Field of Dreams

I love baseball and everything about it. The Chicago White Sox to the fantasy leagues, going to games to listening on the radio and watching on TV. It is and hopefully always will be my favorite sport. Naturally then, baseball movies have to be the best, right? My list starts with a classic, 1989's Field of Dreams.

Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) is a 36-year old man who owns a farm in Iowa and lives with his wife, Annie (Amy Madigan) and their young daughter, Karen (Gaby Hoffmann). One day while he's out in the expansive cornfields, Ray hears a voice tell him multiple times 'If you build it, he will come..." He doesn't know what to make of the voice and its mysterious message. What could it possibly mean? After hearing the voice repeat itself several times over several days, Ray thinks he's figured it out. Somehow, some way, Ray is supposed to build a baseball field in his cornfield. His reasoning? He thinks if he builds that field, his father's hero, Shoeless Joe Jackson, will get a chance to redeem himself for his actions with the 1919 Black Sox. He builds the field and waits...and waits but nothing happens. Then one night as he mulls over their future with Annie, a man appears out on the field. It's Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) himself. That's only the start though. There's much more to come.

Ask 100 sports fans 'What's your favorite sports movie?' and who knows? Maybe you get 100 different answers! I don't know if it is my favorite, but it's certainly in the conversation with Hoosiers, Rocky, and a whole bunch more I can rewatch over and over again. The TV description of the 1988 film from director Phil Alden Robinson (he also wrote the Oscar-nominated screenplay) describes it as 'Capra-esque' -- as in Frank Capra -- and it's an incredibly apt description. It's an American story of family, baseball, hopes and dreams, and without being heavy-handed, believing in something mystical, something bigger than us that doesn't necessarily need to be explained. You just take it on faith and go for a ride.

I like The Natural, love Major League and The Sandlot, and swear by any number of other baseball flicks, but 'Field' is up there at the top. Why? Maybe more than any other baseball movie, it loves and respects the game. It appreciates the history, the unspoken connection people have with the sport, and maybe most importantly, the simple beauty of the game. In a late monologue, James Earl Jones explains the power of the game in one of the movie's most effective scenes. Far earlier as Ray meets Joe Jackson, the famous Shoeless expresses his personal love of the game in a simple, eloquent, authentic monologue. The story loves the history of the game, especially the 1910's and early 1920's. Watch it for that love and respect, the classic uniforms, those famous players, the infamous 1919 Black Sox, and so much more.

Who better to lead the way through our mystical baseball story than Crash Davis himself, Kevin Costner? Just a year off Bull Durham (another excellent baseball flick), Costner returns to the sports/baseball genre and delivers -- for me -- one of his all-time best roles. He's a 30-something farmer who knows little about farmer looking for some answers out of life. Instead, he gets a mysterious voice imploring him 'If you build it, he will come.' Costner's Ray doesn't always know where the road will take him, but he believes. Simple as that, he believes. He believes something good is down the road, and that him building a baseball field in the middle of his cornfield has a higher meaning. It has to, right? When everything seems to scream at how illogical the whole thing is, Costner sticks with his gut and keeps believing. Madigan is excellent as his ever-supportive wife, Annie, with him through thick and thin, while 6-year old Hoffmann is equally solid.

Three supporting performances help take the movie from really good into the classic stratosphere, Ray Liotta (relatively unknown at the time) as Shoeless Joe Jackson, James Earl Jones as reclusive writer Terence Mann, and Burt Lancaster (in his final role) as Doc Graham, a former baseball player who became a doctor in his Minnesota hometown. I don't want to give away too much -- for the 6 people who haven't seen this movie by now -- but these performances are pristine. They're perfect. Liotta brings some edge to Shoeless, the mysterious ex-ballplayer who was banned from baseball even though evidence indicates Jackson did nothing wrong. He's got some cards up his sleeves for sure. Jones as Mann makes it look so freaking easy. Based on J.D. Salinger, Mann has retired from public life and is looking to live a quiet, peaceful life. His chemistry with Costner is pitch perfect from scene-to-scene, dramatic and funny. And, oh yeah, Burt Lancaster, a halfway decent actor in his own right (I guess). He's on-screen for maybe 4 or 5 minutes and steals every second he's in. Three great performances.

Also look for Timothy Busfield as Mark, Annie's brother in the real estate business who's trying to convince his brother-in-law to...ya know, not be nuts, and Frank Whaley as Archie 'Moonlight' Graham, a much younger version of Lancaster's Doc Graham. Dwier Brown has a quick but brutally effective part as John Kinsella, Ray's father. As for other players from the '19 Black Sox who show up, look for some familiar faces who make the most out of their quick, but highly effective parts.

The movie itself is a road picture once things get going, the story of a journey both for Ray but also the people and individuals he meets along the way. We see how Ray's decision to build the baseball field affects one person after another, somewhat like the universe is laying out the groundwork for him -- testing him of sorts -- and seeing if he'll follow along. As for the movie itself, it is a visually subtle but very good-looking movie. Always seems to be shot at sunset with all sorts of beautiful light. If not that time of day, that field o' dreams always is bathed in sunlight without a cloud in sight. Composer James Horner (one of the all-time bests) delivers an Oscar nominated-score that is an additional character there all along the way for the story.

So what is baseball best suited for? As 'Field' shows, it is a sport often shared between father and son, the crux of the story here itself. This is a sport with the subtle, charming ability to bring people together. That sentiment leads to one of the all-time great endings ever with a ridiculously strong final 20 minutes. It's one memorable moment after another, one great line after another, all of it leading to one of the more iconic closing shots ever if you ask me. Is it heaven? No, maybe not, but it's a perfect sports movie and just a great movie all-around. Must watch for sports fans and non-sports fans alike!

Field of Dreams (1988): ****/****

Stagecoach (1986)

Released in 1939, John Ford's Stagecoach is one of the all-time great westerns. It was hugely influential in countless westerns that followed, and of course, is famous for helping make John Wayne a huge star, one of the biggest movie stars of all-time. So what's the biggest form of flattery? A remake! And unnecessary ones! Ford's western has been remade twice, first in 1966, and with today's review, a 1986 TV western, Stagecoach.

In the small town of Tonto, a stagecoach is set to leave and keeps its schedule in making it to its next stop in Lordsburg. It is far from an easy ride though across the desert, especially when reports of Geronimo and his Apache warriors being on the warpath start to hit the town. An already dangerous ride is that much worse. The driver, Buck (John Schneider), intends to do his job though, taking the coach through, Apaches be damned. So with a full coach of passengers, Buck leaves Tonto with a cavalry escort hoping to avoid Geronimo and his warriors. His passengers, all of them, have reasons to undertake such a dangerous trip. Some are trying to get somewhere while others are simply trying to get away, but to a person, they believe they're right. Are they? Can they get to Lordsburg safely without coming under attack?

Okay, No. 1. Something that needs to be said. There's no reason to remake Ford's film. NO reason. It's about as perfect a western as you'll find out there. So to remake it in different formats twice? Unnecessary to say the least. I haven't seen the 1966 version -- I'd like to, the cast is pretty crazy -- but I feel safe saying the original is better. The same here. Why bother remaking a movie that didn't need to be remade? Well, the answer isn't one you might easily come up with.

Any ideas? This TV western actually puts a country music spin on the original formula! Didn't see that one coming now, did you?!? The cast includes Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings and Kris Kristofferson in major roles. Now even as a non-country music fan, that's an impressive pairing of talent! The biggest difference between the '86 TV flick and the '39 original is the re-working of certain characters so the Big 4 Country Stars are actually given something to do. Cash is Marshal Curly Wilcox, on the hunt for Kristofferson's Ringo Kid, with Nelson as the Doc Holliday (quite the change!), and Jennings as Hatfield, a talented gambler (some would say cheater) looking for some redemption. Take the original characters/story, add country stars, lather, rinse and repeat and you definitely get some tweaked stories! That's not a bad thing, giving a refreshing new look at a familiar story.

Of the four, I thought Cash and Nelson come out the best. Cash isn't the greatest actor, but he's very natural, and his scenes with John Schneider's Buck are excellent, two experienced trailhands discussing what their best plan is and should be. Nelson too is excellent as maybe the most famous dentist ever, Doc Holliday (not any old Doc like the Ford version), philosophizing and smoking a cigar and generally having a good time. Obviously he's having some fun with the part. Jennings is okay as Hatfield but nothing crazy. I'm a big Kristofferson fan, but it's a bit of bad casting here. Maybe it's because John Wayne's take on Ringo is so iconic, but Kristofferson is too old for the part and his scenes with Dallas (Elizabeth Ashley), an aging, disillusioned prostitute, lack some chemistry. It kinda feels like a western Last Vegas or Grumpy Old Men, four aging stars getting together and having some fun. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Who else to look for on the crowded stagecoach? Also look for the always welcome Tony Franciosa as Gatewood, a corrupt banker getting out of town with his bank's latest deposit (some $30,000), Anthony Newley as Peacock, a traveling whiskey salesman, and Mary Crosby as Lucy Mallory, a very pregnant young woman traveling west to meet up with her husband, a cavalry officer.

So while there are some changes along the way -- some major, some not as significant -- mostly this TV western sticks with the original's story. The soundtrack isn't entirely country (featuring some solid uses of guitar), and the locations are solid but don't register like Monument Valley does -- I know! Go figure in that department. The biggest changes are saved for the end in a finale that feels somewhat disjointed and/or rushed. It's not an especially good flick, but it is entertaining from beginning to end. The novelty of the country casting is just enough to give it a recommendation. It ain't on par with the 1939 original, but few are. Still....it's not bad.

Stagecoach (1986): ** 1/2 /****

Lonesome Dove

Sometimes you just need to sit back and take it all in. Just appreciate a movie for being pretty much perfect on all levels. Case in point? The 1989 CBS miniseries Lonesome Dove, based off the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel -- also an all-timer and one of my favorites -- from author Larry McMurtry. Aired over four nights, the miniseries pulled in crazy ratings, better reviews, and rave reviews for its cast. It deserves every positive thing it got. It is a true classic, and regardless of its TV roots, one of the best westerns of all-time.

Along the Rio Grande River in the town of Lonesome Dove in south Texas, former Texas Rangers Capt. Augustus McCrae (Robert Duvall) and Capt. Woodrow F. Call (Tommy Lee Jones) own the Hat Creek Company, working as cattle buyers and sellers, selling an occasional horse but nothing too lucrative. After creating quite a name for themselves as Rangers when all of Texas was still a wilderness, the duo has drifted into obscurity some. They're pleasantly surprised when a good friend from their past and a former ranger himself, Jake Spoon (Robert Urich), rides into Lonesome Dove telling them how beautiful and untouched the Montana territory far to the north is. Call gets the idea in his head to put together a herd of cattle and drive them all the way to the territory, starting up the first cattle ranch in Montana. Gus and several of their men are wary but go along with it. The veteran Rangers have their reasons for going -- both very different -- but no one involved has any real idea what awaits them on the trail.

It's impossible to condense a 900-plus page novel and a four-part miniseries running 384 minutes into one concise paragraph explaining the plot. Expanding a little, the two Rangers drive a cattle herd from south Texas to Montana, experiencing all the good, bad, dangerous and terrifying that the trail has to offer. Without getting too cheesy/flowery, it's about friendship, love, betrayal, pride, loyalty and on the biggest level, the changing times in the west, seen through the eyes of old and young men alike. There is a subplot I've lost interest in over the years and repeated viewings/readings, but Lonesome Dove is as perfect a movie as I've ever seen. I highly recommend the novel too if you're a reader looking for a good book.

Director Simon Wincer does an admirable job bringing McMurtry's novel to life. Decisions that are made to streamline the story excise non-essential characters, scenes and explanation to make a four-part miniseries into a miniseries running longer than six hours that flies by. The filming locations are perfect, helping set up the passage of time with cinematographer Dean Semler turning in a beautiful-looking story. A TV miniseries might seem limiting, but the visual scope and beauty here is a huge selling point. Throw in a sweeping, emotionally perfect score (listen HERE) from composer Basil Poledouris, and you've got all the makings of a halfway decent story!

What sets 'Lonesome' apart I've always felt is its ability to mix the romance of the wild west with the realism of the wild west. There's something straightforward and iconic about the visual of a cowboy on horseback trailing along with a cattle herd against the horizon. There's something simple about it that is able to permeate itself through a ton of westerns, good and bad. A man on his horse, doing a job that isn't easy and ready to fight off whatever comes at the herd because it's his job. The counter? There was nothing romantic about it no matter what you may want to think. It was back-breaking work, and death comes cheap (as it's said several times) to those who aren't careful and even to those who are. It doesn't take much for the winds to shift from good to bad. Straddling that line, 'Lonesome' is a somber, moving story that has the ability to tear your guts up through good and bad. It's the rare western with that ability.

Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones. That's it. That's all. I could leave it at that and be good, but that'd make for a short review, wouldn't it? Both men have had remarkable careers, but I don't believe either has ever (EVER!!!) been better than they were here. Duvall's Gus is fast-talking, loves some whiskey and good biscuits, a ladies man, and an all-timer at avoiding work. Jones' Call is a man of few words, ridiculously stubborn, hard-working to a fault, and lives by a code. A true Odd Couple-esque dynamic, these are phenomenal performances. They play off each other with ease. Their dialogue crackles with energy whether it be two friends busting each other, two partners figuring out how to solve a problem, or two longtime friends having a rare heart-to-heart in a trying moment. Both are amazingly excellent, but Duvall is on another level here as Gus. His energy, his non-stop talking, his physical mannerisms from a quick smirk to sucking his lips to his unique walk...my goodness, Gus McCrae is one of the all-time best western characters. Robert Duvall is the freaking man.


Though there are many characters in the miniseries, the heart of the story is Gus and Call's Hat Creek outfit and their motley crew of cowboys. Danny Glover is a quiet scene-stealer as Josh Deets, the outfit's tracker and scout, a fiercely capable worker and fighter who never complains, just putting his head down and getting the job done. Rick Schroder is excellent as Newt, a young, inexperienced 17-year old cowboy orphaned years before and picked up and cared for by the Hat Creek outfit. Tim Scott plays Pea Eye, a well-meaning but not so intelligent former Ranger. And last, there's unofficial member Dish Boggett, played by D.B. Sweeney, a more than capable cowboy who finds a niche with the group. There's a bond, a camaraderie amongst the crew that feels natural and real, not actors, but real people and their relationships. It is the rare western where you can say that.

You could write a thesis paper about individual characters here, making my job reviewing the miniseries a tough one! Diane Lane doesn't deserved to get buried so far down in a review, but here we sit. Her Lorena Wood, a beautiful young prostitute who finds herself on the trail with the herd, is a fascinating character to watch grow and develop. Her chemistry with Duvall is impeccable too. Anjelica Houston plays Clara, a past love (and maybe currently) of Gus', married and with children on a horse ranch in Nebraska. Frederic Forrest is frightening as Blue Duck, a half-breed bandit who's rampaged all over Texas for years, all the while out of the reach of our Rangers. I also especially liked Jorge Martinez de Hoyos as Po Campo, the cook traveling with the herd.

If there is a weak point in 'Lonesome,' it is a subplot involving an Arkansas sheriff, July Johnson (Chris Cooper), trailing Jake Spoon only to find out his wife (Glenne Headly) has left him. This subplot also features Barry Corbin, Steve Buscemi, and Frederick Coffin. I just don't find myself drawn to the characters here and as a result, their portions of the story tend to drag.

This is a movie that deserves a big old, long review full of in-depth analysis, more than I've got the space for here. I easily could write a college paper about this McMurtry novel! I also don't want to give away too much here with my review, recommending you go into the miniseries with a clean slate. I'll say this instead. There are moments that are absolutely heartbreaking, truly gut-wrenching, whether it be a surprising/shocking death to a face-to-face where you're begging something to happen. Both watching the miniseries and reading McMurtry's novel, I've cried and we're talking real, big crocodile tears. It's a classic movie -- screw the miniseries moniker -- and required viewing for anyone who loves good characters, story and scope regardless of your feelings on the western genre.

Interesting tidbit? McMurtry originally wrote the basic idea as a movie with John Wayne (Call), Jimmy Stewart (Gus) and Henry Fonda (Jake) leading the cast only to see it fall apart because of scheduling conflicts. Can you imagine that? If you're looking to kill a couple hours, see if you can fill out the rest of the cast with actors working in the late 1960's and early 1970's. I have, and let me tell you, it's tough. In the meantime, check Lonesome Dove out.

Lonesome Dove (1989): ****/****

To Live and Die in L.A.

I don't know what to say sometimes. I watch a movie and hmm, I just don't know where to start. When facing that issue, it's usually a bad thing, a movie so awful, so horrifically bad the words or criticisms just ain't there. Other times....yeah, this is the other time. A weird, scary, off-beat, violent and overall, just a damn excellent flick, 1985's To Live and Die in L.A.

Working out of the Los Angeles field office, Secret Service agent Richard Chance (William Petersen) is about to be without a partner as his longtime fellow agent (Michael Greene) is only days away from retirement. The partner instead turns up dead at a remote desert warehouse, and Chance knows who he was investigating, a professional counterfeiter, Eric Masters (Willem Dafoe), who they have long been after. Swearing to put away his friend and partner's killer, Chance will stop at nothing -- NOTHING -- to get Masters who has proved very elusive when it comes to proving his guilt. Saddled with a new partner, the more button-down John Vukovich (John Pankow), Chance follows the evidence where it may lead, but Masters has some trouble of his own. Who can get to the other one first? How far will either man go to get what they want?

With 1971's The French Connection and 1973's The Exorcist, director William Friedkin had one of the most impressive one-two punches of back-to-back films...well, ever. He followed them up with a string of movies that struggled -- for whatever reason -- to get any footing to the point that this 1975 cop thriller/drama is considered by some as his comeback of sorts. What a comeback it is. It works because of all its moving pieces. Stylish and innovative, it is very 1980's. It is equal parts dark, gritty, brutally violent and uncomfortable at times. And then for good measure, 'Live and Die' has a little art-house in its story and characters. Quite the mix, ain't it? This is the sort of movie that shouldn't work, but does it ever, almost in spite of flaws that would cripple most other movies.

Through his previous movies, Friedkin had shown his ability not just as a director, but as an auteur. He made films, not always movies. He was willing to try something different, to reach for something difficult, to not settle for the status quo. 'Live and Die' is a case in point. It's like a procedural cop drama/thriller...on steroids and cocaine with some LSD thrown in. Friedkin freaking GOES FOR IT. The style is schizophrenic, the score from Wang Chung incredibly 1980's, the violence in your face, and even some frontal male nudity, not to mention a whole lot of guy butt. Stylized, computer title cards show the progression of time, and Los Angeles ends up becoming an additional character, a charged-up backdrop to the ever-crazy story developments. How far will it go? How far will Petersen's Chance go? Getting there is more than half the fun. It is the definition of an unpredictable movie, and that is rarely a bad thing.

I grew up and will always associate William Petersen with O-N-E part...that of CSI's Gil Grissom. This was his first starring role, starting a handful of late 80's/early 90's flicks that seemed to indicate Petersen was going to be a star, a big one. It never quite came together, but my goodness, what a starring debut.  The rogue cop who plays by his rules -- laws, procedures and protocol BE DAMNED -- is absolutely nothing new to the genre, but Petersen injects a ridiculous amount of energy to Agent Chance. He brings balls. He brings swagger. He brings uber-confidence. How good? At a certain point, you're not even rooting for him anymore to the point he's unlikable but you just can't look away. Chance is manipulative, intimidating, not above breaking the law, and callously disinterested in anything that doesn't affect the case.

Part of it is the look. It is the mid 1980's, and Peterson's Chance wears tight jeans at all times, badass sunglasses, badass boots, badass leather jacket and...well...badass. He reeks of cool. He's an adrenaline junkie. He pushes his partner too far. He basically blackmails a parolee/informant (Darlanne Fluegel) into a sexual relationship. He threatens lives left and right, some being claimed. I keep coming back to swagger. There is a physicality to the part, Petersen running like a maniac through chases scenes, brimming with energy in interrogations, intimidatingly subtle when he wants something. What a part. What a performance. Clearly impacted by those cop movies before him (French Connection, Bullitt, Dirty Harry) and clearly an impact on those still to come.



Dafoe is terrifying just because he's Willem Dafoe and looks and appears terrifying. He's a villain. That's it. No real background or motivation, his Masters is just a supremely talented counterfeiter looking to make one big payday after another. Quite the match-up of stars, quite the cat and mouse game (but who's who?). Along with Fluegel and Pankow (an excellent supporting part of a conscious-riddled cop), look for John Turturro, Debra Feuer, and Dean Stockwell as a high-class, scumbag lawyer in key supporting parts.

When filming the famous French Connection car chase, Friedkin apparently wanted to do bigger and better but simply ran out of time. The run-off falls to this flick, and it does not disappoint. Chase and his new partner kidnap someone for reasons because of a case (Just Watch It) and things go horribly wrong in a bullet-riddled chase and shootout through Los Angeles' backroads, highways and of course, the Los Angeles River. The capper is an incredible driving sequence as Chase drives into incoming traffic in hopes of getting away relatively unscathed. It is an absolutely insanely tension-packed extended sequence, expertly shot, cut and edited by Friedkin and his crew that belongs on the same level as similar chases in Bullitt, French Connection and so many more I'm forgetting. An amazing sequence to watch.

What a crazy movie. I have a picture of Friedkin filming and editing his film, basically flipping the bird to anyone and everyone in front of him. I kept thinking while watching this thriller that 'Live and Die' was Friedkin as a renegade director before Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez took over that notion in the 1990's. Friedkin is -- simply put -- at the top of his game here. It's days later, and I'm still thinking about this one. It keeps building and building to one of the most surprising, trippiest finales I've ever seen. Genuine shock value on several different levels. Can't recommend this one enough. Also, one movie kept popping into my head as I watched this 1985 film as having a huge, profound impact on said newer film. That movie? Drive with Ryan Gosling. Watch both and tell me they couldn't be impeccable companion pieces.

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985): *** 1/2 /****

The Verdict

For me, Paul Newman will always be amiable outlaw Butch Cassidy. He'll always be Henry Gondorff from The Sting. I've seen a lot of Newman's films from a career that spanned six decades, but not all of them. My biggest gap is probably the 1980s which as I look into it, is a big old knowledge gap. Newman was nominated for three different Oscars for acting during that decade, including a supremely strong performance in 1982's The Verdict.

A Boston lawyer who's fallen on some extremely tough times, Frank Galvin (Newman) isn't what he used to be. Once a promising lawyer, Galvin is an alcoholic, an ambulance chaser who has had only four cases over the previous three years. And he lost every single one of them. There's a new case on his schedule though, seemingly a slam dunk. A young woman giving birth was given the wrong anesthetic and four years later still remains in a coma in a nursing home. The hospital the event occurred in was a Catholic hospital with the archdiocese looking to move on from the incident, looking to settle without going to trial though. A huge payday is in the waiting, both for the plaintiff's family but also for Galvin for his fee. Something clicks in the experienced lawyer's mind though. Something just not right. He turns down a generous settlement and decides to go to trial. Though his intentions are pure, Galvin may be in far over his head.

This 1982 courtroom drama from director Sidney Lumet aired recently as part of Turner Classic Movie's 31 Days of Oscar. It's based off a screenplay from David Mamet of Glengarry Glen Ross and The Untouchables fame among others. Oh, and that Paul Newman guy is pretty good. I'd never seen this movie before -- not even a scene -- but I'm glad I caught up with it. Somber, even downbeat, with a harsh story to tell, it deserves the reputation it has. I loved Lumet's shooting style with an unobtrusive camera that simply films the action. It isn't moving frenetically with zooms and close-ups. Lumet sets the camera up and lets the cast act. Just ACT. We get long, uninterrupted scenes of dialogue where Newman and his co-stars have the audience's full attention. In an age where movies are all about the style, it's refreshing to see a movie so uninterested. Here's the story, the cast, and the acting. Go and do your thing.

The heart of the movie -- not so surprisingly -- is an excellent performance from Paul Newman, a performance that earned him a Best Actor nomination (he lost to Ben Kingsley's Ghandi). This isn't Butch or Gondorff or Fast Eddie, a confident world-beater with a smile on his face. Newman brings to life a lawyer riddled with self-pity who drinks and drinks, trying to put his past behind him. At one point, he was a damned good lawyer but a decision he makes for the good...almost finishes him. It's a fascinating character, one you're rooting for but with a grain of salt. You can't help but wonder how he's going to miss this seemingly gimme of a case up in the courtroom. Most memorable is just the quietness of Galvin. Newman doesn't have huge, LOOK AT ME moments. It is a quiet, subtle performance with the most emotional scene coming in his closing statement. My other favorite? The moment he makes the decision to take the case to trial, a quiet moment sitting by the patient's bed. Just good stuff.

This isn't the deepest of casts, but what's there is choice. Also picking up an Oscar nomination -- for Best Supporting Actor -- is James Mason as Concannon, the defense lawyer who at one point is dubbed the Angel of Death. No plan, no scheme, no bribe is too much for this lawyer who will get his defendants acquitted at all costs. Charlotte Rampling is excellent too as Laura, a woman coming off a divorce that Galvin meets in a bar and starts to help the beat-up lawyer in his case. In a thankless role, Jack Warden nonetheless makes the most of it as Morrisey, Galvin's former professor and current friend who becomes his right-hand man in the case. Also look for Milo O'Shea, Edward Binns, and Joe Seneca in key supporting roles.

Like the best courtroom dramas, 'Verdict' makes you feel like you're there in the courtroom as part of the jury. And as usual, what's my biggest takeaway? The American court system is a frightening one. Nothing is off limits including straight-up cheating, bribes and all sorts of letter of the law garbage. The idea of the court system is impressive, built on an ideal of justice as Galvin describes. In reality, it just isn't the same. Winning the case takes priority regardless of the means. We see that over and over again as the case develops, in and out of the courtroom.

'Verdict' becomes a little predictable in its second half, but it's never dull or disappointing. I especially liked the somewhat open-ended finale with Newman -- again -- nailing a quiet, dignified scene. Yes, it's a courtroom drama, but more accurately, this is a character study of a talented lawyer who's fallen on some hard times and sees a chance at some sort of redemption, both for the family he's trying to get a settlement but also for himself. Just an excellent all-around movie, most notable for Newman's Oscar-nominated performance.

The Verdict (1982): *** 1/2 /****

Silverado

By the 1980s, the western genre had unfortunately gone by the wayside. The often white-washed entries of the 1950s, the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s and the revisionist westerns of the 1970s had done a number on fans, and the genre was never quite the same. I'm still not sure why dammit! Maybe I was meant to grow up during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s! After the 70s, the western became few and far between, like 1985's Silverado, a throwback western I've seen bits and pieces of but only saw all the way through...well, this time.

Having served a five-year jail sentence for a murder that was actually self-defense, a drifter named Emmett (Scott Glenn) is riding west with California as his ultimate destination. Riding deep into the desert, Emmett finds something his eyes just don't believe. Lying in long underwear in the sand is a man named Paden (Kevin Kline) who tells the story of how he was double-crossed and left to die with no water or supplies. The two pair up and keep on heading west, both with their own objectives. What awaits them? First, they'll find out Emmett's younger brother, Jake (Kevin Costner), is about to be hung for a murder that sounds fishy while also running into a man, Mal (Danny Glover), heading west to help his family run their small homestead and ranch. The trail ahead won't be easy though as a corrupt rancher and his equally corrupt sheriff are wreaking havoc on the town of Silverado, the town they're all heading to.

I caught the first 45 minutes of this 1985 western a few years back. I liked it, didn't love it, but never got back to it. Well, Encore Westerns tempted me once too often with it on its schedule. My biggest takeaway? Director Lawrence Kasdan (who also wrote the screenplay with his brother, Mark) loves westerns. LOVES them. He must have grown up watching countless westerns because in the same way Indiana Jones and Star Wars did, 'Silverado' plays like a tribute film to its genre predecessors while also creating its own identity. I guess it makes sense because Kasdan wrote Raiders, Empire and Jedi. Go figure! It feels familiar -- in a good way -- and the lines are blurred some, but from the start things are pretty clear. The good guys are good and the bad guys are corrupt, greedy and evil. Entertaining in the best kind of way.

What I remember struggling with was the almost complete lack of a story. There are characters. There are some vignettes here and there. But a linear story? No, not really. We meet a ton of characters, things are kinda laid out, and then eventually, the good guys face off against those dastardly bad guys. It can be frustrating, but the payoff is worth it. Just know that getting there can be a tad slow in a 133-minute flick.

If you've seen Kasdan's writing credits -- read it HERE -- it's clear he's at his strongest with ensembles, typically tough guy ensembles. That is the biggest strength here in 'Silverado,' specifically with his four main heroes, Kline, Glenn, Glover and Costner. These are archetypal western characters, and they don't disappoint. Kline's Paden is the former gunslinger with a checkered past, Glenn's Emmett the amiable but tough as nails drifter, Costner's Jake the fun-loving, hard-living, cocky youngster, and Glover's Mal the ice water in his veins rifleman and family man. Kline doesn't scream 'wild west gunfighter,' but he's the coolest character. Glenn and Glover are similarly strong with Costner the only relative weak link in the bunch. It's not his fault, but the character is just a bit too goofy. Still, the strength is in the group. By the time you see the gun-slinging quartet ride to the final showdown, you're fully on their side.

Who else to look for? Let's talk baddies. Brian Dennehy is Sheriff Cobb, an imposing, brutish man who used to ride with Paden and is now working with a local rancher to buy up all the land around the town. Jeff Fahey is solid as his enforcer of sorts, Tyree. Jeff Goldblum has some fun as Slick, a gambler who arrives in Silverado looking for some easy cash. I thought the best supporting part was Linda Hunt (later of NCIS: LA) as Stella, the diminutive but feisty owner of the Silverado saloon. And in the out of left field department, John Cleese plays a sheriff in another town who comes across our heroes' trail. Also look for Rosanna Arquette, James Gammon and Lynn Whitfield in other supporting roles. If there's a weakness in the cast, it's that beyond Dennehy the villains aren't developed much or even on-screen. The evil rancher is almost an afterthought. The depth of the cast is still very impressive.

So westerns, they like their guns. 'Silverado' is a movie for those with a gun fetish. Scene after scene bring these guns to life from the hard, metallic click of the Henry rifle being loaded to a six-shooter being cocked and fired. The guns end up becoming additional characters. The action is pretty violent but never overly graphic. In the throwback fashion, it's good, old-fashioned, rip-roaring action. A rare "cold" western with snow and the mountains instead of the dusty prairies, this is a western that truly appreciates the genre it's come from. An Oscar-nominated musical score (little too adoring at times), a fun cast, fun vignettes and entertaining throughout. One of those perfect 3-star movies, best watched with a big tub of popcorn.

Silverado (1985): ***/****

Tough Guys

Two of the biggest stars of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas were frequent collaborators during their distinguished careers, doing seven films together. The two best -- for me -- are Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and Seven Days in May, but I've seen a couple others. Well, here's their last venture together, 1986's Tough Guys.

Having served 30 years in prison, Harry Doyle (Lancaster) and Archie Long (Douglas) have finally earned their parole. The veteran bank robbers are reintroduced to a world vastly different than the one they left. Now 72-year old Harry and 67-year old Archie have to figure things out if they hope to make it on the outside, starting with their new living arrangements. Because of his age, Harry is forced to live in a retirement home while Archie moves in at a small apartment and tries to hold down minimum wage jobs. Can they handle their new lives? Can 1980s Los Angeles possibly handle them? The two friends and ex-cons are going to try their hardest, but their checkered pasts may pop up to slow them down and make their readjustment that much harder...if they get through it at all.

As I watched this 1980s action-comedy from director Jeff Kanew, a thought crossed my mind. That can be pretty rare so I've gotta enjoy them when they make their appearances. You know that movie is? A forerunner for a whole sub-genre of flicks that seemed to pop up in the 1990s and still appear here and there. The OLD GUY movie! Since 1986, we've seen the Grumpy Old Men movies, My Fellow Americans, Last Vegas, and probably a bunch more I'm not thinking of. It isn't a good movie, but it is mildly entertaining, most of that because the talent involved is very impressive. It has some laughs but also tries really hard to get those laughs.

It's a premise that would be used in far better fashion some seven years later in The Shawshank Redemption when James Whitmore's Brooks is paroled and discovers a world nothing like the one he left. Here, the goal obviously isn't on the same dramatic level. It's laughs. So what do we get? Two old pros in Lancaster and Douglas wearing some impeccably stylish and impeccably dated hats and fedoras navigating Los Angeles. They're still tough guys, handling street toughs (typically with a swift kick to the crotch), dancing like a crazy person at a night club, and even stumbling into their old watering hole only to find that the bar is now...a gay bar! Oh, the hijinks people will get into, huh?!?

Still, it's Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. Yeah, there are times where you feel like they're far, far better than the source material. Okay, basically the entire movie. These guys are Hollywood legends for a reason, and they don't disappoint. They commit to the script and the parts, breathing some energy into a movie that would have been dead on arrival without that energy. Setting the story in 1980s L.A. does add a fun flavor to the story, and the duo has a great chemistry throughout. Their dynamic reminded me of Paul Newman and Robert Redford as Butch and Sundance if they had made it out of Bolivia. Their dialogue just flows as smoothly as possible. They're got their routines, they've got their plans in a row, and at times, they bitch and moan at each other like an old married couple. About what you'd expect to see from two guys who spent 30 years in jail together. A movie worth watching because of Lancaster and Douglas.

Who else to look out for? Charles Durning as the cop who put Harry and Archie away some 30 years ago and is now suspicious of what they're up to, Alexis Smith as a former flame from Harry's past, a young Dana Carvey as the duo's adoring parole officer, Darlanne Fluegel as a much younger woman who's drawn to Archie's manliness, and Eli Wallach as a bespectacled killer looking to take the train-robbing duo out after years of waiting for a chance.

By the hour-mark, things get a little more predictable than they already were. They struggle to adjust? Ah what?!? Their solution makes perfect sense as they turn back to a life of crime. It gets goofy at times and downright dumb at others, especially the closing scene. But all that said, it's still Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas.

Tough Guys (1986): ** 1/2 /****

Omen III: The Final Conflict

Well, evil has grown up. After reviewing the Omen remake from 2006 and the first sequel from the original, it's time to wrap things up with one last review. The original Omen movies were a trilogy and one failed TV movie. I watched part of this one years ago, especially remembering the finale, so here we go with 1981's Omen III: The Final Conflict.

The world has fallen into a costly recession, one that has some calling the current international crisis the 'end of days.' People are looking for answers, for a solution. Waiting to give them that answer and leadership is the C.E.O. of an aid company, a huge corporation with footholds all over the world, one Damien Thorn (Sam Neill), now 32 years old and fully embracing his Satanic makeup. When a grisly suicide leaves the position open, Damien is appointed the U.S. ambassador to England, the same position his father held years before. He has plans for his power position but he has fears, signs pointing to the Second Coming of Christ, that could cripple his plans. The timing is essential for those battling on both sides, both good and bad, as a small order of monks from Italy know Damien's true identity and are doing everything in their power to stop him. Who or what will prevail in the end? Good or evil?

Of the trilogy, only the first one is an above average horror flick to the point I'd say it is a classic. Where do the second and third ones fall? They're pretty good...just not as good. From director Graham Baker, 'Final' wraps things up in pretty cool fashion. It switches up the formula some and doesn't depend on gruesome deaths like Omen II did (even though I enjoyed that flick a lot). Again, these aren't the most plot-driven flicks, but I didn't get caught up in that stuff. It's all building, all developing a character, and this time we get a showdown in the finale between good and evil. 'Final' isn't as good as either of its predecessors, but I still enjoyed it a lot. It wraps things up nicely and even left an opening for the series to continue that never developed. 

If you believe Wikipedia and its countless information -- and I tend to -- the casting for 32-year old Damien was pretty interesting. How about Jack Nicholson? Gene Hackman? Even Marlon Brando? All three were considered for the part before producers decided to go with a lesser known actor. Enter Sam Neill, 34 years old at the time. This is the natural progression for Damien. Having realized who he truly is in 'Damien II,' he's now actively working toward taking what is his. He's embraced his identity. He is the Antichrist, and he intends to rule the world. We get to see his political pull in a startlingly easy encounter with the President (Mason Adams), his pull on his political staff, and in most frightening fashion, his growing number of apostles and disciples. As I've mentioned before, evil...true, pure evil, can be scarier than any serial killer, murder mystery.

And that's an interesting angle of this sequel. Now, I'm not religious much, but this story fascinated me. Again, it's that BIG concept of good and evil. Add in the Antichrist, the believed Second Coming of Christ, and we've got some interesting stuff going on. Neill's Damien gets to chew the scenery several times as he addresses an immense crucifix (Jesus nailed to the cross backwards) about how he will ultimately defeat him. He calls him the Nazarene as if they were on a first-name basis, his cold, icy and calculating stare -- and what looks like some guy-liner -- adding that sinister edge to the story. This isn't a James Bond villain trying to conquer the world. This is the Prince of Darkness, the Devil, Satan himself. Not too many bigger stakes than that. Oh, and those dagger-wielding monks led by Father DeCarlo (Rossano Brazzi)? Nice touch, another enemy for Damien to deal with, even if they are sort of a bumbling bunch.

The cast is pretty small here for this horror sequel. Along with Neill, look for Don Gordon as Harvey Dean, Damien's personal assistant, fully aware of what his boss is and what he aspires to do in the old evil department. Lisa Harrow plays Kate Reynolds, a respected TV journalist trying to get down to the truth of Damien's background, Barnaby Holm playing her son, Peter, possibly a disciple for Damien.

There's some pretty cool moments along the way. I loved the credits sequence as we discover how the daggers that were supposedly lost in Damien II are discovered and end up where they need to be. The monks' attempts on Damien are tense, and Damien's ultimate plan to stop the second coming is particularly gruesome and more than a little unsettling. And then there's the ending, a great final scene that brings everything full circle. Yeah, there's some giant plot holes, but I liked the execution from beginning to end.

Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981): ***/****

Beetlejuice

So can we all agree on this next statement? Strange, odd and as downright creepy as he can be at times, Tim Burton is one talented, eccentric filmmaker. Following the success of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure in 1985, Burton was looking for a script for his next film. He struggled to find the right vehicle, ultimately settling on 1988's Beetlejuice. Though I grew up watching the Beetlejuice cartoon on Saturday mornings, I never saw the movie....until now!!!

With a two-week vacation ahead of them, husband, Adam (Alec Baldwin), and wife, Barbara (Geena Davis), have decided to sit around on the house and relax doing odds and ends. Well, that's their plan at least. Picking up some odds and ends, the couple is killed in a car crash, and now they're trapped in some sort of after-life purgatory....in their own home. Is it heaven? Is it hell? Is it neither? Adam and Barbara find a "Guide to the Recently Undead" book in their attic but don't know what to make of it. They're trapped in their house and don't know how to get out. It's a minor problem until a new family moves in, an uppity family from New York City, wanting to make lots of changes that the recently dead couple is really in trouble. Maybe their only option? A live-wire, bio-exorcist ghost named Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton), who may have some ulterior motives.

Look at the films a director makes -- the good directors at least -- and you can get a good glimpse into their beliefs, their backgrounds, their childhoods. What about Burton? He is a nut. A talented, crazy, chaotic nut with a beautifully insane outlook on life. From Pee-Wee to Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands to writing Nightmare Before Christmas, Burton isn't afraid to make movies that he likes. They're weird (sometimes gloriously weird), and he's okay with that. Watching these movies is a trip so you've gotta know that going in. Watching a Burton flick is like being transported into an alternate world with crazy visuals, crazier characters, and a dark, cynical sense of humor. Sound good? I'm not a huge, diehard fan of Burton, but I can definitely appreciate a talented director like he is.

So what's an unlikely source for some laughs? Dying, death and whatever twisted vision of the afterlife that Tim Burton has. It's wickedly colorful, always slightly ajar and off-center, and though it produces laughs, it's always played straight. At no point does it feel forced. The laughs are bizarre, but they work because Burton and the cast simply lay things out for you. Here's the joke. Laugh if you want. If you don't, no skin off my back. Case in point? When Adam and Barbara visit the afterlife offices, we meet Juno (Sylvia Sidney), their afterlife case worker who fills them in on their new situation. While smoking and explaining, smoke filters out through her throat. Was her throat slit? Did she have cancer? Just go with it. There's a whole office of stuff like that, a desk clerk who hung himself and now moves around the office by noose. The football team that died in a bus wreck. The shrunken-head victim of a witch doctor...and the dead voodoo doctor. The magician's assistant sitting next to her severed lower half. Incredibly dark but oh so funny.

Enough with all that mumbo-jumbo. Let's talk Beetlejuice! Having worked for most of the 1980s in a variety of films, this was the movie that made Michael Keaton a star, albeit a star that shined brightly but quickly. Wearing heavy makeup and some kooky outfits, Keaton throws himself completely into the part as our big-exorcist ghost looking to have some fun...a lot of fun actually. He's actually not in the movie a ton but makes the most of every minute he's on-screen. He falls for the Deetzes' daughter, Lydia (Winona Ryder), who embraces all sorts of weird, producing some great moments as he tries to escape the afterlife (sort of). It's goofy, often dumb, mostly smart, and Keaton is a scene-stealer. His character theme song is a gem too, kicking in HERE about 30 seconds in.

There isn't a weak spot in the entire cast. Baldwin and Davis get laughs because they play it straight, especially when they realize that as dead people they can do all sorts of horrifying, manipulative things to their bodies. As well, they're dead, but they're not quite Beetlejuice dead, establishing a sort of afterlife hierarchy. Catherine O'Hara and Jeffrey Jones are perfect together as Delia and Charles Deetz, the wife looking to gut the house while the husband wants to relax and live a country life...until there's money on the line. Ryder too is especially good as the quirky Lydia who can see the ghosts/dead. Glenn Shadix has some great moments too as Otho, Delia's interior decorator with a wicked sense of everything.

Just a funny movie from beginning to end. Too many good moments to mention, and what's the fun in me giving them all away? Check it out, an excellent Halloween-themed flick for October!

Beetlejuice (1988): ***/****

Reds

The amount of information, facts and tidbits I don't know about Russian history could full volumes. I love history -- ALL of it -- but something about the immensity of Russia and its history has proved rather intimidating to me. Where to even start? Well, movies seem to agree with me. I liked but didn't love 1965's Doctor Zhivago, but there's another Russian epic that's long been recommend to me. Let's get going with 1981's Reds.

Living in Portland, Oregon in 1915, Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) has a relatively safe if dull life. She's married, does art and is a hopeful writer. Then, she meets John Reed (Warren Beatty), a highly respected if somewhat controversial writer with an impressive following. She is immediately drawn to him and ends up following him to New York City to be with him while also hopefully pursuing a career as a writer and a journalist. There's a relative catch though. John is a staunch supporter of the socialist movement, a movement that threatens to tear World War I apart as workers around the world, especially in Russia, begin to push for more rights, more privileges. In the midst of World War I (and with the Russian Revolution looming), Louise has entered into one of history's most tumultuous times. She loves John and he loves her, but the world seems on the brink of blowing itself up. What will happen next?

For years, my Mom has recommended this movie to me. It's one of her all-time favorites, and she knows far more about the time and backstory than I do. For some background reading, read about the Russian Revolution HERE at Wikipedia. It's not even fair to say this is a Russian Revolution movie. This is a story about two people's lives amidst that turbulent time in world history with a heavy socialist focus. For more reading, read about John Reed and Louise Bryant, two incredibly interesting individuals. It is a big, epic movie, clocking in at equally intimidating 194 minutes, and took Beatty (who starred, directed, produced and wrote) and his cast and crew a full year to film. That's before you consider a lengthy editing process. Beatty is no dummy, taking on films that mean something to him, and this is the definition of that. This is a message movie, an intellectual, thought-out, impressive film. Is it good though?

I will say it is more interesting than it is good, if that makes sense. 'Reds' picked up 12 Oscar nominations, ultimately winning three, including Beatty as Best Director. For a movie that clocks in at almost three and a half hours, it did well at the box office and resonated with critics and has developed quite a following among fans. It was filmed in New York City, Finland, England, Sweden and Spain. So....yeah, what else? 'Reds' is an epic. The scale and immensity is impressive. This is an epic about an idea though, the idea of socialism. This is 194 minutes of almost entirely talking. This is talking about a principle, about government, about corruption, about history, about the system. 'Reds' isn't Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather or Gone With the Wind. It is its own epic, and with Beatty backing it all the way, it is quite okay with being its own film. I struggled at times because it is such a smart, well-written movie. Is that enough to hamstring a film? I don't know, but definitely know what you're getting into here.

Picking up two of the film's four Oscar acting nominations, Beatty and Keaton carry the film. Either one or the other is in almost every scene, and apparently the filming was so strenuous on their off-screen relationship they ultimately broke up. I didn't necessarily buy their doomed love, their unexplained chemistry. What did I buy? Their performances themselves are excellent. These are two extremely intelligent individuals, drawn to each other but who's personalities butt heads because they're both so strong-willed. Based on historical figures, both characters are 3-D, blood and guts people, not cardboard cutouts. Kudos to both actors who again make their characters interesting/fascinating if not necessarily likable.

Up until 2012's Silver Linings Playbook, 'Reds' was the last film to receive Oscar nominations for all four acting categories. The culprits? Jack Nicholson as playwright/writer Eugene O'Neill and Maureen Stapleton as famed anarchist Emma Goldman. These aren't huge supporting parts, but what's there is choice, two actors making the most of their relatively small screentime. Also look for Edward Herrmann, Jerzy Kosinski, M. Emmet Walsh, Paul Sorvino, William Daniels, Gene Hackman, and R.G. Armstrong in supporting parts. Some of them are pretty quick, none of them truly developed, and a couple are nothing more than a single scene. Of the smaller parts, Kosinski is memorable as a socialist leader working with Reed and Hackman as a booze-loving, honest newspaper editor.

One of the best choices Beatty makes as a director was a wise style choice. Along with the actual story, interviews with those who knew Reed and Bryant during the 1910s and 1920s are interspersed throughout the movie. These people -- now in their 70s and 80s -- reminiscing about John and Louise, about the times, about how things have changed, these are the moments that proved most memorable for me. Check out the list of witnesses HERE. So as I mentioned before, this is an excellent movie. One you appreciate and admire and respect. I felt like I learned some things as the story develops, but did I love the movie like I hoped I would? Nope. Still very much worth checking out, but not quite the movie I was expecting.

Reds (1981): ** 1/2 /****

Ghostbusters

Wanna feel old? Just look back at movies that were released the year you were born. Last week I went and saw Guardians of the Galaxy only to find a poster advertising the coming 30th anniversary of 1984's Ghostbusters hitting theaters. My first thought was something along the lines of "Haha what an old movie. That's crazy." Well....I'm 29 so that makes me....oh, God, I'm gonna be 30 next summer!!! Okay, calm down, calm down. Yeah, anyways, Ghostbusters is really good. Definitely couldn't pass up that re-release in theaters.

When their grant with Columbia University runs out, doctors/screwballs/misfits/friends Pete Veckman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Egon Spangler (Harold Ramis) find themselves in quite the sticky situation. Experts of sorts in paranormal activity, the trio decide to go into business for themselves, dubbing the little group 'Ghostbusters.' Their start-up business struggles at first but quickly hits a groove to the point they become celebrities, popping up in newspapers, magazines and TV news all over the country. Their reputation spreads and they keep on scooping up and observing all sorts of paranormal activity across New York City. Then, they take a job that may be too big even for them. A woman, Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), claims some inexplicable things have been happening in her apartment. What's going on exactly? The Ghostbusters are on the case.

How crazy is it that Ghostbusters is 30 years old? Seriously. It's 30 years old. Let that sink in for a little bit. Process it. I hadn't watched this sci-fi, horror comedy in years (like....lots of years) but the girlfriend is a big fan so it was hard to pass up the opportunity to see it remastered on a big screen. It's easy to forget the impact the film has had in those 30 years, spawning a sequel (and possibly a third upcoming one), two cartoon series -- I loved The Real Ghostbusters growing up -- and too many iconic things to mention. Okay, let's try. There's the instantly recognizable theme from Ray Parker Jr. (listen HERE), the great throwback beige jumpsuits, the Ghostbusters warehouse, and of course, the NYC firehouse turned Ghostbusters office. Oh, and Slimer too. You can't forget Slimer.

As far as comedy writers go, there's a certain mad genius quality to Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. Together or working separately, they've helped write The Blues Brothers, Coneheads, Dragnet, Spies Like Us, Caddyshack, Meatballs, Stripes and Animal House. Oh, and this one, Ghostbusters. You combine those two mad geniuses and let them do their thing. The script is a gem, funny without ever trying too hard. It lays things out, assembles a ton of talent and gives each of them a chance to shine. Murray gets the most laughs, but it is a smart-ass, underplayed, dripping with sarcasm part as he unleashes one memorable one-liner after another. Aykroyd is just manic energy, Ramis is the straight man who's always ready with a scientific response, and joining the crew late is Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddmore because a job is a job.

What a cast though. It's 107 minutes and the cast and story never feels rushed. Murray, Ramis and Aykroyd are pretty perfect together, giving the impression of three friends just hanging out and shooting the breeze. Throw in the very sexy Sigourney Weaver who gets to deal with her nerdy neighbor played to perfection by Rick Moranis, and you've got quite the group of talented actors assembled here. Also look for Annie Potts as the Ghostbusters' secretary, Janine, and familiar 1980s snooty bad guy William Atherton as an EPA agent more than a little interested in what the Ghostbusters are actually doing.

No point in any overanalysis here. Director Ivan Reitman has a gem here, one I very much enjoyed catching up with how many years later. The entire movie is strong, but it is at its best in the final act as the Ghostbusters must tangle with an ancient spirit and demigod, Zuul, and a Sumerian shape-shifting god of destruction, Gozer. It produces probably the movie's most memorable scene, a gigantic 100-feet tall Stay Puft Marshmallow Man terrorizing New York City. Hard not to like this one. Well worth revisiting....even if it does mean I'm almost 30 years old.

Ghostbusters (1984): ***/****

Dead Poets Society

More than a week later, it's still hard to believe the shocking news about the passing of Robin Williams. A comedic legend of both television, film and on-stage as a comedian, Williams did it all in a career dating back to the 1970s. I've always thought Williams was an underrated dramatic actor so as a tribute of sorts I tried to catch up with some of his best works. First up? A film he picked up a Best Actor nomination, 1989's Dead Poets Society.

It's 1959 at the prestigious Welton Academy, a four-year, all boys prep school, and a fresh school year is about to begin. This is a school that has quite a reputation for producing above average students, many going onto the Ivy League. This year, Welton is welcoming a new English teacher to its faculty, John Keating (Williams), who favors some unorthodox teaching methods to get his lessons across. Some students like Neil Perry (Robert Sean Leonard) take instantly to this out of the box teaching, embracing Keating's message. Other students, like the criminally shy Todd Anderson (Ethan Hawke), are more wary and stay guarded.  Keating's teaching seems to have quite an impact on his students, but it also catches the attention of some of the rest of the faculty, including the administration that runs the school. The message and goal is there, but is Keating going too far in teaching his students to be free-thinkers?

Whether you watch this movie to rewatch a classic, as a tribute of sorts to Robin Williams, just to explore a new movie you've heard good things about, it's all a positive. I hadn't watched this film from director Peter Weir in years, but it doesn't matter. It still resonates years later because it is pure and simple, a wonderful, beautifully told story. Filmed on-location at St. Andrew's School in Middletown, Delaware, 'Poets' is visually gorgeous, a film full of richness, an almost earthy tone, with some shots looking like a painting. Composer Maurice Jarre's score is equal parts haunting and beautiful, relying on two main themes. Listen HERE for an extended sample. It's the type of perfect score that is effective and powerful and emotional without overpowering what we see. It plays like a companion piece, giving each scene a notch or two up.

But here we sit. Many people think of Robin Williams first and foremost as a comedian, and he's damn funny to the point some have said he's a comedic genius. I think he's criminally underrated as a dramatic actor, and this is a prime example. In a part that earned him a Best Actor nomination (losing to Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot), Williams absolutely steals the show. His John Keating is an English teacher who simply wants his students to learn to think for themselves, to be themselves and to question the norm. In a no-nonsense school, these teaching methods obviously ruffle some feathers. You watch his scenes teaching, and all you think is that THIS is how and what teaching should be like. He inspires, he pushes, he questions, and he makes his students question what they know, how they study and learn. Williams gets his quick glimpses into his comedic ability -- he does a trio of really strong impressions to get a point across about Shakespeare -- but this is Robin Williams at his subdued, dramatic best. Just an amazingly perfect performance.

So while Williams' Keating is the one trying to deliver a message, it is in the students we see how the messages land, some effectively, some with a thud depending on the student. Robert Sean Leonard is excellent as Neil, one of the smartest students at Wellton, a likable kid who's trying to find out who he is and what he wants to be, his incredibly strict father (Kurtwood Smith) limiting those choices. In just his second feature film, Hawke nails his part as Todd, the very smart but very shy new arrival to Wellton who's struggling to find his way. The other students we meet and end up forming the Dead Poets Society include Knox (Josh Charles), the lovestruck kid who falls for a cheerleader at a local public school, Charlie (Gale Hansen), an underachiever who always loves to stir things up, the grades-obsessed Cameron (Dylan Kussman), and Meeks (Allelon Ruggiero) and Pitts (James Waterston), the smart, tech-savvy nerdy types of the group. It's an impressive group of young actors, all of them playing off each other well and finding a groove almost immediately.

The movie has too many worthy moments to mention. I love Keating forcing Todd to step out of his comfort zone to embrace his inner poet. I love Keating's out of the ordinary lesson plans from the Carpe Diem speech to the walking exercise to the strong opinion on the J. Evans Pritchard intro to a book of poetry. It all pales in comparison to where the story goes in its second half. 'Poets' packs quite the emotional punch in its finale in one scene after another. At no point does it feel like they're begging for emotions or trying too hard. Weir, Williams and the young cast manage to find this perfect middle ground, leading to one of the most perfect endings to a movie I can ever remember. It hits me in the gut every single time I watch it. Hawke, Williams and Jarre's score absolutely destroy the final scene.

A classic, a great movie. You will be missed, Mr. Williams.

Dead Poets Society (1989): ****/****

Farewell to the King

John Milius is tough. There, I said it. A director and writer who became fairly well known in the late 1970s and the 1980s, Milius doesn't have a long, sprawling filmography. He's directed a little more than a handful of movies with almost 30 writing credits to his names as well. I've enjoyed the Milius entries -- directing and/or writing -- I've seen and can now check another one off the list, one of his lesser known efforts (and maybe for a reason), 1989's Farewell to the King.

It's early in World War II, and an American deserter, Learoyd (Nick Nolte), manages to escape Bataan and Corregidor with several other deserters. They land on Borneo, Learoyd again managing to survive while the other deserters are caught and executed by the Japanese. Learoyd retreats into the jungle, trying to survive. Some three years later, WWII's tide has turned and the Japanese are holding onto their last footholds across the Pacific. A special forces officer, Captain Fairbourne (Nigel Havers), is being dropped into Borneo to unite the native tribes on the island in an effort to lead a guerrilla movement against the retreating Japanese forces. Who does he find in charge of the natives, including a headhunting tribe, but Learoyd himself, looked at as a god by the natives. Can Fairbourne manage to convince the eccentric American deserter turned king to fight with the Allies with the war seemingly in grasp?

Well, this was certainly an interesting movie, if not necessarily a good one. A bomb at the box office in 1989, 'Farewell' was only called to my attention by a fellow blogger and all-around good guy Chris at Nothing Is Written. You can read his review HERE. I liked it more than him, but the flaws are evident all over the place in this Milius film. It is safe to say I liked the idea, premise and potential of the movie here more than the actual execution which ends up being all over the place in a movie that runs about 115 minutes. Milius has said in interviews that 'Farewell' was taken away from in post-production and hacked to pieces by the studio. It certainly seems like it could be true. The story is rushed at times, whole explanatory scenes seemingly hacked away, and in general, my thought was that the idea of a good movie is there. In the end, simply too much is on the plate, Milius trying to accomplish too much.

Let's start with the King himself, Nick Nolte. I can't make up my mind about this titular performance for good or bad. The biggest thing is that Nolte may not have been the right choice for the part. It is a character that demands a lot, but at no point did I really get a sense of why these tribes in Borneo are drawn to Learoyd. Yes, we're told his blue eyes, blonde hair and dragon tattoo on his chest are all reasons, but there's got to be something more than that, right? Nolte's Learoyd spouts a lot of mumbo-jumbo about nature and its power, of living life the right way. The goal seems to be to say something profound and deep, but it comes across as heavy-handed and aggressively dumb. He tries to be too Father Earthy, and it falls short. Much of the time, Nolte's gruff, gravelly-voiced demeanor works in tough guy parts but here I felt like something more was needed that simply isn't.

The parts that do work feature Learoyd and Captain Fairbourne, the special forces officer sent to assemble a native insurrection. The acting isn't great, but the idea of the Fairbourne character is certainly interesting, a variation on the naive, innocent Joyce character from Bridge on the River Kwai. He's been through all the training, knows how to kill most effectively...but he's never had to do it and now he's thrust into a bloody, gruesome guerrilla warfare. Also look for Frank McCrae as Tenga, Fairbourne's Australian radioman, with Marius Weyers, William Wise, Wayne Pygram and Richard Morgan rounding out the specialist team sent to train the natives, a wasted opportunity for some cool supporting characters. Gerry Lopez plays Gwai, Learoyd's right-hand man, Marilyn Tokuda playing Learoyd's wife.

'Farewell' does have plenty to offer. Composer Basil Poledouris turns in a memorable, sweeping score that becomes a key ingredient in the story. Milius and cinematographer Dean Semler helm a visually stunning movie, the locations in Borneo looking almost like a classic painting. The scene-to-scene transitions are as good if not better than the actual story. Some visuals especially stand out, including the build-up to an ambush of a Japanese column and the fallout as weather rolls in. There is about 45 minutes near the second half of the movie where 'Farewell' really hits its stride but it has bookends that aren't on the same level. As Learoyd, Fairbourne, the specialists and the natives join the war, that is the movie at its strongest.

Chris' review accurately pointed out how much 'Farewell' seems to borrow from other movies, and again, he's dead-on. The message and idea is there, but actually getting it across is a different thing. Milius never truly gets that message across. The finale feels downright rushed, the corrupt British (including very British James Fox) turning on the natives. If there is a director's cut out there, I'd be curious to see it. There is the potential for a good, even really good movie, among the pieces but as is, it is an interesting if heavily flawed final product.

Farewell to the King (1989): **/****

The Siege of Firebase Gloria

If you don't recognize the name, you will surely recognize the voice and that face. Known as the tough as nails drill sergeant in 1987's Full Metal Jacket, R. Lee Ermey has been one of those perfect character actors over the years, even starring in a History Channel show that answered all sorts of questions about the military. His performance in Full Metal Jacket is the one he will always be known for, but he delivers another excellent performance in a far lesser known but very high quality film about the Vietnam War, 1989's The Siege of Firebase Gloria.

It's early in 1968 and a long range Marine recon patrol led by Master Sergeant Hafner (Ermey) keeps coming across signs of increased North Vietnamese and Viet Cong activity. With his second-in-command, Corporal DiNardo (Wings Hauser), and a six-man patrol, Hafner leads the small group of Marines onto a small firebase named Gloria deep in the Vietnamese jungle. They find a poorly constructed, undermanned and under-supplied defensive position that's just waiting to be overrun should the Viet Cong attack. Hafner takes command, DiNardo helping at every turn, but their time is running out. As the Marines work to build up the firebase, the Viet Cong unleash the Tet offensive all over the country, American positions fighting back against waves of attacking guerrilla fighters. With no real hope of getting reinforcements, ammunition or supplies, can Gloria hold out or is it already too late?

Where do you go for a very solid movie about the front line fighting in the Vietnam War? Why, Australia of course with the Philippines providing the filming locations. From Australian director Brian Trenchard-Smith, 'Siege' is one of those hidden gems you're glad you stumble across. I caught it a couple times on TV during Memorial Day marathons and found it recently during just such a marathon on MGM-HD. Why are there so few movies about Vietnam? More specifically, about the fighting in Vietnam? My first thought is because America lost. My second is that this was a particularly nasty war with fighting unlike anything the world had seen. Trenchard-Smith's film doesn't shy away from that nastiness. At different points, it shows American soldiers "fragging" their own officers, American soldiers killing wounded Viet Cong soldiers, among other things. We also see the particularly brutal remnants of a Vietnamese massacre of a peaceful village, decapitations, rapes, a pile of murdered children's corpses. Not exactly uplifting stuff.

Limited somewhat by a smallish budget, 'Siege' makes up for it with that hard-edged, in-your-face authenticity. At no point does this feel forced. Though two screenwriters are listed in the credits, Trenchard-Smith has stated in interviews that Ermey wrote the screenplay. Whoever wrote it...it's good in a brutal, straightforward fashion. We get a bigger picture of what's going on with the Tet Offensive, but this is a story with its focus far more on the foot soldiers, the infantry, the grunts. We follow a single engagement (over 3 or 4 days) as a small garrison tries to defend a remote outpost against overwhelming odds. There are some stiff moments, and the characters are from the War Movies Handbook 101, but the movie is always interesting. The realism and authenticity does an excellent job in that department.

No big names here, Ermey and Hauser carrying the heavy lifting. Ermey was a Vietnam vet who served multiple tours before being sent home with his wounds. His narration is that no-frills type of voiceover that would come from a lifelong Marine, a soldier who's seen all that war has to offer. He's tired, worn down but loves the Marines and loves the fight. Hauser's DiNardo is his close friend who's struggling with some personal demons but remains an incredibly capable soldier in his own right, a soldier Hafner trusts with his life. Who else to look for? There's Murphy (Mark Neely), a young soldier figuring out the ins and outs of Vietnam, Coates (Clyde Jones) the radioman -- who's called Short Waves) who's also on short time on his tour, and Jones (Albert Popwell), an Army sergeant who bristles at the Marines' commands but knows ultimately it's their call.

There's other parts, some more worthwhile than others that include an on-base nurse, a war photographer thrust into action, a wounded officer who survived Viet Cong torture, and a very strong part for Gary Hershberger as Moran, a gung-ho chopper pilot who continuously risks his life to bring Gloria any supplies and ammunition he can. His brief interactions with Ermey's Hafner on an under-fire landing zone are perfect, the no-nonsense Marine lifer vs. the free-spirited helicopter pilot who doesn't have much use for rules or authority. Also look for Robert Arevalo as Cao Van, the commander of the attacking Viet Cong forces, presented as a human being, not a stereotypically evil villain. Not much in star power or name recognition, but some solid supporting parts across the board.

Wasting little time in its 95-minute running time, 'Siege' is action-heavy and never lets up. The violence is brutal and uncomfortable but while it is particularly graphic, the camera doesn't linger on the violence. War, killing and death is quick and hard-hitting, brutal and unceremonious. We see the lines all along the firebase up in the air, Viet Cong pushing forward as Americans fall back and then the other way when the outnumbered American infantry push back. There are brief respites but they're quick breaks, and it is never too long before the attack continues. Is this a groundbreaking war movie? No, but it is very effective on multiple levels. It succeeds as a war story and as an action movie. It has little in the way of a reputation or cult following, but it deserves far more. A difficult movie to watch, but one that is worthwhile in the end.

The Siege of Firebase Gloria (1989): ***/****