceford, immediately finding that he's out of his element, especially with Capt. Finlander. A young James MacArthur is Ensign Ralston, a young officer who Finlander pushes and pushes, possibly too far. Eric Portman is a scene-stealer as Commodore Schrepke, a former U-boat commander serving as an adviser now to the Navy, an extremely gifted commander who sees Finlander for all his flaws and abilities. Also look for Donald Sutherland, Wally Cox and Michael Kane as members of the crew.

This is a movie that deserves better, or at least more recognition. It deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as both Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove, featuring strong performances from a deep cast, a unique tension-filled story, and one of the all-time great shocker endings. Definitely one worth catching up with.

The Bedford Incident <---trailer (1965): *** 1/2 /****

Drums Along the Mohawk

2011-11-15T11:28:00.000-06:00

As far as solid years go for a director, 1939 was epically successful for John Ford with three classic or near-classic films. The most well-known is Stagecoach, but Young Mr. Lincoln and Drums Along the Mohawk are two of my favorites too. John Ford doing an American Revolution story without most of the trappings and pitfalls that plague so many of his movies? Count me in, one of my childhood favorites and a movie I've seen countless times.

It's 1776 in upstate New York and newlywed couple Gil Martin (Henry Fonda) and his wife, Lana (Claudette Colbert) are moving into the wilderness, a frontier cabin in Deerfield near the colonial settlement at German Falls. The revolution has started, the colonies declaring their independence from Britain. In Deerfield and the Mohawk Valley, the war seems a long way off as Gil and Lana build up a new live for themselves, starting from the ground up. Colonists loyal to the British, Tories, have stirred up the Indian tribes though, and now the outnumbered colonists find themselves fighting in a war that looked like it passed them by. Right in the mix? Gil and Lana protecting their young family and homestead as the war rages on around them.

Movies about the American Revolution are few and far between so you've got to enjoy them as you stumble onto them. Imagine a Ford western transplanted back to the late 1770s and early 1780s with the British and Indians replacing the bandits and Plains Indians. I grew up watching this movie and have always loved it. 'Mohawk' was filmed in Utah -- not exactly a look-a-like for upstate New York -- but it is a stunningly beautiful movie, especially impressive considering the movie is over 70 years old. Throw in a Yankee Doodle themed score from Alfred Newman, and you've got all the elements for a winner.

Depending on the era, Ford had his favorite actors to work with, and in the 1930s and into the 1940s, Henry Fonda was his man, also starring in Young Mr. Lincoln. Fonda actually gets second billing to Claudette Colbert, but it doesn't matter in the long run. The duo is an ideal pair to play the young couple helping explore the frontier. Fonda's Martin is the experienced frontiersman while Colbert's Lana is the city girl not used to the difficult life on the frontier. They have a great chemistry together, and Colbert especially delivers a strong performance, transforming from the damsel in distress to the tough as nails frontier wife fighting it out with attacking Indians.

Now 1939 is identified as maybe the best year ever for movies -- check out the Academy Award winners and nominations HERE -- and 'Mohawk' earned one nomination, a fully deserving one for Edna Mae Oliver. Oliver plays Mrs. McKlennar, an aging widow who takes in the Martins when their house is burned down by a war party. Oliver hams it up like nobody's business, an older woman without a care in the world, oblivious to what anyone thinks of her. A great, truly funny performance. Also look for John Carradine as Caldwell, treacherous leader of the Tories, Ward Bond as Adam, a bachelor frontiersman and friend of Gil, Ford's brother Francis as Joe, a wily vet of the valley, and Arthur Shields as the bible-thumping Parson.

It can be funny revisiting a movie you grew up watching. This is one of the few that holds up just as well now as it did years ago. Ford's movie is surprisingly dark in portraying at least a semi-realistic picture of frontier life in the 1770s. The Utah locations give a sense of how alone and isolated people and families were. Raiding war parties could be anywhere waiting to strike. The battle of Oriskany is not shown, only told in retrospect by a wounded Gil. The monologue is better than any battle scene could have been. Romantic at times in its portrayal of colonial America, 'Mohawk' also has a decided darkness about it.

What I remember most about this movie though is the finale, an all-out assault on the fort at German Flats, the colonists and settlers attempting to hold back a much larger force of Tories and Indians. Not graphic but still manages to show some surprising violence, including one quick shot of an Indian holding a child above his head, seemingly about to toss the kid. The best though is Gil's race to get help, running across the countryside by three warriors. Simple and effective, it's a great chase sequence as is the whole finale.

John Ford, Henry Fonda, Claudette Colbert, a beautiful movie, great score, and a time in American history that so often gets overlooked in films. One of my all-time favorites, and just a great movie overall.

Drums Along the Mohawk <---TCM clips (1939): ****/****

Irma La Douce

2011-11-14T00:02:00.000-06:00

Tweaking my intro to Bell Book and Candle, here goes for another pairing. After starring in the highly successful The Apartment, it took Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine three years to star in another movie together, the odd screwball dramedy (drama-comedy) from 1963 Irma La Douce.

Rewarded a new beat for an act of bravery, naive Parisian cop Nestor Patou (Lemmon) goes on patrol, finding a street full of prostitutes looking for customers. He's unaware the girls, their pimps, and a hotel owner have to "look around" the obvious illegalities of the situation, and arrests them all. Among the girls is an affable, pretty hooker named Irma La Douce (MacLaine) who Nestor likes right away. Unfortunately, he gets fired for his actions and finds himself on the streets where he eventually meets, fights, and defeats Irma's "handler" (read: Pimp). Now, Nestor finds himself as Irma's handler. The only problem? He fell for her, and he fell for her hard. She refuses to leave the business so how can Nestor stop the woman he loves from sleeping with other men for money?

Anything strike you as particularly odd about the plot? Yeah, the story about prostitutes played for laughs. Director Billy Wilder pushed the boundaries throughout his career, but this one just didn't work for me in the least. There is just something skeevy with a story about a cop turned pimp trying to get the woman he loves to stop being a hooker with a crazy scheme, and by the way, it is a 1960s screwball comedy. Either ahead of its time by 10 years or so or just lost in the ether somewhere, 'Irma' is an oddity. There are moments of drama, comedy and sex jokes, but none of them work too well. It runs 147 minutes, and it feels it, every minute. Too long, not funny and/or serious enough, and proof that prostitution is not a good basis for a screwball comedy.

Filling out the elements of the screwball aspect is a "clever" scheme developed by Lemmon's Nestor that Lucy and Ethel would have been envious of in an episode of I Love Lucy. He doesn't want Irma sleeping with men for money so he poses as Lord X, an aging and very rich British man who pays Irma for her time and nothing else. He pays so much she doesn't need to "do business" elsewhere. It seems like a perfect plan, and it could be one of the dumbest gimmicks/schemes I've ever seen. Lemmon overplays his scenes as Lord X, the prim and proper stiff upper lip Englishman, and are we really supposed to believe Irma -- seemingly pretty intelligent -- doesn't see through the disguise? The story requires Irma not to notice so that's all the explanation needed I suppose.

During filming, MacLaine was apparently less than pleased with the script -- I don't blame her -- but her performance is nonetheless the best thing going for the movie. She was nominated for Best Actress for her titular part, eventually losing to Patricia Neal for her part in Hud. Playing Irma, MacLaine makes the character a hooker with a heart of gold, albeit with a weird sense of personal pride and ideals. Her introduction that is played over the opening credits is truly funny (watch it HERE), seeing her hustle her customers. As was the case with The Apartment, her chemistry with Lemmon is dead-on which makes it all harder to go along with. Comedy? Drama? Neither? Both? I wish Wilder would have chosen one route and stuck with it. It is surprising to see how much Wilder gets away with showing for a 1964 movie, MacLaine doing a handful of nude (<---discreetly covered in the right places) or partially nude scenes.

One other supporting part really impressed me, that of Lou Jacobi as Moustache, the owner of a bar where the pimps hang out while their girls bring in the cash. He apparently has had 20 or 30 previous lives with all the professions he claim to have done and all the knowledge he has floating around in his head. Standing behind his bar, Jacobi's Moustache dispenses wisdom and advice to anyone who will listen and some who won't. Not quite the straight man, he delivers his lines flawlessly, just that right blend of confidence and cocky, confused and helpful. Also look for James Caan in a wordless appearance as a soldier looking for a good time, his first part in a movie.

I was hoping the movie would end quickly when ta-da, the ending came along! Except it didn't make any sense, delivering a "twist" that defies logic. Wilder was famous for his off-the-wall endings that come out of left field, but this one was almost stupid in its surprise. A disappointing end to a movie that I never really got into despite Shirley MacLaine's Oscar-nominated performance. The link above is the first of 11 parts if you want to watch the whole thing.

Irma La Douce <---TCM trailer/clips (1964): **/****

Bell Book and Candle

2011-11-13T01:28:00.000-06:00

Working together in Alfred Hitchcock's 1958 classic thriller Vertigo, co-stars James Stewart and Kim Novak showed off an impressive chemistry that helped make the movie what it was. Stewart was Hitchcock's flawed leading man and Novak the icy blonde. So what's the natural progression as the two worked again later that year? Naturally from a murder thriller to a romantic comedy, 1958's Bell Book and Candle.

A modern-day witch, Gillian Holroyd (Novak) does her best to hide the fact that she is in fact, a witch. With her brother, Nicky (Jack Lemmon), a warlock, and aunt and fellow witch, Queenie (Elsa Lanchester), Gillian is limited by what she can do without revealing herself. Running her little shop of voodoo and primitive art, Gillian has developed a bit of a crush on Shepherd Henderson (Stewart), a big-wig publisher who lives in the building. Well, sort of a crush, it can only go so far with witches. When she sees that he's engaged, she puts a hex on him, one that makes him fall in love with her. As things develop though, can Gillian tell him the truth? Can she develop feelings for just a regular old human being?

Just a couple month after reviewing Sunday in New York, here comes another well-written, well-acted, charming and even sweet romantic comedy from the 1950s and early 1960s. Where have they gone? They're just good movies. Sure, they are based in some sort of alternate universe where stories like this could actually exist, but that's part of the fun. The obvious influence this movie had is on the classic 1960s show Bewitched, a modern-day witch with her family trying to hide her "witch-dom." These aren't mean, cruel or vindictive witches -- for the most part, don't mess with Novak's Gillian -- but instead witches that are hiding who they are and struggling with it, seeing an easy way to easy cash and riches but unable to do anything about it.

The romantic pairing of Stewart and Novak might seem a little odd when you really look at it. This was actually Stewart's final role where he played a romantic interest because apparently he didn't think he was suited anymore for that type of role. He was 50 at the time while Novak was 25. So I'm no mathematician, but that's 25 years difference in age, right? For me, the age discrepancy was not an issue. If an on-screen duo has chemistry, that's great regardless of age. It can carry a movie, and here the age difference makes no impression at all. Stewart and Novak are great together, romantically, dramatically and in terms of the more obvious plays for laughs. The relationship is completely removed from the much darker Vertigo so it's fun to see two talented actors switch it up.

While I've always been familiar with her name, this was only the second movie I've seen Novak in, Vertigo being the other. She was only in 28 movies during her career, not many of them hugely popular or widely well-known. In 'Bell Book' Novak is the best thing going here. She is funny and smart and her voice is so perfectly sexy you can't help but fall for the character. Okay, well, I did. I don't care if you didn't. All I can say? I'll be looking for more movies with her starring roles. Yes, I kinda fell in love.

The rest of the cast looks to be having a lot of fun playing off the witchcraft hijinks. Lemmon and Lanchester are hysterical together, a warlord and witch quite content with their special "talents" and "abilities." Lemmon has some great scenes as the bongo band leader of a house band at the Zodiac Club, a den for witches and warlocks. Ernie Kovacs gets to ham it up as the drunken literary expert on all things mystical, including trying to write a book for Stewart's Henderson about witches in New York, not realizing what he's stepped into. Hermione Gingold is funny in a smaller part as Bianca de Passe, the higher-up of all witches, the woman to go to when some special powers are needed.

Funny, charming romantic comedy that I enjoyed from the start. Stewart is very funny, and it's a bonus seeing him do some physical comedy -- his facial expressions are hilarious -- while Novak plays off him well and is gorgeous so she's got that going for. Director Richard Quine has a real winner here.

Bell Book and Candle <---TCM trailer/clips (1958): ***/****

Hard Boiled

2011-11-12T10:09:00.000-06:00

Stereotypes and cliches have to start somewhere when it comes to movies, don't they? That thought kept coming up as I watched director John Woo's 1992 action classic Hard Boiled. This is an action movie that has influenced countless other movies while also sampling for countless ones before it. Over the top is one thing, but this one was ridiculous.

Having worked on a gun smuggling case for months, veteran cop, Inspector Tequila Yuen (Chow Yun Fat) is finally making progress in taking down one of the true kingpins in the business, Johnny Wong (Anthony Wong Chau-Sang). But just as things are starting to click into place, Yuen is told to back off on the case. He's spent too much time putting his investigation together though and keeps on against orders. He finds out that one of Wong's associates, Tony (Tony Leung Chiu Wai), is actually a cop too working deep undercover. Teaming up, Yuen and Tony go about taking Wong down no matter what the cost, but this mobster has a few tricks up his sleeve too.

Within Woo's code as a director is a familiar plot device that has two opposites working together, putting their differences aside to get the job done. That is by far the best thing going for 'Boiled,' the teaming of Woo favorite Chow Yun Fat and Chiu Wau as the two cops fed up with the system they work for that limits them so severely. Of the two, I thought Tony was the more interesting character -- almost a dry run for the character he'd play 10 years later in Infernal Affairs, the inspiration for The Departed. He's tortured inside by what his job requires of him, and he all he really wants out of life is freedom. Either way, two cool characters who live by a specific code and intend to do their damnedest to live up to it.

John Woo basically equates to action, right? He's known for the crazy, ridiculous, beautifully and immaculately choreographed action sequences that Sam Peckinpah would have been proud of. With a 127-minute long movie, there are plenty of chances for that crazy, ludicrous action. The highlight is not surprisingly the finale, an almost 30-minute long sequence in a hospital full of hostages. Yuen and Tony shoot it out with a not-so-small army of mob gunmen while police and SWAT race into the building to help. I'm guessing about 938,484 bullets were fired overall to film these scenes, an orgy of gunplay, blood squibs and acrobatic spinning deaths.

That's where the stereotypes and cliches come in. First, I know there is no basis in reality in these action scenes. They are supposed to be so intentionally unrealistic that you just sit back and marvel at them. But at what point does it become too much? How many times can you see a bad guy take 75-100 bullets, blood squibs going off left and right, as he spins and groans and grimaces? There's also the good guys who dive and jump and throw themselves through windows without a scratch. All the cliches are here, my favorite being guns that fire over 1,000 rounds without needing to reload. The bad guys -- all of them, each and every one of them -- also suffer from that movie disease that affects nameless henchmen. They couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if they were pressed up against the wall.

The whole movie has that overdone feel to it. The score by Michael Gibbs is one of the worst I've ever heard, a mix of soft jazz -- Yuen is a jazz musician in his downtime -- and late 1980s electronica. Good combination, huh? Woo also consistently ends scenes with a quick freeze frame, a weird touch that I just didn't get. The biggest issue though is a general tongue in cheek feel. There are bizarre moments where you can't help but wonder if this should be taken seriously. Toward the end in the hostage situation, Yuen's girlfriend (Teresa Mo), must rescue a maternity ward full of infants. SWAT helps out, rappelling down the side of the building, babies in hand. She yells "I forgot a baby!" at one point, and I almost laughed. Yuen shoots his way out holding the baby the whole way. Woo is at his best with dark and cynical, not light and ironic with humor.

Other cool parts include Philip Kwok as Mad Dog, Wong's top killer, an expert with a variety of weaponry. He has a great scene with Tony in the hospital, a hired killer with a code of ethics of sorts. Philip Chan plays Superintendent Pang, Yuen's superior officer trying to get cases solved while protecting his officers. Chau-Sang is the hamming it up villain, looking to be enjoying himself. I loved Woo's The Killer but couldn't go along with this one the same way. Disappointed I didn't like this one more.

Hard Boiled <---trailer (1992): **/****

The Hanging Tree

2011-11-11T01:11:00.000-06:00

Playing again with perceptions, I have an image of Gary Cooper as the perfect leading man. No flaws, just a strong, resolute, good man that he so often plays with his characters. Call it Sgt. York Syndrome, or Friendly Persuasion Fever. I see more and more with his roles that he didn't have to play that character as he was capable of so much more, darker, more in-depth characters, like 1959's The Hanging Tree.

In the Montana hills during a gold strike in 1873, Dr. Joseph Frail (Cooper) rides into a gold boom-town and sets up shop. He quickly helps a young gunshot victim, Rune (Ben Piazza), who was shot but managed to escape while robbing the sluice of a miner, Frenchy Plante (Karl Malden). No one saw Rune to identify him, leaving only Frail that knows what he was caught attempting. Frail holds it over his head, insisting he work off his "bill" while not telling him that he threw away the bullet he dug out of his shoulder. Rune agrees, but news hits the town of a woman struggling to survive in the wilderness his problems are pushed aside. The woman, Elizabeth Mahler (Maria Schell), a Swedish immigrant, is found near death. Frail treats her, but questions arise about his intentions. Can the doctor's path come back to haunt him again?

It's odd to see a leading man in a role like this as Cooper plays. He is the star, but with an ensemble cast that features four key parts, Cooper is often pushed to the side in the second act. Of his time in front of the camera through, the screen veteran makes the most of it, again showing his darker, flawed side. His Dr. Frail means well in almost all of his intentions, but the execution of those intentions leave something to be desired. He wants to help those around him, but his manner of doing so is odd. Because he doesn't care what others think of him, Frail obviously rubs some people the wrong way. In the dark, tragic character department, he's also trying to right a wrong, redeem himself for a past action that hovers around him wherever he goes. Somewhat underused, but a great part for Cooper.

Because I feel the need to categorize every movie, I guess you can say this is a western...sort of. The TCM description/review said a movie that's 'Not for all tastes.' It isn't a shoot 'em up, guns blazing western. From director Delmer Daves, this qualifies more as a psychological western, focused more on the individual personalities and dynamics than the wild west action. All the characters are scarred in some way, flawed in another and thrust into this difficult time and place to survive in. Because of that, the pacing can be a little slow at times as the story struggles to pick up any momentum. It took me three different sit-downs to get through the 106-minute movie. When it works, it really works though.

It's also different from most westerns in the setting, the mountains and hills of Montana in the 1870s. There aren't gunfighters or cowboys and Indians. Instead, it's gold prospectors, shop owners, doctors, fanatical preachers, and even families with children around. The look of the movie is great, Daves filming the story in Washington. There is also a very entertaining and completely wrong toned theme song, sung by Marty Robbins. Give it a listen HERE. It's catchy. I'll give him that, even if it sounds like it should have been in a lighter western.

What works through some of the slower portions of the movie is the characters around Dr. Frail, especially Schell's Elizabeth. I probably complain too much about this, but if a western is going to feature a female lead, this is a good example. Elizabeth was traveling with her father when their stagecoach was held up, her father killed in the robbery. In the wilderness, she starts walking and barely survives, brought back to good health by Frail once she's found. She wants to start out on her own, creating a life for herself. Schell's Elizabeth is a good-natured but strong-willed woman, liking to think the best of people but knowing that isn't always the case. Granted, she's put into an unnecessary love triangle between Frail and Rune, but Daves handles it in the right way. Very solid performance and a strong female performance.

My only experience with Piazza was his small part in The Blues Brothers -- trust me, you'll recognize him -- but in his second feature film, he manages to keep up with Gary Cooper. Malden does what he does best, shows off his versatility. He could play good and bad, sometimes within the same role, like here. You know from his introduction he's up to no good, and a confrontation is coming. Karl Swenson is good as Fraunce, the general store owner and friend of Frail's, while George C. Scott has a small part as a Bible-beating "healer" who sees competition in Frail.

The movie picks up steam toward the last 30 minutes, a mob mentality taking over as the psychological effects start to kick in, the very powerful affect gold has on people. Startling in its brutality, the ending works although the final shot leaves the conclusion to your own interpretation. Slow moving at times, but a worthwhile, underrated psychological western.

The Hanging Tree <---TCM trailer (1959): ***/****

The Desert of the Tartars

2011-11-10T01:20:00.000-06:00

I'd like to think I'm not a movie snob. I try to be open with all movies, but as I've discovered the thousands and thousands of films out there, some are just more challenging than others. We're not supposed to like or enjoy them, or even hate them for that matter. You're just supposed to watch the film and experience it. You challenge yourself sometimes with movies like these, like 1976's The Desert of the Tartars.

Completing his three years at the military academy, young Lt. Drogo (Jacques Perrin) has received his orders, riding to his post with dreams and hopes of adventure and heroism. He has been assigned to Fort Bastiano, a lonely, isolated posting along the country's border. He finds that nothing is as he thought it would. The fort looks out over the desert and a horizon that hasn't seen the enemy -- the Tartars -- in years. Are they even out there somewhere across the desert? Days turns to weeks, weeks to months and months to years here at the fort. The officers and garrison watch time move past them at a glacial pace, questioning what they're doing at this post. Will the Tartars ever come back? Will they attack?

How do you describe a movie like this? It is based off a controversial novel by Dino Buzzati that for years defied a novel-to-film adaptation. At different points, 'Tartars' is surreal, symbolic, other-worldly, philosophical, existential and so much more. It is a movie about waiting and what if? What is coming? What do you do with yourself as you wait? It is an incredibly striking film -- both good and bad -- that I have little to no idea how to interpret. I found myself wondering if the setting was a variation on Purgatory, not Heaven and not quite Hell but clearly not normal life either. I can't say I liked the movie, but it has to be seen to be believed in its weirdness, eccentricity and existentialism.

My thoughts on the Purgatory-like setting come from the visual look of the movie. Italian director Valerio Zurlini turns out one of the most visually imposing movies I've ever seen, an almost apocalyptic setting that looks like it could be the edge of the known world. Zurlini and cinematographer Luciano Tovoli create a world, this isolated fortress completely removed from the real world, miles away from civilization and all it offers. 'Tartars' was filmed in Bam, Iran, the immensely spacious but sparsely occupied fortress becoming another character in the story. Spacious is a good way to describe the movie. It is an immense movie. The desert all around is bigger than it seems because of what it represents, fear, intimidation, and in a weird way...hope. What's out there? These men are driven to the point they welcome an enemy sighting. One of the most beautifully simple visual movies I've ever seen, aided by Ennio Morricone's haunting, almost classical score.

In a story where basically nothing happens for the 146-minute running time, your enjoyment -- or hatred -- of this movie will no doubt come from the characters and their development, their own personal handling of this bizarre posting. Zurlini and star Perrin worked hand in hand to get this movie done, Perrin even contributing much of his own money to help complete the movie while serving as one of the film's producers. He does an incredible job as the young idealistic Lt. Drogo, the inexperienced but very capable soldier who both resents and welcomes his posting to Fort Bastiano. Where this performance works, where all the performances work really, is that the actors bring these individuals to life without much in the way of dialogue. They say a lot with their faces, looks saying more than words ever could. Perrin is great at it especially, and the physical transformation Drogo goes through is remarkable. A very strong lead, one that trickles down to the rest of the cast.

Assembling an international who's who cast, Zurlini has a truly impressive cast here. Max von Sydow plays Captain Hortiz, posted at Bastiano the last 19 years and supposedly the last man at the post to see a Tartar on the horizon. Giuliano Gemma is Major Mattis, the obsessed, career-driven officer with little in the way of personal interaction. Jean-Louis Trintignant has a small part but a good one as Rivone, the post's doctor who sees the men disintegrating around him. Fernando Rey's Nathanson is the one officer who's seen combat but is a shell of himself after suffering a horrific combat wound. Vittorio Gassman plays Fillmore, the beleaguered commandant in a no-win situation. Helmut Griem is Simeon, Drogo's fellow officer and best friend at the post, the two men almost willing a Tartar enemy to show up. These are not showy performances, none of them calling attention to themselves, but that doesn't mean they don't make an impression.

Now this far into the review, you're probably thinking 'Hey, this is pretty positive.' And it is. I intended it that way. What works well here is a home run. What doesn't work is awful. I'm not exaggerating when I say that in 146 minutes almost nothing happens. Visual and beautiful to look at is one thing, impressive performances another, but NOTHING happens. Zurlini wants to put you to sleep, just like the characters on-screen. He wants to lull you into this uncomfortable silence, this possibly impending doom. Even a surprise in the final moments is so underplayed that it doesn't make the impact it could have. The final 30 minutes do pick up the pace -- thankfully and mercifully -- to the point where the ending is effective in that sense of doom.

So where does it fall in the end? The deliberately slow pacing no matter how much I try to push aside as a minor complaint just isn't. This was a difficult movie for me to get through especially considering the two-plus hour run-time. I'd like to believe the performances from the very deep cast and the incredible look of the movie are enough to recommend the movie, but even there I'm struggling. It is a movie that defies ratings in a way, but the positives are that good. Barely....just barely, I'll go positive here.

The Desert of the Tartars <---trailer (1976): ** 1/2 /****

Bandido

2011-11-09T09:29:00.000-06:00

Something about Robert Mitchum and Mexico just worked well together. Mitchum consistently returned to Mexico during his career for a handful of film roles, many of them playing similar characters. He specialized in the American adventurer making his way through the Mexican Revolution in movies like The Wrath of God, Villa Rides, The Wonderful Country, and 1956's Bandido.

It's 1916 along the U.S.-Mexican border, and American gunrunner/businessman Kennedy (Zachary Scott), traveling with his wife, Lisa (Ursula Thiess), has cut a deal with the Mexican government with an enormous shipment of arms, ammunition and explosives. Catching wind of the shipment, American adventurer Wilson (Mitchum) sees a chance for a huge payday. He approaches Colonel Escobar (Gilbert Roland), a revolutionary leader, about cutting his own deal, stealing the shipment and taking his fair share. Escobar is suspicious, but his forces desperately need the supplies. With so much on the line, everyone is ready to turn on each other.

Just a few weeks removed from reviewing Viva Zapata, here's a prime example of a Zapata western; the Mexican Revolution with adventurers, idealists, freedom fighters, opportunists and so many more fighting it out. It's not flashy here in director Richard Fleischer's film, but everything is handled in a more than capable fashion. For anyone familiar with any other Zapata westerns, you're going to feel like you've seen it before, the same characters, storylines and backstabbings coming down the road. Not a bad thing, just an observation.

Much of 'Bandido' was filmed on location in Mexico, and the movie benefits greatly from it. IMDB's Trivia section even says that many of the locations were the actual spots where Pancho Villa and his forces battled with the Mexican Regular army, adding a sense of authenticity to the proceedings. It looks like Mitchum, Roland, and Co. are part of the revolution. Mexico is a beautiful country, and Fleischer's camera certainly shows that.

What often comes out of these Zapata westerns are the uneasy alliances between the profiteering Americans and the more idealistic revolutionaries. Cue Mitchum's Wilson and Roland's Escobar. Anytime these two are together the movie is above average. Once they're separated? The story slows down far too much. Escobar dubs Wilson 'El Alacran,' a deadly scorpion just waiting to sting his victims, just one little example of how their scenes and dialogue together crackles. Who better to play an American adventurer without a care in the world than Mitchum? His laid back, 'I don't give a damn' attitude is perfect. Roland basically played the same character the year before in The Treasure of Pancho Villa, and he hams it up like nobody's business. A 'Ay Chihuahua' drinking game would be appropriate.

The two of them provide 'Bandido' with its "cool factor." Mitchum is introduced walking calmly through the middle of a battlefield in a bullet-riddled town. Overlooking the battle, he deftly pulls two grenades from his pockets and throws them at Mexican gun crews working artillery pieces and machine guns. His work done, he lights and cigar and pours a drink. Roland is the picture of smooth too as Escobar, always observing and planning, ready to join in as needed. He is an idealist, fighting for Mexico's freedom more than riches and fame. Together, the duo is the perfect Zapata western equivalent of the Odd Couple.

Unfortunately too much time is spent on other things, taking away from that dynamic between Mitchum and Roland. I think the movie wold have been significantly better if Kennedy, the gunrunner, and his wife were completely removed from the story. It's clear that Kennedy will make a deal with anyone that will pay him, and the same goes for Thiess' Lisa. Is it any surprise she will end up with Mitchum? Thiess -- not a great actress to begin with -- doesn't have much in the way of chemistry with Mitchum either. Other supporting parts include Henry Brandon (Scar in The Searchers) as Kennedy's German source working with the Mexican government with Rodolfo Acosta and Jose Torvay as two of Escobar's revolutionaries.

I do like this movie -- I've watched it twice over the years -- but I don't love it. The action is exciting, especially the finale on a barge loaded with supplies, Wilson and Escobar shooting it out with a company of Mexican soldiers. The cast is good, the locations gorgeous, and composer Max Steiner's score good if not great. It's an exciting popcorn movie, mostly worthwhile for Mitchum and Roland.

Bandido <---trailer (1956): ** 1/2 /****

Animal Kingdom

2011-11-08T09:58:00.001-06:00

American, English, French, Italian, Japanese, I've tried my best to review movies from all over the world, not just flicks from the good old United States. Well, add Australian to that list thanks to 2010's Animal Kingdom. A drama that received mostly positive reviews, the detractors were still out there. Too derivative, too much of stuff we've seen before. I'm not comparing it to the classic The Godfather, but it is in a similar vein in its story revolving around a crime family, albeit a smaller, less powerful one. Solid story, several nearly perfect performances, and a great soundtrack. Win, win and win.

When his mother overdoses on heroin, 17-year old Josh (James Frecheville) moves in with his estranged family, a family his mother intentionally isolated her son from. The Cody family, including family matriarch Janine (Jacki Weaver), has their hand in everything criminal, ranging from armed robbery to drugs. Josh is able to mostly avoid this criminal life until one of his uncles, Baz (Joel Edgerton), is gunned down by the police in an attempt to lure another uncle, Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), out of hiding. It seems now that there's no way for Josh to avoid the family name, especially when a detective (Guy Pearce) comes asking questions.

I stumbled across this film thanks to a preview/trailer on a Netflix DVD, and I'm glad I did. This was director David Michod's first feature film, and he certainly makes a positive, lasting impression. It is familiar without being too repetitive, and the comparisons to other recent crime thrillers (The Departed, The Town among others) aren't entirely fair. This is a movie that knows what it wants to do and how to get its message across. Understated and subtle, 'Kingdom' focuses on the characters that come out of the situation, not the other way around.

In its subtle, understated way, 'Kingdom' is a polished finished product with plenty of style but not just for the sake of having style. It serves a purpose. One striking shot has a SWAT team invading the Cody household, no natural sound or dialogue, just Antony Partos' quiet, moving score playing. Partos' score is a flashback to the quasi-electronic scores of the 1980s, reminding me at times of Tangerine Dreams. It is one of the best scores I can think of from the last 10 years though, and it ends up being a key character. One character's death scene is a near-classic because of Partos' score driving the action.

It's surprising with the performances that the most important one, Frecheville as Josh, the one we're supposed to care about the most, is the weakest one. Josh is supposed to be quiet, unassuming, withdrawn and removed from life in a lot of ways. So in that sense, Frecheville's performance is either the most brilliant thing around or the worst. There just isn't enough emotion or personality to make Josh truly interesting. Other interesting, smaller performances include Luke Ford as Darren, the quietest of the Cody brothers, and Sullivan Stapleton as Craig, the most emotional and intense of the brothers. Edgerton's character is gone too fast while Pearce is the calming influence, the conscience of the story who asks all the questions.

The two best performances though belong to two of the most sinister, creepiest villains around, Weaver as Janine "Smurf" Cody, the family matriarch, and Mendelsohn as Andrew, known as 'Pope.' Weaver is phenomenal, the mother/grandmother who lives to care for her sons. An incestuous relationship is hinted at, or at least an overly physical hold on her boys, but that could be me reading too far into things. Janine drops to new levels late to protect her family, cementing her status as an epically scary villain. As Pope, Mendelsohn is the psycho, the unhinged brother capable of anything, saying he's looking out for the family but really just focusing on himself.

I was surprised even more with the uproar over the film's ending. First off, it is a great, powerful and even a little shocking in its execution. I thought it was going one way, and then 'Kindgom' does an 180, going in a vastly different route. The finale didn't leave much room for interpretation in my opinion, but apparently lots of other viewers disagreed. I'll leave it up to you. Aussie, American, British, French, it doesn't matter. This is just a good movie.

Animal Kingdom <---trailer (2010): *** 1/2 /****

AMC's Hell on Wheels: Western's return to TV?

2011-11-07T00:50:00.000-06:00

A little change of pace here with a TV review instead of the typical movie review. I've got to take my chances when they come along because how often does a new western TV show pop up, much less on a quality channel like AMC? Exactly, never, so here we sit. Premiering last night with a lot of potential, Hell on Wheels seems to have a lot of potential going in, and this western fan was impressed.

Ever since the 1970s, the success of the western genre -- film and TV -- has been constantly waning, never reaching the levels of popularity seen in the 1960s and before. Now we see the occasional movie in theaters, an occasional TV show like The Magnificent Seven in the 1990s, but it's nothing like the glut of westerns from previous decades. 'Hell' probably won't please everyone, but it's dark, gritty, violent, realistic and even a tad on the funny side at times.

It's 1865 and the United States is still very much recovering from the horrific Civil War. The Union Pacific railroad is being built across the country, providing some with a chance just for a paying job while others like Thomas 'Doc' Durant (Colm Meaney) stand to profit with the developing business. Among those moving west with the railroad is Cullen Bohannon (Anson Mount), a former Confederate soldier trying to move on from the things he see and people he lost in the war. But while hellacious things were left behind in so many's past, what stands ahead is equally as vicious. Bohannon's plans for revenge though will not be easily stopped or slowed down.

With shows like Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The Walking Dead, AMC has shown a commitment to providing high-quality dramas that audiences have eaten up over the last handful of years. 'Hell' certainly has the potential to join those ranks. The production value is impressive, from the on-location shooting to the gritty, realistic look to costumes and uniforms worn by the cast. And getting away with what basic cable can't, there's plenty of violence -- some surprisingly graphic -- to go with language and cursing. How can you lose?

What does a western need most of all? A hero, or more accurately, an anti-hero. Enter Anson Mount as Cullen Bohannon, a prototypical western loner/gunslinger moving west looking for revenge. The pilot episode reveals what Cullen is up to -- avenging his wife's death at the hands of Union soldiers -- by dropping hints along the way. We can't give everything away now, can we? Mount's Cullen has the look of a western gunslinger, and he very much so looks extremely comfortable in the part. Hat worn low on his face, gunbelt at his hip, stubble on his face and a man of few words, this is a good start if the series wants to continue. If anything the story needs to focus more on the avenging Cullen.

It is a pilot so it suffered some from throwing everything at the fan and seeing what sticks to the walls. With that issue, we got a whole lot of characters thrown our way, some in quick snippets, others given more development. The most interesting could be rapper Common as Elam, a former slave working on the railroad crews clearing the land for the tracks. He finds himself in the same situation he did as a slave and is pissed at the world because of it. Meaney is a great villain too, looking forward to see where his character goes. There's also Lily (Dominique McElligott), a member of a survey team, Mickey (Phil Burke) and Sean (Ben Esler), two Irish brothers trying to make some money, and a couple other smaller parts that look like they'll get more attention in the coming weeks. Also impressing was guest star Ted Levine as Daniel Johnson, a one-handed, alcoholic, racist train crew supervisor.

As a western fan, I was psyched to hear that AMC had a western coming down the road, and I can say that I'm excited to see where Hell on Wheels goes. Hopefully it picks up a following and is here to stay!

Hell on Wheels <---AMC trailer (2011)

The Hills Run Red (1967)

2011-11-06T00:14:00.000-05:00

Discovering the spaghetti western genre through the Clint Eastwood/Sergio Leone Dollars trilogy, I quickly figured out the problem if I was going to see more of the spaghettis. Most of them just weren't available in a watchable form, at least the ones that were somewhat affordable. So to find them I was scouring TV listings, looking through bargain bins, even trading a couple movies here and there. Thankfully DVD distributors finally started releasing some of the lesser-known entries, including one I'd always wanted to see, 1967's The Hills Run Red.

As the Civil War comes to a close, Confederate soldiers Jerry Brewster (Thomas Hunter) and Ken Seagull (Nando Gazzolo) have robbed a Union payroll. About to be caught by a Union patrol, they flip to see who will buy the other one some time, Jerry losing out but demanding that Ken care for his family until he can get back to them. Ken escapes with the money -- some $600,000 -- and Jerry is captured and sent to prison, serving a brutal five-year sentence. He is finally released only to find that Ken refused to help his family, Jerry's wife dying years before and his son is missing. His former partner even used the money to set himself up as a powerful rancher, holding rein over hundreds of miles of land. A man possessed, Jerry is looking for revenge. He gets himself hired by Ken's top hand, Mendez (Henry Silva), and goes about taking down the empire from the inside.

This is pretty typical of a majority of spaghetti westerns in that it is neither a classic nor an awful movie. It's entertaining on a pretty basic level but never rises or falls to any heights or depths. Former film critic Carlo Lizzani takes his crack at a genre that was at the height of its popularity in 1967, turning out a western that has some strands of an American western but has a decidedly Italian flavor, most of them for the good. Composer Ennio Morricone's score is not one of his best or most memorable, but it's catchy like most of his scores were. It certainly has a different sound compared to his more well-known scores, even featuring a song, 'Home to My Love,' that feels out of place.

Spaghetti westerns have a reputation for being particularly nasty in their brutal portrayal of the west, and 'Hills' has to be one of the most brutal. One review called it misanthropic, and after a quick detour to the dictionary, I can confirm. It has little regard for people at all, mowing down countless gunmen in various fashions, one nastier than the rest. Hunter's Brewster has to be one of the genre's most punished leads, and that's saying something. Within the first 30 minutes, he's been beaten half to death twice, tortured in prison, cuts off his own tattoo, gets tangled up in a handful of gunfights and also stabs a rival gunman in the hand. Don't worry though, nothing's stopping this guy. It's a little more graphic than even most spaghetti westerns so if you're a fan of graphic, brutal violence, this is a movie for you.

One of hundreds of spaghettis generally forgotten, much of that can be chalked up to Thomas Hunter in the lead. An American actor who only starred in nine movies (most of them European), Hunter just isn't the greatest actor or charismatic enough to have a starring role, one where the movie depends on him. The dubbing across the board is pretty awful, but it hurts Hunter a ton. A gunman looking for revenge is an ideal lead, a man obsessed with avenging his family, but in Hunter's hands that means overacting in a BIG way. His scenes that call for any emotion are almost hysterical. He screams so much, his eyes bulging that I couldn't help but laugh. You're rooting for him because he's the good guy, not any real reason.

Now where overacting can be a good thing is the villain, and in steps Henry Silva, one of the all-time great movie bad guys. Just like Hunter's Brewster, Silva's Mendez is ridiculously and completely over the top, but he's the villain so you buy it, and it's fun. He laughs hysterically in almost every scene, is always ready to pull a gun and blast away, and speaks in this basic Spanish that is comical in its badness. Va-ma-nos mu-cha-chos! Mendez is also decked out in black leather jacket and pants, black shirt and black sombrero. Bad Guys 101, Silva is a good bad guy, and he does most of the heavy lifting. Gazzolo makes no impression at all as Ken Seagull turned Ken Milton.

In the bizarre, kinda weird casting department, American actor Dan Duryea plays Winny Getz, a mysterious gunman working with Brewster to take down Milton and Mendez and their empire. Why so mysterious? Gotta stick around to the end to find out his "secret." It feels thrown together and unnecessary, but Duryea feels out of place here anyways, like he accidentally got on a plane to Italy and walked onto the set. Italian beauty Nicoletta Machiavelli is the obligatory love interest, Milton's sister, Mary Ann, who likes Brewster but is pursued by Mendez.

What else to recommend or rip? Little of both in the finale, Brewster and Getz running on a wild goose chase through an abandoned town as Mendez's small army of gunmen pursue them. It's some good action with some exciting gunplay, but also mind-blowingly stupid. If these gunmen thought it through at all, they'd stop chasing these two vastly outnumbered guys into dark rooms. Still, it's a fun sequence like the rest of the movie. Fun and pretty forgettable, but you could do much worse.

The Hills Run Red <---trailer (1967): ** 1/2 /****

Out of Sight

2011-11-05T00:28:00.000-05:00

Combine a novel by author Elmore Leonard, a director in Steven Soderbergh with style to burn, and a deep cast led by the always cool George Clooney. What do you get? A smart, well-written, funny, romantic and entertaining heist story, 1998's underrated Out of Sight.

Serving a sentence in a Florida penitentiary for bank robbery, Jack Foley (Clooney) basically piggybacks onto another escape attempt, managing to break out with his old partner and friend, Buddy (Ving Rhames), waiting for him for the getaway. Also waiting though quite by accident is U.S. Federal Marshal Karen Sisco (Jennifer Lopez) who pulls a shotgun on the attempted escape. With no other options, they throw her in the trunk of a car -- Foley too -- and manage to escape. Jack's got an idea for an easy robbery (taking down Albert Brooks' house and its $5 million worth in uncut diamonds), but now he's got a problem. He likes Sisco, really likes her, but they sort of got off on the wrong foot. Now he's got to get to Miami and Detroit eventually with former partners, ex-cons, and a U.S. marshal on his tail. Nothing comes easy.

This was Soderbergh's first mainstream film, and while it was successful, it wasn't a huge hit. For a first 'big' film, the director shows a steady hand and an idea of what he wants to do. It's refreshing to see stories that know they are good but don't feel the need to show off. They just know, and that's enough. 'Sight' is a stylish movie with a great visual look and cool, laid back score from David Holmes. It is funny because it isn't trying to be funny, getting laughs out of the bizarre situations characters find themselves in. A little leisurely in the pacing at times -- 123 minutes -- but you go along for the ride and enjoy it. Or you should at least. It's good.

What makes it good is that for the most part, absolutely nothing happens until the last 30 minutes. This isn't an action movie or a comedic drama or a heist film. This is about the characters. Jumping off from Leonard's novel, 'Sight' is about the dialogue, the interactions, the camaraderie and relationships among a long list of fully developed characters, not just cardboard cutouts posing at characters. Soderbergh has shown an ability to work with these deep ensemble casts full of big names, and it all started here. The dialogue snaps and crackles (I guess it pops a little too), the actors/actresses clearly having some fun with a story that is meant to be just that; fun. That gets lost so often in the shuffle. Movies can deliver messages, they can shock and surprise you, but most of all they should be fun.

The chemistry between co-stars George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez is picture perfect. Still a rising star at the time, Clooney is already perfecting that roguish "bad guy" you can't help but like. He's smooth and cool, and he's good at what he does; bank robbing. As for Lopez, I've never thought of her as a great actress -- more a movie star -- but she has this quiet confidence as Sisco, a marshal who finds herself constantly proving herself even though she knows she has the ability...even if no one else does. Their scenes together are some of the sexiest, coolest scenes around, including their "road trip" in a car trunk and a later encounter at a Miami hotel. Who thought in the middle of a prison escape-turned heist story we'd see a romantic story jump in? It works though in all the right ways.

That's just two names though, and oh, there's so many more. Rhames is one of the best character actors around, and he's a great sidekick/partner to Clooney's Foley. They have a history as partners robbing banks, and their conversations reflect that history, that bond built up over years of working together. Don Cheadle chews the scenery as Snoopy Miller, an ex-con turned small-time crime "boss" working with and against Foley and Buddy. Steve Zahn is the unknowing, clueless dupe, Glenn, who reveals the location of all those uncut diamonds. Brooks doesn't have a huge part, but he makes an impression as the Wall Street crook always on the prowl for a "deal." There's also Luis Guzman as Chino, a double-crossed con on the loose, and Dennis Farina as Marshall Sisco, Karen's father. Oh, and Michael Keaton makes an uncredited appearance out of nowhere. Yeah, Batman is here too.

While I enjoyed the build-up, I very much liked the last half when the robbery is put into plan. If movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing ever goes as planned, and it doesn't here. Brooks' house is gargantuan, hallways stretching on for miles seemingly as everything hits the fan. A handful of great moments -- funny, dramatic, surprising -- and a great final scene featuring a cameo from Samuel L. Jackson which seemingly set up a sequel that never came. So in other words, just enjoy this one. A lot of fun from beginning to end.

Out of Sight <---trailer (1998): ***/****

The Apartment

2011-11-04T00:43:00.000-05:00

Versatility counts when it comes to directing. Some directors get pigeon-holed into one genre, for good or bad, like John Ford with the western. It doesn't have to be a bad thing, the director's equivalent of being typecast as an actor would be. One director who is nearly impossible to typecast was Billy Wilder, a master of comedy, film noir, drama, war stories, epics. It didn't matter. He did them all and did them all well. One that I liked but didn't love is 1960s's The Apartment. Am I missing something?

Working for an enormous insurance firm in New York City, Bud 'C.C.' Baxter (Jack Lemmon) is one of thousands of nameless employees who goes about their daily work and takes some pride in it. Baxter however would like nothing more than getting a promotion, getting bumped upstairs to an office with windows. His plan for going about it? He makes a positive impression with four different insurance supervisors by letting them use his apartment with their mistresses. It is obviously a tax and burden on Baxter's somewhat lonely bachelor life, but it takes a turn when the big boss, Shelldrake (Fred MacMurray), finds out about the operation and requests the apartment for himself. With no real out, Baxter agrees, only to find out that Shelldrake is using the apartment with Fran Kubelik (Shirley MacLaine), an elevator girl at the office he's long had a crush on.

This is a classic film that I've always been told I would like. There's just too much talent involved for me not to like it. It was nominated for 10 Academy Awards and won five of them (Best Picture, Director for Wilder, screenplay among them) with Lemmon and MacLaine also receiving nominations. So looking back on it, I can't help but feel I missed something. It is a good story, very professionally done, and in 1960 I'm sure it was ahead of its time in terms of subject matter; marital infidelity on an epic level (the male gender takes a beating here), a bachelor pretending to hook up with a different girl every night, attempted suicide. Something didn't click for me, and I'm struggling to put my finger on it.

What I can explain is my issue between comedy and drama, two genres that can work together when handled correctly. Sometimes the two go hand in hand, drama coming out of a comedic situation or vice versa. For a darker story though -- with all the above mentioned topical issues -- it is handled with too much comedy. Lemmon is one of my favorite actors, but some of his mannerisms and physicality doesn't work. An effort to lighten the proceedings some? Maybe. The premise is there and interesting; a beaten-down, lonely, even depressed middle-aged man loaning his apartment to his bosses for flings with their mistresses. Either make it a madcap, ridiculous comedy or a dark as night drama. I lean toward the drama working better overall because 'Apartment' is at its best in the heavier, dramatic moments.

None of this is intended as a disclaimer or anything of the sort that the movie isn't good. It's just not as good as I had been told. There is too much talent for it not to be enjoyable on some level. Lemmon's Baxter is a pushover of epic proportions -- a little too much at times -- but the veteran actor delivers a great performance, earning him the third of eight Oscar nominations he would receive. He's Joe Everyman, a regular guy who wants success at work and a family at home. His chemistry with MacLaine is what makes this movie special. I like MacLaine more and more with each movie I see her in, and this is her best to date. They would work together again two years later in Wilder's Irma La Douce. As for MacMurray, it's hard to see the Disney star of The Absent Minded Professor and the father in TV's My Three Sons as a cheating husband and all around scumbag, but give the man credit. He's good at what he does.

There is a style from this 1960 that's hard to duplicate nowadays. So many 1960s comedies have that feature, a time capsule of an era long since past that is so much fun to watch. New York City is an ideal setting for a story like this, a personal level with three people looking for some sort of happiness. Baxter's apartment is a cool, little place, an additional character. The supporting parts are strong too, especially Jack Kruschen as Dr. Dreyfuss, Baxter's suspicious neighbor (earned him a Best Supporting Actor nod), and Ray Walston, Willard Waterman, David White and David Lewis are appropriately creepy and/or sceevy as Baxter's supervisors.

I liked the movie but not as much as I thought I would. Performances from Lemmon and MacLaine make it worth recommending.

The Apartment <---TCM trailer/clips (1960): ** 1/2 /****