Quo Vadis

Everyone has their favorite movie stars, but what about stars you dislike?  For me, I've never been able to understand Robert Taylor's appeal.  He is as wooden as can be and never seems to actually act.  His lines whether he's content, pissed or in love always come out the same...monotone in his already deep, flat voice.  Unfortunately for me, Taylor was in many westerns, war and adventure movies that appeal to me.  He isn't always bad -- Bataan is a classic -- but I've rarely come away from one of these movies thinking highly of his performance.

One of his more wooden parts comes in the 1951's Quo Vadis, one of the first Technicolor historical epics that include Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Cleopatra, Fall of the Roman Empire and many more.  This is a BIG movie with a cast of thousands, gigantic sets, and an appropriately large story involving the growth of Christianity in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection.  But with all those positives going for the movie, Taylor is cast as the lead.  I don't believe he was the right actor to carry such a big production.  His stiff performance is the movie's weakest element in an otherwise enjoyable epic.

After a 3-year campaign, Roman legion commander Marcus Vinicius (Taylor) returns home to Rome triumphantly at the head of his army.  Staying at the home of a former general, Marcus is struck by the beauty of the general's adopted daughter, Lygia (Deborah Kerr).  He does everything he can to win her over but ends up driving her further away with his boorish, violent ways.  Somehow, Lygia does fall for Marcus but her Christian beliefs confuse him.  As he tries to win her back, Roman emperor Nero (Peter Ustinov) goes about ruling his empire, always teetering on the brink of insanity.  Looking for inspiration, he orders Rome to be burned down, forcing Marcus to find Lygia and her family before the city is destroyed.

Stories set in ancient times have a romantic feel to them that is nearly impossible to ruin in movie-form.  Almost three-hours long, 'Quo Vadis' was a big-budget success that audiences flocked to.  Made in Italy, it is a beautifully shot movie whether the scenes are on the elaborate sets built for the movie or the quiet scenes set in the Italian countryside.  It's a very professional movie without a ton of heart, but so often these epics were about the spectacle.  No CGI in the 1950s so all those scenes of enormous crowds were actually filmed.  I've said it before, but there's always something appealing about a director actually filming something as opposed to creating it on a computer.

Other than Taylor's struggles in the lead, the cast is top notch if not instantly recognizable.  Kerr as the object of Marcus' affections is very good as Lygia.  Her character is a Christian and basically is given no flaws, making her feelings for Taylor's Marcus all that much harder to comprehend.  He basically forces himself on her, and when that doesn't work buys her.  All the while, he doesn't understand why she won't have him.  Other cast members making a strong impression include Leo Genn as Petronius, Marcus' uncle and one of Nero's closest adviser, Patricia Laffan as Poppea, Nero's slutty wife, and Buddy Baer as Ursus, a giant of a man devoted to keeping Lygia safe from trouble in whatever form it comes.

The romance storyline has its awkward moments but is decent enough when looked at as a whole.  The highlight of the movie though is Peter Ustinov as Emperor Nero, a role which earned him an Oscar nomination for a supporting role (Genn was nominated too but neither won).  Ustinov's Nero is often petty and childlike with a vindictive streak that has no bounds.  He is almost cartoonish in his performance of an emperor who fancies himself a demi-god and a portal through which the Roman gods speak to the people.  His performance is mesmerizing, both funny and frightening all at once, and the main reason to watch this movie.  You almost want to feel bad for him at times because he's so easily manipulated, but this is one crazy dude.

Another interesting sub-plot revolves around the growth of Christianity with the story beginning some 30 years after Jesus' death.  His apostle Peter (Finlay Currie) plays a key part in the story when being a Christian was forbidden and punishable by death.  Keeping their faith under wraps, the Christians meet secretly at night in some of the movie's best sequences.  In the finale Nero realizes his burning of Rome did not go over as planned -- who would have thought that? -- and blames this new fledgling religion.  They are burned alive and eaten by lions in the Colisseum in a remarkable sequence late.  It all makes for an interesting subplot when the love angle gets a little dull.

Not the best of the historical studio epics, but one still worth watching, especially for Peter Ustinov's performance as Nero.  I'd recommend watching this one on the TV, but it is available to watch on Youtube, starting with Part 1 of 22.  Get a comfortable chair before you sit down for three hours at the computer.

Quo Vadis <-----trailer (1951): ** 1/2 /****

2012

Watching his movies, I can't help but wonder if Roland Emmerich would have been better suited if he was born about 20 years earlier.  That way, his success in disaster movies would have coincided nicely with the 1970s epidemic of disaster movies.  To his name, he already has Godzilla, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, and now 2012, all dealing with some sort of disaster of epic proportions.  Of course, all of these movies use CGI heavily so where would the German actor be?

I feel the need to point this out so I don't come across too critical, but Emmerich's movies are awful.  (How could that be construed as critical?).  Even his good ones like The Patriot, Stargate, and the ones mentioned before are awful movies.  Just about all of them qualify in the always entertaining 'so bad they're good' category and count me among the moviegoers who enjoyed these schlock fests.  But with his most recent outing, last fall's 2012, I think Emmerich finally hit rock bottom.  It's beyond 'bad but good' and produces so many unintentional -- I hope -- laughs that I'd recommend it for the comedy, not the drama.

Now as the year 2012 draws closer, more and more is being made of the ancient Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world, the apocalypse.  Emmerich takes the idea and runs with it, going from zero to 60 like nobody's business.  An American geologist (Chiwetel Ejiofor, one of the few bright spots in the movie) working with a friend in India finds out the Earth's core is beginning to heat up.  He informs his government superior (Oliver Platt in prime a-hole mode) who then passes it along to the president (Danny Glover).  Fast forward three years to 2012, and the predicted cataclysmic events come earlier than expected.

A divorced dad (John Cusack) works to save his family as the Earth starts to tear itself apart with volcanoes, tsunamis, and earthquakes all starting at once.  It's while vacationing in Yellowstone with his two kids that Cusack's all-American dad starts to catch wind of the coming disaster, but he shrugs off the warnings of a conspiracy theorist (Woody Harrelson) spouting off about the coming disasters.  The crazy guy is of course, correct, forcing divorcee dad to keep his family alive...somehow....some way.  From the theorist, he heard of a government plan to continue mankind, spaceships outfitted to handle 400,000 people each.  The only problem?  These ships are in China.  Oh, but good news, the new dad in the family has taken flying lessons!  Now let's all find a plane!

Yeah, yeah, I know no one goes to these big budget disaster movies for the story, but come on, Roland Emmerich.  That's all you've got?  More so than most disaster movies, this one depends on coincidence and huge strokes of luck more than it should.  It's also pretty lazy with four different instances of characters having to outrun deadly death clouds/earthquakes/tsunamis/asteroids, like THIS ONE.  Some of those moments do provide the story's funniest scenes with Cusack scrambling around and looking worried, screaming at anyone who will listen.  I typically like Cusack as an actor, but he was not the right guy for this part.

The cast is full of big names -- as is required in a disaster movie -- who are forced to play cardboard cutouts of characters.  Anyone with half a brain cell can figure out within 30 seconds of a character's introduction if they will or will not survive the disaster.  Divorced dad making up for lost time?  He'll make it, especially cause he's got a cute daughter.  New dad who is an all-around douchebag?  Don't hold your breath.  That's the problem with the whole movie, you can tell where it's going before the movie probably even knew.  Also worth mentioning are Amanda Peet as Cusack's ex, and Thandie Newton as the President's daughter destined to end up with Ejiofor's scientist.  One other observation, do disaster movies require a black president?  Just wondering.

Now on to the good stuff, the CGI.  A sign of good CGI -- for me at least -- is that it doesn't produce groans from audiences when it appears, so basically anything even remotely fake-looking.  Emmerich spares no expense (okay, maybe the story) to produce some top notch CGI action.  The apocalypse never looked so good as when Emmerich is directing the story.  Not surprisingly, watch this one for the special effects.  Your viewing experience will almost certainly be more enjoyable with friends and beer too.  Brace yourself though, it's a long movie at 159 minutes.  And don't trick yourself into thinking it'll fly by, there are times (basically any dialogue scene) that are painfully slow.

Saving the best for last though, the ending.  Cusack saves the day and helps one of the spaceships -- they're actually arks -- survive.  A title cards reads 'Day 27....Year 01'  (pretentious much?) as the three remaining arcs sail around the world, or at least what's left of it.  We learn that Africa, the whole damn continent, wasn't affected at all by the natural disasters.  Not even a little bit, none, zilch, nada.  So actually, the end of the world was only sorta the end of the world.  It's one of the stupidest endings ever...only topped by the alternate ending on the DVD.  No spoilers here, I'll force you to rent/buy it.

A truly awful movie that seems to object to its status as a truly awful movie.  Lots of overacting from some typically talented people, cliched and boring story, and some cool, well-done CGI to balance things out.

2012 <----trailer (2009): */****

Seconds

Can an ending to a movie save the whole movie? Today I watched 1966's Seconds after taping it last week off of TCM.  The first 80 minutes or so I absolutely hated, bored to tears and hoping the ending would salvage something out of this wreck.  Surprisingly enough, I was rewarded.  How often does that happen?  A movie you're not enjoying actually gets better?  No way.  But still, the build-up was excruciatingly dull at times in an effort to be different.  So did the ending save the movie?

Director John Frankenheimer is one of my favorite directors with his unique visual style and storytelling ability.  His critics use those things against him, saying that his movies often lacked heart.  True to a point but not as a broad, all-covering statement for a director that made his fair share of classics.  His 'Seconds' is a deeply flawed movie and one that certainly qualifies as heavy on style, short on heart (until the end at least).  It tries to be too different, too groundbreaking in delivering an interesting story that would have sufficed on its own.

A middle-aged loan officer at a bank with a wife and kids, Arthur Hamilton (John Randolph) is in a rut.  He's incredibly on edge after he receives several calls in the dead of night from an old friend, Charlie, who Arthur believed was dead.  Charlie delivers an ominous message for Arthur to go to a specified address.  He somewhat suspiciously goes along and discovers a company that offers people a second chance in life.  For a fee, their death is faked and through extensive plastic surgery they are reborn and given a new life.  Arthur agrees and in his new life is Tony Wilson (Rock Hudson), a young painter living in California with absolutely no responsibilities.  But Arthur/Tony quickly realizes maybe his life wasn't so bad in the first place.

The story itself is pretty trippy and appropriately came from a source novel.  Kudos to the author on originality.  But that unique-feeling of the story is slowed down to a snail's pace as it is revealed.  The premise is great, but Frankenheimer spends too long on the reveal.  I won't say he's showing off with the camera, but some shaky-cam and in-your-face shooting is evident in the early segments.  The reveal itself with Jeff Corey playing an executive of the 'Seconds' company is pretty good, if somewhat confusing, but post-surgery the slow pacing comes back.  One really bizarre sequence has Tony and his new girlfriend, Nora (Salome Jens), taking part in some weird hippie wine-making ritual.

It is in his new life that Tony realizes he still has all the same problems he used to have.  He even breaks down and goes and sees his "widow," posing as an old friend of her dead husband.  This is when the movie picks up in terms of storytelling, style and a twist so perfect I wouldn't even think of blowing it here.  The ending twist isn't one that is hinted at other than a throwaway line early in the movie so when it comes, it should hopefully catch you completely off guard.  Credit to Hudson in these final scenes for some of the most emotional, wordless acting I've ever seen.

Other than the obvious physical differences between Randolph and Hudson -- and a 10-year age difference -- that makes the transformation a little too remarkably well done, I have no problem with the acting.  Randolph is a depressed middle-aged man looking for a second chance but at the same time is wary of an offer that seems too good to be true.  Hudson delivers maybe his best performance as Tony, an older man trying to live again as a younger man.  At times a little over the top, his part is still dead-on.  Corey and Will Geer are frighteningly calm as two executives at 'the company' with Richard Anderson as the brilliant surgeon rounding out the unholy trilogy.

So all that said, it's hard to recommend this one.  The first 75 minutes was extremely difficult for me to watch, even with a very visual style that borders on showing off.  Great movie to look at, sure, but in terms of story I wasn't interested.  And that's with an incredibly innovative premise!  However, the ending is a perfect mix of paranoia, fear and realizing your mistakes too late.  Know that the first 3/4 of the movie can be difficult to get through, but the ending makes those struggles worthwhile.

Seconds <----trailer (1966): **/****

Serpico

Starting off his Hollywood career, Al Pacino started off with an incredible run of performances beginning with 1972's The Godfather.  It continued with Serpico, The Godfather 2, and Dog Day Afternoon.  The common link?  He was nominated for an Oscar for each performance -- one supporting nod and three lead roles -- and somehow didn't win even one.  How he didn't win for Godfather 2 just confuses me, but that's for another time.

1973's Serpico is based on the real-life trials of Frank Serpico, a New York City cop who went against the grain in trying to be the best cop he can be.  There are two types of performances Pacino does when he's at his best.  One, think Scarface or Any Given Sunday, where he is over the top in almost every scene.  He's effective doing that because he commits so whole-heartedly to the part.  Two, there's Serpico, Heat, The Godfather trilogy, where he plays a highly intelligent, relatively calm character who has moments of huge, emotional outbursts.  I prefer him with the second option, and as much as I love Michael Corleone, Pacino's Frank Serpico might be his all-time best performance.

From as long as he can remember, Frank Serpico (Pacino) has wanted to be a police officer.  He graduates the academy and becomes a patrolman at an NYC precinct.  But right away, Serpico sees being a police officer isn't everything it's cracked up to be.  He wants to do his job as best he can without all the corruption that goes on behind the scenes.  Serpico refuses to take any pay-offs in any form and quickly draws the ire of superiors and co-workers.  He bounces from precinct to precinct with the hope of finally gaining detective status and the gold shield that comes with the position.  But after years of seeing this corruption, Serpico realizes he has nowhere else to turn and must take action against the rampant illegal activities crippling the police force.

Getting his nomination the second time around, Pacino lost to Jack Lemmon in 'Save the Tiger' which I haven't seen, but I assume it has to be pretty great.  Lemmon also beat out Jack Nicholson (The Last Detail), Marlon Brando (Last Tango), and Robert Redford (The Sting).  Playing a real person can be a daunting task so Pacino met the real-life Serpico and followed him around for several weeks, and it pays off.  By a certain point in the movie, it doesn't feel like Al Pacino playing a cop.  You're just watching Frank Serpico.  And as a character study of a man who just wants to do what he think is right, this movie is a classic.

Taking place over several years, the story follows Serpico's police career so other characters -- in his professional and personal life -- drift in and out.  The one constant is Pacino who is in just about every scene in this 129-minute flick.  He presents Serpico as a pretty even-keeled guy who is genuinely confused when a fellow officer hands him an envelope full of money.  He clearly never thought of this as a perk of the job and doesn't know what to do.  This situation builds and builds over the years because Serpico gains a reputation as being untrustworthy because he doesn't take the pay-offs.  As a cop, he works as a plainclothes officer, growing a thick beard and generally looking like a hippie with his clothes.  And that's usually a good sign for me in judging a role, Pacino becomes Serpico.  I'll have to check out 'Save the Tiger' but it has its work cut out because this was a great performance.

In bringing this story to the big screen, director Sidney Lumet wisely chose to film on the streets of New York.  We're not talking downtown Manhattan either with locations including Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Queens helping bring the gritty story to life.  Parts of New York City in the 1970s certainly had a rundown look so a plainclothes officer working the streets had to blend in.  As Serpico points out, 'our undercovers wear black shoes and white socks.'  Translated? They stick out like a sore thumb. Some of the better supporting parts here include Jack Kehoe as Keogh, a fellow officer trying to convince Serpico to go along with the others, Tony Roberts and Edward Grover as two police officers who side with the much-maligned Frank, and John Randolph as Chief Green, a higher-up in the police department.

The one flaw I can point out is that the last 30 minutes gets a little repetitive but not enough to derail the movie, not by a long shot.  Pacino's performance is too strong and doesn't allow the movie to derail in any form.  The ending is a bittersweet one that tells what Serpico ended up doing later in his life.  The real-life Frank Serpico is a fascinating individual with Pacino and Lumet painting a great picture and a great movie of his heroic actions.  Definitely check this one out.

Serpico <----trailer (1973): *** 1/2 /****

Adventureland

Directing 2007's Superbad, Greg Mottola had a surprise hit on his hands and did a nice job of putting a new spin on the teen sex comedy.  With his follow-up, Mottola looked like he was going back to the well with 2009's Adventureland.  This idea was then reinforced when a trailer was released that made it look like Superbad's brand of humor had made the jump to the new movie.  Yeah, not so much.  In an epic case of a trailer not really showing what a movie's about, Adventureland is basically nothing like its predecessor and is more of a straight coming of age story as opposed to a comedy.

This isn't to say there aren't laughs in the movie, but this is a prime example where the trailer shows everything that's really funny.  The trailer sticks with the laugh out loud moments, the more off the wall scenes when that's not what Adventureland is like...at all.  There are some chuckles, a few times where I smiled so I feel the need to warn viewers going in; don't expect a comedy here.  Much of the story and background reminded me of 2006's Starter for 10, based on a novel -- A Question of Attraction -- that deals with a teenager going away to college and seeing the world isn't always perfect.  Granted, that's a pretty broad description of a lot of movies, but there are too many similarities to mention here between the two.

It's 1987 and James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) has just been informed by his parents that they won't be able to afford to send him to Europe for the summer, and that if he wants to attend Columbia in the fall he's going to have to help out with the money.  That of course means...a summer job!  He's not qualified for much and ends up taking a job at Adventureland, a local amusement park that's a little past its time and probably never really had a prime.  From the weird bosses to the odd co-workers, Brennan thinks he'll never make it through the summer but ends up forming a friendship with Joel (Martin Starr), a co-worker who's basically an older version of James, while also falling fast for Em (Kristen Stewart).  Maybe this summer won't be as bad as he thought (or not).

The special features on the DVD pointed out that Adventureland is in that small genre of summer movies where the main character takes a job/goes on a road trip/meets a girl before something big in their life is about to happen like going off to college or living in the real world.  That description is appropriate, but that's also the problem.  It has a feel of been there, done that almost right from the start.  That's not always a bad thing, but where Superbad went in new directions, Adventureland never ventures too far away from the known.  Any number of movies and/or TV shows have gone down this road before.

Star Jesse Eisenberg must have enrolled with Michael Cera when the duo went to acting school.  Eisenberg underplays everything and barely cracks a smile the whole movie.  His Brennan is a college grad who borders on the pretentious because of his knowledge of everything non-mainstream.  I didn't dislike the character, but I didn't love him either.  Eisenberg is a strong choice to play the awkward Brennan who has his fair share of moments that make you groan and wince all at once.  As Em, Kristen Stewart seems to be playing Bella from Twilight (which I haven't seen), a teenager with some deep issues in her home life that translate not so well to her personal life.  I think she's a good actor, but like Eisenberg, it takes the right part for her to be effective.  She is cute, so she's got that going for her.

The movie is at its best when dealing with the supporting cast.  The James/Em relationship is the heart of the movie, but the funny moments come from the rest of the cast.  Starr has been great since he was on Freaks and Geeks and basically steals every scene he's in (watch HERE and HERE).  He excels at the awkward moment, and there's a-plenty here.  SNL stars Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig play Bobby and Paulette, Adventureland's owners trying to hold rein on this trainwreck of a park.  Hader has one of the few obvious moments of humor as he protects his park and employees, and ends up having the movie's funniest moment.  There's also Ryan Reynolds playing probably his least likable part as Connell, the park's maintenance man, Mike Bush as Frigo, James' "friend" and crotch-puncher, and Margarita Levieva as Lisa P., the requisite hot girl working at the park.

With the strong cast and the coming-of-age story, this is a movie worth watching, but it's not the one I thought I'd be watching going into it.  The story especially in the last 30 minutes goes down a road that actually made me groan, wondering 'we're really going to take the story that way?'  The ending resolves that to a point, but it feels like an episode of Dawson's Creek -- at best -- with the twist in story.  It is a good movie but know what you're about to watch when you pick this one up.

Adventureland <----trailer (2009): ** 1/2 /****

Five Graves to Cairo

If there's anything better than a spy movie, it's a case of mistaken identity spy movie.  When dealing with spies or secret agents, there's already a natural tension so adding some more confusion just amps things up; the Bourne movies played this up perfectly.  A long-time writer in Hollywood but directing only his third movie, Billy Wilder deals with spies and mistaken identity amidst the North African campaign during WWII with 1943's Five Graves to Cairo.

Walking out of the desert after his tank was destroyed and his crew killed, Cpl. J.J. Bramble (Franchot Tone) wearily stumbles into a hotel in a dusty, bombed-out town.  The owner, Farid (Akim Tamiroff), and his staff of one, housekeeper Mouche (Anne Baxter), don't know what to do with him and the situation instantly escalates when a German convoy drives into town. It's an advance group of Field Marshall Erwin Rommel's headquarters looking to set up HQ as the Germans march back across Egypt, pushing the British back with ease.  When Rommel's aide (Peter van Eyck) questions who the man is, Bramble poses as the hotel's waiter who was killed in the previous night's bombing.

But just looking for any shot at survival, Bramble's plan falls apart.  The actual waiter, an Alsatian by the name of Paul Davos, was a German agent working as an advance scout for the German attacks.  Luckily, no one knew Davos by appearance, only by reputation, so Bramble is able to play along and poses as the agent.  Even Rommel (Erich von Stroheim) falls for the ruse, talking openly about his plans for an upcoming attack.  But more importantly, Rommel talks about secret supply depots, the 'Five Graves,' buried deep beneath the Egyptian desert, explaining how his lines and troops are so well-supplied.  But surrounded by Germans, can Bramble figure a way to get this information to the retreating Allies?

From the moment the Germans arrive, it's pretty clear who Bramble is going to have to worry about, Van eyck's German lieutenant, Schwegler.  Based on a play by Lajos Biro, Wilder's story has that claustrophobic feel of being on a stage with Farid's run-down hotel substituting for that stage.  Bramble is between a rock and a hard place; he can't run away, where would he go? Into the desert?  If he stays, he's almost surely to be caught sooner or later.  Instead, he's forced to hide in a hornets' nest of people who would shoot him as easily as snapping their fingers if they figured out his actual identity.

Wilder films these hotel scenes -- many of them at night -- in the dark and shadows where anything could be waiting to strike.  This is not a large hotel with just 16 rooms so Bramble, Farid and Mouche room just a few doors down from Rommel and his staff.  That does provide for some awkward moments as Bramble is a bit of a loud talker, making me question how no one heard him spouting his plans to ruin the Germans.  These are some great scenes, full of foreboding and claustrophobia that Bramble is stuck in this situation with nowhere to go.

With this self-contained story -- the war somehow feels very far off even though bombs are dropping not too far away -- the characters are more archetypal than red-blooded, 3-D characters.  Tone's Bramble is the stiff upper-lip British soldier who sees a chance to cripple the German war effort.  Baxter's Mouche is a young French woman looking to rescue her brother from a German concentration camp and is not beneath conspiring with the Germans to get what she wants.  Tamiroff's Farid is a worrier, both for his life and his hotel, and is more of a stereotype than anything but he still manages to make the character sympathetic.  von Stroheim and van Eyck are perfectly cast as the intimidating Germans, and von Stroheim especially is an inspired choice to play Rommel, although he does make him a bit of an eccentric.

Released in 1943, Wilder's movie is suspiciously devoid of a propaganda, war-time message...until the end.  For about 80 minutes, this is a spy story in a war setting full of tension and drama.  The last 15 minutes try to deliver that ever-important message of hope to the home front.  Surprisingly enough, this message works surprisingly well because of a twist revealed in these final scenes.  Leave it to a pro like Wilder to make a propaganda message actually entertaining.  Too often movies released in wartime sacrifice story and entertainment for delivering that message, but not Wilder, who revels in it and fits it in nicely with his script.  A hidden gem from one of Hollywood's most well-known and well-respected directors.

Five Graves to Cairo <----trailer (1943): ***/****

The Night of the Iguana

Making his directorial debut in 1941, John Huston did the equivalent of sprinting out of the box, making 1941's The Maltese Falcon for his first movie. Huston just kept on going, turning in classic after classic in a career that spanned five decades and almost 50 movies. Of course, they weren't all classics, and the Hollywood veteran did slow down by the late 1950s. His movies always had a hard, realistic edge that never pulled any punches with their storytelling.

One of his lesser known but highly regarded movies among critics, 1964's The Night of the Iguana, was ahead of its time in its ability to tackle some controversial subject matter and deal with it in an honest and forthright fashion. So a couple years before the drug culture and hippies and Woodstock came along -- and all the freeing attitudes movies dealt with in the late 60s and early 70s -- Huston's movie deals with lesbians, statutory rape, threesomes, pot, and a defrocked priest who may or may not have had an inappropriate relationship with a minor, and all of this taking place at a run-down Mexican resort.

Leading a tour bus through Mexico, a former priest, Reverend T. Lawrence Shannon (Richard Burton), doesn't seem to be able to avoid trouble. One of the women on his tour believes he's trying to seduce an underage girl (Sue Lyon) when really the girl, Charlotte, is pursuing Shannon.  Pushed to his limit, Shannon freaks out and drives the bus to an old inn cut into a mountainside overlooking the sea near Puerto Vallarta.  The women running the inn, Maxine (Ava Gardner), is an old friend of his and is only a few weeks removed from her husband's death.  While Shannon deals with the problems among his customers, a woman shows up at the inn, Hannah Jelkes (Deborah Kerr), who with her poet grandfather is traveling around the world with what little money they have.

Watching this over the last couple days, my first reaction was that the proceedings are all very theatrical from the limited sets to the verbose, larger than life characters.  Needless to say, finding out 'Iguana' is based on a play by Tennessee Williams didn't come as much of a surprise.  Huston filmed the movie in Mexico -- one of his favorite locations -- and more specifically Puerto Vallarta, but limits much of the story to this seaside inn.  The story is almost completely self-contained at the inn and limits the number of people/characters around.  It's secluded and because of this, the story keys in exclusively on this variety of people and their issues.  No distractions, no diversions, just some weird folks working things out.

The casting is phenomenal with Huston giving his leads -- Burton, Gardner, and Kerr -- a lot of leeway in how to bring their characters to life.  I would have paid to listen to Burton read a phone book, his voice is perfect for movies.  His Rev. T. Lawrence Shannon is a tough one to read because we don't see the incidents from his past that caused him to be kicked out of the priesthood.  Did he or didn't he do it? Who really knows for sure?  However you decide to interpret the character, Shannon is fascinating as Burton presents him.  This is a good example of a scenery-chewing role with lots of yelling, screaming and theatrics a-plenty.  Kerr is just the opposite -- as she almost always was onscreen.  She's quiet, well-spoken, dignified and a lady, in the process stealing the scenes the duo have together.

One particular scene with Burton and Kerr late in the movie is the high point and really allows you to get to know these characters.  But the real star of the movie is Gardner from character introduction to final scene.  She's often remembered as all beauty and no ability because, let's face it, she's drop dead gorgeous.  But Ava Gardner was a great actress as well and could easily carry a movie if it was required.  She isn't needed to carry 'Iguana' but she does it anyway.  Her Maxine lives her life as she tries to transition with her husband's death, and in the process really doesn't care what people think of her or her actions.  Throw in a group of middle-aged religious women staying at her inn, and we've got ourselves a situation.

It's a good thing these three main performances are so good -- as is the small supporting cast -- because the subject matter could have easily overshadowed the characters.  Of all the things mentioned before, none of them are in your face with an aggressive 'hey, look at what we're talking about style!'  Huston doesn't linger on these moments, instead mentioning them and moving on.  At one point, Burton's Shannon urinates on the luggage of one of the women, but unless you listen closely you'd never know what he did.  He may go for the shock value, but it's over so quick it never gets old, repetitive, or exploitative.  It's still more than a little odd hearing about some of these things -- like lesbians or Ava Gardner having a threesome in the ocean with two young Mexican men -- but Huston handles it in a way that is appropriate for the time and the story.

This was a weird movie all-around that got better as the story developed.  The first hour was a little slow-going for my taste but picks up when Kerr shows up, seemingly out of nowhere, at Gardner's little inn.  The last hour is great with the leads really getting a chance to show off their chops and dive right into the story.  It's a beautiful movie filmed in black and white that if nothing else will surely bring up some interesting conversations.  Very different from most movies made in 1964, and for that reason alone worth checking out.  Available to watch on Youtube, starting with Part 1 of 11.

The Night of the Iguana <----trailer (1964): ***/****

Road House

One of my favorite professors at college opened each class by showing a movie or TV clip that introduced the theme/topic that the day’s class would cover.  Midway through the semester, he opened with 1989’s Road House, showing the clip where Dalton describes his philosophy on being a bouncer at a bar.  The clip went on for a few minutes, and once Dalton was done, the professor turned the DVD off.  Usually when the clips went bye-bye, there was typically some quiet booing, some groans.  What reaction did Road House produce?  Heavy booing, some shouting, and one rather enthusiastic fan yelling ‘Turn the movie back on!'

Road House shows what a modern B-movie can be and is a perfect example of everything that’s great about 80s movies.  It’s got everything a big cheesy movie should have, lots of gratuitous nudity, more than enough action, lots of gratuitous nudity (sorry, repeat), great soundtrack, and a script full of one-liners that are easily translatable into everyday conversations.  And really, what’s more important than that? It’s the guiltiest of pleasures – although admitting it is a guilty pleasure kind of negates it, doesn’t it? – and a movie that whenever it’s on TV almost demands you sit down and enjoy its epic awesomeness.

Trying to improve his bar, Tighlman (Kevin Tighe) hires the best cooler in the business to come and clean the place up.  His name is Dalton (Patrick Swayze), and he’s known by just about everyone.  There’s not a problem he can’t solve no matter what it requires some no-holds barred fighting or just outwitting his opponent.  Dalton takes the job and heads for the Double Deuce in a town outside Kansas City.  Cleaning up the rowdy customers may be the least of Dalton’s problems though as the local head honcho, Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara), doesn’t take kindly to his actions.  The problem gets even deeper when Dalton starts seeing the requisite hot blonde doctor (Kelly Lynch) working at the local hospital, a woman Wesley’s in love with.  Looking for some help, Dalton calls his old friend and mentor, Wade Garrett (Sam Elliott), as Wesley’s actions continue to escalate.

There is nothing new or unique about this story.  Whole elements have been in movies before and then have been used since.  The same goes for the characters which you’ve seen in any number of other movies.  The quiet anti-hero with a tortured past? Check. The ultra-cool mentor who is cool because the story requires him to? Double check.  Slutty-looking blonde (sorry, Julie Michaels) who serves no purpose other than being attractive and wearing skimpy outfits?  You betcha.  There’s not a problem with any of this.  All those familiar elements work perfectly together.  If it feels like you’ve seen this movie before, you probably have.  But it’s so entertaining, you won’t even notice.

Swayze was one of the biggest stars of the 1980s and early 1990s, and this might be his most well recognized part right up there with Red Dawn, Ghost, and Point Break.  His Dalton is not the typical action hero, odd considering he’s a badass bouncer.  He’s quiet, cool and doesn’t let much get to him.  Dalton has a philosophy degree from NYU, and finds time to question the idiocy of fighting and brawling.  On the other hand, he’s good at it, and it’s the only thing he’s ever known.  Also a bonus, Swayze does just about all his own stunts, giving the already cool fight scenes an even better edge.

The rest of the cast ranges from good to bad with some more badasses thrown in for good measure.  Lynch isn’t the greatest actress, and her romance with Dalton does slow the story down some.  However, this storyline is especially key in the finale.  Gazzara hams it up as only he could as Brad Wesley.  Nothing redeemable about this fella at all, he is as cartoonish as a movie villain could and can be.  Ruling this town with an iron fist and taking money as he so chooses, it’s pretty easy to figure out how his character is going to end up.  Joining Swayze to form a superhero-worthy fighting team, Elliott as the wise veteran bouncer Wade steals every scene he’s in.  You know that any actor who gets the ‘And…Insert Name Here’ in the credits must be pretty awesome.

Of course, what sets Road House apart from most other modern B-movies is the high-quality action.  As mentioned, Swayze handles his own stunts, and there are a lot of them.  It’s never too long with this story before Dalton has to beat the crap out of some clueless drunk looking for a fight.  The best is one of the last fights as Dalton – pushed too far because every anti-hero is eventually pushed too far – goes mano a mano with Jimmy (Marshall Teague), Wesley’s top thug.  It’s a pretty (SPOILERS ---->) vicious fight (especially the conclusion) and doesn’t seem faked or choreographed, just two guys who seriously want to inflict some pain on their opponent.

Now a movie set in a bar better have some good music, and Jeff Healey and his band provide some catchy blues and rock throughout, some covers and some of their own songs.  Healy, a blind lead singer who also plays the guitar, plays Cody, the singer of the Double Deuce’s house band and an old friend of Dalton’s.  Some great music and a key feature to any B-movie.  One of my all-time favorites that is definitely a movie that qualifies as a ‘so bad it’s good’ entry.  If you can’t find something appealing about this one, movies might not be for you.  Seriously, it’s Dalton’s way or the highway. 

Road House <----trailer (1989): ****/****

Classe Tous Risques

Having seen a handful of movies starring Lino Ventura, I feel safe saying that the guy just can't play anything else than a villain.  That's not a dig or a criticism, just an observation.  He's really good at playing the bad guys.  Even in a movie like Melville's Army of Shadows where he's a French resistance leader fighting the Germans, Ventura puts off this aura of intimidation and fear that makes you think he's a villain even as you're rooting for him.

In 1960's Classe tous risques, Ventura's part certainly treads that line between good and bad.  He's a gangster, but he's also a dad looking out for his two young sons, ages 8 and 5.  But in looking out for his kids, Ventura's Abel character breaks the law left and right, pulling off robberies, knocking off a couple guys, whatever it takes.  There are moments where his character is incredibly sympathetic, but it's not long before he reminds you he's a killer and a gangster.

After four years on the run, infamous gangster Abel Davos (Ventura) is sneaking back into Paris with his family.  Sneaking into the country proves to be more difficult than planned and his wife and partner are killed in a shootout with customs officials.  Stranded in the middle of Italy with little money, no resources and his two kids, Abel turns to members of his old gang now living in Paris for help.  They recruit a young thief, Eric Stark (Jean-Paul Belmondo), to drive an ambulance to pick him and the kids up and bring them back to Paris.  It's during this rather tense journey that Abel forms a quick friendship with Eric, but he's got other things on his mind.  Abel starts to question why didn't his friends come help him personally instead of sending this youngster?

Directed by Claude Sautet, 'Classe' (translated as Consider All Risks) has all the elements of a high-quality noirish gangster movie.  It's filmed in black and white and the French and Italian locations look phenomenal, both the scenes in the cities and countryside.  There's something to be said for filming on location, and that's a big appeal of the French new wave.  They feel incredibly realistic with a gritty on the street look.  So whether the movie is good or bad, there's always something enjoyable to notice.

All that said, I didn't love this one.  There is little action involved with an extended chase occupying much of the first 30 minutes or so, on foot, in cars, and in boats so all the biggies.  But the remainder of the story is more of a slow burn with the threat of being captured providing some tense moments.  That's the issue though, the detective (Jacques Dacqmine) is hot on Abel's trail but never too hot.  An unnecessary subplot with Belmondo's Stark and a young actress (Sandra Milo) is added that seems ridiculous in this story.  Driving through Italy, Stark picks her up on the side of the road and offers a ride. Surprisingly enough, they fall for each other, and much of the last 30 minutes is spent on their budding relationship.  So when the story should be focusing on the noose tightening around Abel, we get a date between Stark and Liliane.

As pointed out before, I'm all for the downer endings, especially in stories with gangsters and gunfighters.  How often does it end well for killers and thieves in real life? But in movies they always seem to make it.  'Classe' has its equivalent of a downer ending, but not in a good way.  All this great tension is built up, and then there's no pay-off.  It just ends, like that.  Cue the credits, or in this case 'Fin.'  It does work for the story, but it's dispatched with too quickly.  Some quick narration explains what happens in two or three sentences, and that's it.  I felt kind of cheated out of a better ending.

The relationship between an older vet of the biz and a relative newcomer is nothing unique to movies.  Name a genre, and you can probably pick an example of that storytelling technique.  It works especially well here because Ventura and Belmondo are such strong, reliable actors.  Their ages differ by many years, but they're similar in many ways and seem to live by the same code and principles.  Improving the movie would have been easy for me, add more about Ventura's Abel and Belmondo's Eric.  The rest of the cast is solid, especially two of Abel's old cronies (Michel Ardan and Claude Cerval) and a fence (Marcel Dalio) who's worked with Abel before, sometimes more willingly than others.

'Classe' falls in the middle when comparing some other French gangster movies.  The cast -- especially pros like Ventura and Belmondo -- is worth recommending, and the cinematography does not disappoint.  Composer Georges Delerue provides a nice score that's both appropriately loud when needed and soothing in the quieter scenes.  While it's not a classic, it's still good.  And an average movie that strives to be great tends to be better than an average movie that just settles for the status quo.

Classe tous risques <----trailer (1960): ** 1/2 /****