Bandido

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Animal Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hills Run Red (1967)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of Sight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apartment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revolver (2005)

With The Transporter, Crank and The Expendables series among a few other stand alone movies, Jason Statham is first and foremost an action star.  If anything of late, he's being typecast in the same part over and over again, not even an all-around action star. When given the chance to actually act, he's more than capable. He's just not getting that chance too often.  Working with frequent collaborator director Guy Ritchie, he got his chance in 2005's Revolver.  

After serving seven years in solitary confinement, Jake Green (Statham) is released from prison, and using a simple, effective and brilliant "formula" builds himself a fortune in just two years. He's got revenge on his mind, going up against Macha (Ray Liotta), the casino kingpin who helped put him away for all those years. Green does it in a flash, taking him for a cool fortune, but now Macha is gunning for him. Two loan sharks, Avi (Outkast's Andre Benjamin) and Zach (Vincent Pastore), mysteriously step to the plate offering to help Green survive...for a price. With no other options, Green agrees. Can his formula that helped him rise to fame help him now when he needs it the most?

Well, let's talk about Statham because other than his part -- and one supporting player -- I basically hated this movie. An action star of few words, this is a huge departure for the British actor. Statham shows he is more than capable of acting, not just beating the crap out of people in highly choreographed action sequences. His Jake Green, an ex-con looking for revenge, is battling with some inner demons of epic proportions.  He believes he's got it all figured out, but everything around him is trying to tell him otherwise. One monologue about halfway through is a great dramatic moment as is a late scene where Jake -- alone in a claustrophobic elevator -- forces himself to battle through his demons and issues. In a movie that defies a simple description, Statham's performance is lost in a maze of symbolism, metaphors and a pretentious existentialism that drove me nuts.

I like Guy Ritchie. I do. Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, RocknRolla, Sherlock Holmes, all entertaining, enjoyable movies. This isn't his best work. It's funny that the story focuses so much on ego and handling your own ego because the movie feels like a huge ego trip for the director. Look at me, I'm talented! With a Ritchie film, a certain amount of over-the-top style is to be expected, and that's fine. His personal directing style is aggressive, even in your face at times. How many directors have classical music playing over frenetic and/or slow motion action? There's convoluted, and there's this story. Characters drift around, pitting themselves against each other, guys shoot at each other, and somehow it's supposed to make sense. As near as I can figure, Avi and Zach are trying to "save" Jake from himself, but it is the most ridiculously complicated plan ever.

Okay, stories meant to confuse you, forcing you to piece things together. Thoughts? I'm all for it. I appreciate a movie that forces viewer interaction.  Ritchie makes his story not only confusing, but as mentioned before, pretentious. According to Wikipedia (the end all, be all for info), Ritchie was highly interested in Kabbalah while filming, taking some of those teachings and putting them into his story. Jake Green's reasoning for revenge -- which is never explained -- will open doors to something bigger. I thought I was getting one movie and got another. 'Revolver' is all about expanding your mind and refusing to be kept down by your own ego, your own greed and needs. Once you truly allow your mind to see, the potential and possibilities are unlimited. Really? That's where this movie is going? It took two hours of violent, pointless detours to get to that point? Yeah, I'll pass.

Not knowing what I was getting into when I picked this movie, my reasoning was Ritchie directing and the cast he assembled. Behind Statham's strong lead, Liotta is a good choice to play Dorothy Macha, gambling kingpin, if somewhat underused. In most of his roles, Liotta can be intensity on a crazy level, but here it works. It's needed. Over the top, yes, but we need this crazy, live-wire to counter Statham's Green. Benjamin and Pastore are supposed to be these mysterious, all-knowing loan sharks, but their "background" is left unexplained until the end so I never connected with either character. Terence Maynard is a scene-stealer as French Paul, Macha's right hand man, while Ritchie favorite (and JHP favorite too) Mark Strong is Sorter, Macha's personal hired killer, the best money can buy. Andrew Howard too is very good in a small part as Billy, Jake's brother caught up in the craziness.

I wanted to like this movie. I like Ritchie and much of his cast. There apparently was a reason Netflix didn't think I would like it though, and they were right.  A story with a more profound message that's trying to say something is rarely a bad thing. With Revolver though, it's wrapped up in a convoluted story with needless departures from the story that looking bad now, were unnecessary and served no purpose other than to confuse us intentionally. Some reviewers are quick to jump to "If you don't get it, you're stupid" (which is always a classy response; some people just don't like movies...doesn't mean they're dumb). Maybe it would be better with a second viewing where everything can be pieced together, knowing what's coming. On first viewing though, it wasn't good.

Revolver <---trailer (2005): * 1/2 /****

X-Men: First Class

Growing up watching Saturday morning cartoons, I was more of a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles man than anything else. How about that for a random lead that has nothing to do with movies? All other shows/cartoons/series took a backseat to the Turtles, including the X-Men. I knew the characters, the basic story, and without seeing an episode or reading a comic book thought that Wolverine was badass. So now as a 26 year old, I'm catching up a bit with the Marvel series, including this summer's prequel, 2011's X-Men: First Class.

From Marvel master Stan Lee, this is another in a growing line of quality movies that aren't just Superhero movies. It reminded me some of Captain America (set in WWII) in that it is based during the 1960s and the Cuban Missile Crisis, taking history as we know it and putting a little tweak on it. The formula in general for a "smart" superhero movie seems simple, and director Matthew Vaughn follows it well. Get good actors, not just movie stars, throw in some great action, cool characters, and a legitimately good, well-written story, and mix. You can't go wrong.

Since they were young children growing up in World War II, Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) have always been different, possessing unique abilities that no 'normal' human should possess. It's now 1962, and the FBI, including Agent MacTaggert (Rose Byrne), are recruiting these mutants from around the world. They all have abilities that when harnessed can be powerful weapons, and they're needed now more than ever. One mutant, Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), and Erik's former trainer/mentor, is attempting to pit the United States against Russia, starting World War III, a nuclear conflict that could destroy the world. Recruiting fellow mutants from around the world, Xavier and Erik prepare to stop Shaw no matter the cost. 

Well-written script, extremely talented actors and actresses, and a genuinely unique, interesting story. It really sounds too simple. Why can't more movies be like this? There isn't anything groundbreaking here, but that's not a bad thing. All a movie has to do to be moderately successful -- in my eyes at least -- is try to entertain. 'Class' certainly executes there. It is a polished action movie, but one that doesn't sacrifice story or character development for mindless explosions. Maybe a little long at 131 minutes, and composer Henry Jackman's score can be a little bit too epic at times, but this is what you want in a movie. Well-made and professional, entertaining from the word go to the end credits. As a finale, the X-Men in the Cuban Missile Crisis is one of the most insanely original ideas ever, especially Erik/Magneto manipulating a huge nuclear payload headed right at the mutants.

The heart of the movie and story is these mutants trying to decide whether to embrace good or bad. Because they're not "normal," the mutants are looked at funny, judged and ostracized by the supposedly normal people. This is shown best through McAvoy's Xavier, a learned professor and a bit of an idealist, with Fassbender's Erik, a survivor of the Holocaust looking for revenge on the men who killed his parents. It's clear from the start that these two men will be friends, albeit ones who see the world different and will eventually come to a conflict about it. Embrace the good and its pressures or lean toward the bad? Yes, it's Star Wars and the Dark Side and all that good stuff. It's great to see McAvoy and Fassbender in roles like this, two of the most talented young actors currently working in movies. They have a great chemistry together through good and bad, hopefully something any further X-Men movies will explore. Fassbender especially shines as Erik, torn apart inside by his personal and past demons.

What's cool about the X-Men is what's cool about all superheroes. Their powers are typically things as comic book nerds, little kids, a person with imagination, we've thought about it. Xavier can read minds, communicate through thoughts with others, even control their actions. Erik -- later Magneto -- can shift immense shapes, twisting metal and all sorts of shapes and sizes with his mind. Some of the other recruited X-Men include Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), able to take different human forms, all of them hiding her own blue skin and red hair, Beast (Nicholas Hoult), a brilliant mind with extraordinary strength and physical ability, Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), able to manipulate space with a shrill, speed of sound piercing yell, and Havok (Lucas Till), ready and willing to release pointed, explosive amounts of heat, and that's just the good guys. Along with Shaw's energy absorption -- it's cooler than it sounds -- there's Azazel (Jason Flemying), a Devil-like teleporter, Riptide (Alex Gonzales), able to create immense tornado-like explosions, and Angel (Zoe Kravitz), a young winged-woman.

As a fan of huge casts full of all star names and rising stars, that's the fun of watching a movie like this. McAvoy and Fassbender are unlikely leads without the star power recognition, but they're perfectly cast. Kevin Bacon as a super villain? Who thought of that one? But it works. January Jones is underused as the icy Emma Frost, able to use telepathy like Xavier, and even Oliver Platt makes an appearance as the Man in Black, a CIA officer working with Xavier. Of the other parts already mentioned, Lawrence is a bright spot and looks to be destined for bigger things. Hoult too is very good as Henry, later transforming into Beast. There isn't a weak spot around. If anything there's too many characters. You want more information on all of them, especially the villains. Definitely a good thing though when you want more of a movie.

Well, you can call me an X-Men fan now. This movie sold me on it. I look forward to any future prequels that set up the franchise, and the ending here is a perfect cliffhanger. It's just good old-fashioned entertainment, and I loved it. Also, watch for brief cameos by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine -- truly a funny scene with some shock value -- and Rebecca Romijn as an older Mystique.

X-Men: First Class <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****

Trinity and Sartana

Spaghetti westerns produced countless very cool characters that popped up in multiple movies, the Man With No Name, Sabata, Django, Cuchillo, Sartana, Trinity, among others. It was only inevitable then before crossovers, remakes, and unofficial sequels, combining all the different, cool, and badass characters in half-hearted westerns. One of the worst I've ever seen? 1972's Trinity and Sartana are Coming...Those Dirty Sons of Bitches.  Sad thing is, the title's the best thing going here.

Drifting across Texas, outlaw buddies Trinity (Harry Baird) and Sartana (Alberto Dell-Acqua) can't seem to hold on to any movie they rob/steal/earn. That issue can be chalked up to the affable Trinity who is constantly giving their money away to anyone who needs it. Finally they've come across a can't-miss plan with a shipment of gold being moved across the border. The only problem is they're not the only ones who know about it. Shady businessman Burton (Stelio Candelli) is working with a bandit, El Tigre (Ezio Marano), and his gang to get the gold too, and it seems they're all on a collision course. 

For starters to anyone not really familiar with the spaghetti western genre, this is a ridiculous knock-off. Trinity was originally played by the very white Terrence Hill, but here is played by a black actor. Sartana was played by Gianni Garko and was a quiet, tough sharp-shooting gunman. Here, he is a young, annoying, acrobatic gunfighter. In other words? This is a "sequel" in name only.  The original Trinity movies with Hill are tolerable in terms of a comedic, slapstick western, but this is an awful, awful movie with little in the way of redeeming qualities.

Putting their own unique spin on two known characters (I guess that's a nice way of saying 'steal'), Dell'Acqua and Baird just don't work well together. Trinity is just trying to round up some money to get back home to Trinidad, but inexplicably keeps giving the money away. He looks like a 1830s sailor and talks like a simpleton, basically playing the biggest stereotype ever. Dell'Acqua is duded up like the ultimate gay caballero, jumping, twirling, and doing all the gymnastics moves you would expect in a western (translated: Gymnastics doesn't really belong in westerns; read: sarcasm). The dubbing is atrocious so it's hard to judge them as actors completely on their own, but somebody has to be blamed for turning two very cool characters into such annoying, idiotic dolts.

Comedy westerns like Blazing Saddles are one thing, spoofs that still manage to be smart. The Trinity westerns are just tolerable in terms of the comedy, mostly because of Hill and frequent co-star Bud Spencer working together. But as one IMDB reviewer so nicely put it, this movie has all the sophistication of a Three Stooges short, but without the laughs. El Tigre at one point falls into a pile of manure...twice. Hilarious! Sartana slaps people repeatedly (channeling Hill's Trinity), hitting them with logs, pots and pans, anything he can get his hands on. At one point, Trinity and Sartana stop their horses at a dead run, and the sound effect of a car screeching to a halt is heard. I almost stopped the movie right there. Humor is one thing, but stupidity is another.

"Doing battle" with El Tigre and his gang of 32 bandits, Trinity and Sartana push the limit a little too far. I realize it's a comedy western without the cynicism or darkness of a Leone spaghetti western, but come on. This is ridiculous. They don't actually shoot anyone. Not a single person. They shoot around them, at their feet, near them, over their head, shooting things that fall on them, but never actually hit anything. Sartana actually uses a Gatling Gun-like machine gun to sign his name into a wall. Also hilarious! El Tigre's gang surrenders without a wound received. Oh, man, I'm liking this movie less as I write more about it.

As for the rest of the cast, Candelli's Burton is a boring villain and Marano's El Tigre grating and less than sinister. Beatrice Pella plays Maribel, Burton's conniving woman, Daniela Giordano is Martha, a Mormon woman drawn to Trinity for some reason, and in a relative bright spot, Dante Maggio plays Bud Benny Bud, a traveling musician and con man. You should really steer clear of this one. Horrible soundtrack with a player piano balancing out a folksy, whistling theme, bad acting, horrible dubbing, and slapstick comedy most little kids wouldn't even laugh at.

Trinity and Sartana Are Coming <---random Youtube clip (1972): */****