Age of Heroes

Long before he was the famous author of the James Bond series, Ian Fleming was an officer with Naval Intelligence during World War II. Kinda puts that whole 007 and its background into perspective, don't it? Telling the story (at least partially) of Fleming's involvement with a unit that would become known as No. 30 Commando comes 2011's Age of Heroes.

It's 1940 as England and the Allies tries to slow down the surging German attacks all over Europe. One key problem facing the Allies is the advanced radar capabilities the Germans have, resulting in horrific casualties for Allied fliers on missions flying over Europe. Major Jack Jones (Sean Bean) has been tasked with helping fix that problem. The veteran commando will lead a small 8-man team into Norway, trekking across the mountains to a German radar installation believed to have the newest radar available. Their mission? Recon the technology/equipment but make it look like a mission designed to destroy the installation and nothing else.

Released in theaters in England in 2011, 'Heroes' not surprisingly did not get a theatrical release in the U.S. It has the distinct feel of a straight-to-DVD movie, but never in a bad way. Filmed in Norway with a primarily Norwegian crew, it is a small scale story that doesn't feel limited by its budget or lack of stars. WWII fans will no doubt enjoy it. Think a cross-breed between The Heroes of Telemark, The Dirty Dozen, and Objective Burma!, and you've got this movie. It feels familiar from the start, playing on the genre conventions of the unit picture or the men on a mission movie. Original? Not particularly, but I enjoyed it a lot.

A star on HBO's Game of Thrones, Bean hasn't been in a whole lot of mainstream movies over the last few years, and he's the only recognizable face here. Sidenote: he looks odd, especially his eyes...end of sidenote. He's a solid choice to play the lead here, the veteran commando who must put together a team for his dangerous mission in German-held territory. His team includes Rains (Danny Dyer), a soldier brought up on charges looking to right previous wrongs, Steinar (Aksel Hennie), an American officer with a Norwegian background along as a guide, Mackenzie (scene-stealing William Houston, doing a Connery impression sounds like), the foul-mouthed, tough-as-nails sergeant, Rollright (John Dagleish), the radar specialist, and Brightling, (Stephen Walters), the small in stature commando who's worked with Jones. James D'Arcy has a small but worthwhile part as Lt. Commander Ian Fleming while Izabella Miko plays Jensen, the team's resistance contact in Norway.

Following the formula for a men on a mission movie, this WWII story doesn't deviate much from the accepted way of doing things. Show the commando team training, get to know the commandos, reveal the mission, and then let the bullets fly. The pre-credits sequence is pretty cool, introducing us to Dyer's Cpl. Bob Rains as he tries to get his men out of Dunkirk, explaining how he ends up in a military prison. Once the mission is presented, the training sequence is highly entertaining due mostly to Houston's Sgt. Mackenzie berating the men (with their best interests at heart at least). The mission itself is where the action is, an attack on the installation high up in the snow-covered mountains on a pitch black night. Not surprisingly, it doesn't go exactly to plan, forcing Jones and Co. to improvise on the run.

For no real reason other than it reminded me of so many 1960s WWII movies I love, I really liked 'Heroes.' It is a movie that would be more comfortable in the 1950s and 1960s than a 2011 release, but who cares? While it isn't a WWII commando story on a huge scale, it does what it's supposed to. The characters are cool and likable -- especially Bean, Dyer and Houston -- and the action isn't that cheesy low-budget shootouts that are laughable. Nothing flashy, but it gets the job done.

Age of Heroes <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Che: Part II

So where were we? Ah, yes, wrapping up director Steven Soderbergh's two-part historical epic about infamous revolutionary Che Guevara. My issues with 2008's Che: Part II are much the same as the ones I had with the first part. Interesting to watch, but in deciding not to take sides or pick a message, it remains a cold, even heartless movie.

It is 1965, six years since the successful Cuban Revolution overthrew the dictator and his government, and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) is heading to Bolivia. After failed revolutionary ventures in Venezuela and the Congo, Guevara now hopes to lead another revolution, getting the poor lower class to depose a government that has become a military dictatorship. Driven by his ideals and beliefs from deep inside, Che starts from the ground up with a small group of like-minded fighters. Nothing comes easy though, and the walls begin to close in on Che and his followers.

Having watched Soderbergh's epic -- a total of 4 hours and 30 minutes -- I came away both impressed and disappointed. As moviegoers, we just don't see ventures like this anymore in films (in theaters at least). Soderbergh has made a true epic, one in principle at least that is reminiscent of such epics from the 1950s and 1960s. Principle and little else though unfortunately. Positives aside, I think Soderbergh made a fatal flaw in not choosing to take a side...even if it was a measured attempt. The fly-on-the-wall, quasi-documentary style is effective to a point, but not nearly as effective as it could have been. The story moves along from date to date (thanks to an abundance of title cards), but it feels like major chunks are missing.

This will sound ridiculous, but I've never seen a movie this long (Che: Part I and II) that had so little going on. It can be difficult to sit through some of these slow-moving portions, and there's plenty. Repetitious comes to mind. Countless shots of Che's followers traversing through the jungle, talking at their night camps, quick firefights with the Bolivian army. This is where a message would have been helpful. We know Che's objective; defeat the government, leading an uprising that will unite the Bolivian people. Other than a few brief asides as we meet some Bolivian peasants, the focus is on Che's efforts. I feel like I'm not doing a great job explaining myself, and my frustration is getting the best of me so I'm moving along.

What does work? The darkness. The sense of doom hovering over Che. Part I had some humorous -- if dark -- moments, but there is none of that here. Also from the word 'Go,' we see that Che's Bolivian efforts will go for naught. His men argue over food, over working rather than fighting, and that the Bolivian people will not back him. Seeing him try to counter and combat those efforts produces some of the more dramatic moments. Del Toro again is solid as Che. It's such a quiet, understated performance that it's hard to judge to harshly or too glowingly. The film is a visual stunner, contrasting the deep, vivid colors of the towns and villages with the harsh, washed-out feel of the mountains. Alberto Iglesias' score is again a winner, a bright spot in the slower moments.

Beyond Del Toro though, no one stands out in the supporting cast. Demian Bichir returns briefly as Fidel Castro as does Catalina Sandino Moreno as Alieda, Che's wife, and Rodrigo Santoro as Raul, Fidel's brother. As far as Che's followers go, the movie swings and misses. We hear countless names but learn nothing about any of them. They're the same sea of faces covered by unkempt facial hair and green uniforms and caps. They make no impact, lessening any degree of effectiveness the movie is shooting for when they are eventually killed. Franka Potente plays Tania, a loyal follower of Che's, while Joaquim de Almeida plays Bolivian president/dictator Rene Barrientos. Jordi Molla and Yul Vazquez are effective in small parts as officers leading the hunt for Che. Also look for Lou Diamond Phillips and Matt Damon in small, one-scene parts.

A ton of potential here, especially considering Soderbergh takes an honest, un-opinionated look at the life and death of such a divisive individual as Che Guevara. I came away feeling untouched though. When Che is finally captured and executed, the scene had no emotional impact on me in the least. Do I feel for him? Do I hate him? Instead, there's nothing, and that's never a good sign. I come away disappointed. I wanted to enjoy these more, but with no message or objective, we get four-plus hours of tedium. There are positives, but you have to find them amongst a sea of negatives.

Che: Part Two <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****    

Che: Part One

Few historical figures stir up as much as controversy as revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, an Argentinian man who fought with Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution. Some look at him as an idealist revolutionary, someone to look up to for having fought oppression. Others look to him as a murderer, an individual one step above the dirt. Any movie about Che's life is then taking on quite a mission. Here's the review of the first half of director Steven Soderbergh's two-part movie about the infamous revolutionary, 2008's Che: Part One.

Working with fellow revolutionaries in 1956 Mexico, Ernesto Guevara (Benicio Del Toro), known as Che to his friends, has become fast friends with Fidel Castro (Demian Bichir), a Cuban national hoping to overthrow the oppressive Batista regime. With a group of just 80 followers, Castro and Guevara sail for Cuba, hoping to start a revolution from the ground up. The effort is slow and plodding, but they begin to see results. The cause grows and expands as more Cubans come to fight with the revolutionaries trying to overthrow not just the actual government, but the idea of what the government has become. Months and years pass, but the cause seemingly cannot be stopped with Havana and Batista as the end-game.

How do you start an argument online? Form an opinion, publish it in some way and let people immediately say 'No, you're wrong.' No movie about a divisive individual such as Che Guevara will please everyone. I've long been fascinated by the man without knowing much about him, but an IMDB poster of all people made an interesting point of all place (go figure). Some portray Che as good, others as bad. Wouldn't it make sense then that he was somewhere in between? Soderbergh leans more toward a positive portrayal (through Part 1 at least), but more than positive or negative, I think the objective was to show Guevara as a human being. He's not scum of the Earth, nor is he a perfect individual without flaws. He is a person if a somewhat idealistic individual.

As far as actors currently working in Hollywood go, I'm hard pressed to come up with too many that are better than Benicio Del Toro. His performance -- like the film itself -- as Che is a veritable minefield. There is no way to play this man without stirring up emotions, both positive and negative, among moviegoers. Soderbergh's film (through the 1st part at least) didn't seem too interested in taking a judgmental stance one way or another so Del Toro just gets to play the man. He is intelligent, well-spoken, a quiet but highly effective leader, and a man obsessed with revolution (and it doesn't hurt that Del Toro physically is a spot-on match for Che). In the process he performs actions that even now are controversial. It's an effective part if not a great part. Again, I come back to the movie on the whole, not just his performance.

Soderbergh's intention doesn't seem to be vilifying or making Guevara a hero. That's good. On the other hand, it doesn't take much of a stance at all. It feels instead like a fly on the wall documentary. Brief snippets/asides try to illustrate the bigger picture -- Castro, Cuba, Batista, the U.S. involvement -- but it is handled so quickly that it doesn't leave an impression at all. At 136 minutes, the movie is sometimes tedious and repetitious. It is a story about the growing Cuban revolution, and what do we see? Lots of jungle scenes, lots of walking through jungle scenes, lots of Che and his fellow officers addressing revolutionaries about their effort. Maybe Soderbergh just wanted to bring to life the revolution without trying to shove a message down our throats, but having no message at all doesn't work as well as it could have been.

Now those are all issues that I had with the movie, but there were positives, including Del Toro's performance. Soderbergh is a talented director to begin with, and when I think of his movies I think of style. A real-life style, a flair. 'Che' uses a framing device of Guevara visiting New York City and delivering a speech at the United Nations in 1964, the story bouncing between the visit and the fighting in Cuba between 1956-1959. The NYC scenes are shot in a grainy black and white, the Cuban jungle in vivid colors. Title cards introduce locations and times, and Soderbergh's camera always makes it a visually interesting movie to watch if not necessarily a story-driven interesting. Composer Albeto Iglesias' score is a gem, covering multiple genres and types of music that fit the story perfectly. Stylistically, 'Che' is an unquestioned winner.

Because of the almost free-flowing, story-less plot, the characters drift in and out, limiting their effectiveness. Bichir as Castro is a high point, more fiery and outwardly emotional in his revolutionary methods (if equally driven) as Che is. Catalina Sandino Moreno plays Aleida, a young revolutionary who joins the fighting as a guide for Che as the fighting nears Cuba's major cities. Rodrigo Santoro, Edgar Ramirez, and Santiago Cabrera play some of Che's fellow officers and revolutionaries, all with the potential for cool characters, but they end up being interchangeable. Also look for Julia Ormond as an American journalist interviewing Che during his NYC visit. This is definitely Del Toro's movie though.

Certain moments are highly effective, much of them coming late as Batista's regime starts to crumble. A half-hour plus is spent on the vicious street fighting in Santa Clara, and these battle sequences are effective in their reality. Cases of handfuls of revolutionaries fighting handfuls of army soldiers in the empty streets is tense and uncomfortable. The movie on the whole though is hit or miss with its fair share of flaws that I hope Part II fixes some. Review to come in a day or so.

Che: Part One <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****

Jeff, Who Lives At Home

An indie comedy with a quirky side if there ever was, 2011's Jeff, Who Lives At Home was made for about $10 million (where that money went I can't figure out) and made a little over $4 million. This was not a movie that was meant to make a whole lot of money though. Just sit back and enjoy this one, a solid, ultra-quirky comedy that avoids being too cute.

A 30-year old without a job, Jeff (Jason Segel) lives at home with his mom, Sharon (Susan Sarandon), in her basement, rarely venturing outside. Jeff is looking for answers about life of some sort, looking for a connection between possibly very different events. On this day, all he has to do is complete a simple errand for his mom, but it ain't going to be that easy. On his way to the store, Jeff takes a detour that will take him away from his seemingly simple objective. Along the way, he'll continually run into his brother, Pat (Ed Helms), who's wondering if his wife is cheating on him, and Sharon will have to deal with a secret admirer at work. Maybe....just maybe, those three paths will cross.

I will say this and get it out of the way. I completely understand the people/viewers/critics who didn't like this flick. Jeff is a huge fan of the M. Night Shyamalan flick, Signs, a story with seemingly random events that end up meaning something in the finale. Jeff is looking for those type of answers. Why does stuff happen in life? Are we drifting along aimlessly, deciding or our own fate, or is there a deeper purpose? Because of that, the story has its fair share of coincidences along the way. Jeff runs into Pat out of the blue on several different occasions, Pat runs into his wife, Linda (Judy Greer), by dumb luck. In bringing it all together, it can get a little cutesy at times.

Go figure then because I liked it. I understand the cutesy factor, but it never goes too far for me. I tend to disagree with the basic assumption that everything is connected, or that something happens because it "should" happen. But avoiding the whole 'let's not get too philosophical' thing here -- fate, destiny, predestination -- I went along for the ride. It's entertaining/interesting seeing Jeff looking for those answers. Early in the morning -- the whole story takes place over a single day -- he receives a wrong number call, an angry man asking for "bleeping Kevin." Jeff spends much of the rest of the day trying to find an odd connection to a 'Kevin,' and wouldn't you know it? There is a connection in a surprisingly moving ending.

With three key lead performances, Segel, Helms and Sarandon don't disappoint. I'm a fan of Segel from How I Met Your Mother (among other shows), but I very much liked his titular character, Jeff. It would be easy to dislike him -- a 30-year old jobless man with no real motivation -- but Segel is so realistically endearing that I couldn't help but like him as he searches for the universe's answers. Helms does a good job early making Pat about as idiotic/moronic as possible, but the character comes around, especially in his scenes with Jeff as his predicament develops. Sarandon's performance is fine, but the story/character arc is pretty lousy on the ridiculous meter. Greer is a scene-stealer as Pat's wife and also look for Rae Dawn Chong as one of Sharon's co-workers.

Not much else to add here. I don't think there's going to be much middle ground here. Like it or hate it, and it's going to depend on whether you can go along with the story. I didn't think I would, but it's that type of quirky, but low-key, character driven story that I liked a lot. And if you don't? It's 82 minutes long and doesn't overstay its welcome.

Jeff, Who Lives At Home <---trailer (2011): ***/***

The Fighting 69th

A famous military unit -- the 69th New York --, the most decorated cleric in U.S. military history -- Father Francis Duffy -- and a movie star at the height of his game. Throw those three things together and what do you get? A sometimes overdone, mostly effective and definitely a product of its time, 1940's The Fighting 69th.

As the United States enters the fighting in 1917 in World War I, units are assembled all over the country, including the 69th New York, a regiment dating back to its fighting with the Union in the Civil War. At the head of the unit is Major Wild Bill Donovan (George Brent) who intends to shape up his regiment composed almost entirely of Irishmen from all over the state, and he does so with the help of Catholic priest Father Duffy (Pat O'Brien). Among the new recruits though is a troublemaker, Jerry Plunkett (James Cagney), a spark plug of a man with no real regard for authority who only wants to get to Europe and kill his fair share of Germans.

From director William Keighley, this 1940 war picture rises above a fair share of limitations while using the concept of a 'unit picture' as a jumping off point. It takes a group of men -- in this case the very Irish 69th New York -- and takes us through their training and/or bonding, deployment in war, and then the actual battles. Even with a 1940 release, 'Fighting' does a good job portraying the horrors of WWI. Trench warfare produced some of the nastiest fighting the world has ever seen, and it's easy to see why here. Certain shots and scenes stuck with me, including close-up shots of feet walking by the crude wooden crosses marking muddy graves, the shots of terror of artillery raining down on men in trenches, and of course the suicidal charges across no man's land into German machine guns.

Very much an established star by 1940, Cagney is both good and bad here. At times, he resorts back to stereotypical Cagney; loud and aggressive, boisterous because he can be, annoying to the point you want to rip your ears off and punch him in the face. Other times? You admire the character he's created; a blowhard of a man who really isn't all that confident but puts up a false front just the same. The antics become a little too much at times to the point it feels like the movie is just piling on. Whether or not you'll be able to enjoy this movie will no doubt revolve around being able to sift through the grating at times to get through to the real performance. In the end, it's worth it.

A solid supporting cast backs Cagney up. One thing I can say as an Irishman....don't mess with the Irish. Portraying the real-life hero Father Duffy, O'Brien delivers a saintly performance, one meant to honor the famous priest. No flaws, no mistakes, just a hero. It's an okay performance if laid on a little thick. Brent is all right as Donovan, the stiff-jawed commander of the 69th. Alan Hale is very good as Sgt. Wynn, the drill sergeant trying to toughen up his men while Jeffrey Lynn is a scene-stealer as Sgt. Joyce Kilmer, a poet/writer who should be an officer and leader, not just a little Indian. Also look for a grating comedic performance from Frank McHugh, Dennis Morgan as the selfless Lt. Ames, and Guinn Williams as Pvt. Dolan, the sort-of slow but well-meaning brute of a soldier. 

Without any real sense of subtlety, 'Fighting' tried its best to drive me nuts, and there were parts I just couldn't stand. The brawling Irishmen, the very broad humor, the antics from Plunkett, they all tried to make this a difficult movie to enjoy. But in the end, I was very moved by the finale (and that's knowing what's coming if you've got two working brain cells). Even then, the battle scenes go too far, Cagney's Plunkett sending mortars at a German position with cries of "That's for Brooklyn!" or "Take that, you Krauts!" but it still manages to be effective. There's that part of me that wants to rip this movie, but I just can't too much. I liked it almost in spite of itself. Maybe it's the Irish in me.

The Fighting 69th <---trailer (1940): ***/****

The Stone Killer

The pairing of star Charles Bronson and director Michael Winner is no doubt best remembered for their 1974 film, Death Wish. Lost in the shuffle of the endless if entertaining sequels is that it's a pretty decent movie. The duo had worked together three times prior since 1972 though, including 1973's The Stone Killer, an interesting comparison piece compared to Death Wish. 

Police Lieutenant Lou Torrey (Bronson) is interested in results and little else. He doesn't care how or why it got done. Cases need to get solved, crooks need to be put away. Torrey is bounced from his NYPD precinct and moves west, taking a job on the L.A. police department. Transporting a murder suspect from NYC to L.A., Torrey barely survives a hit attempt, the suspect killed by a drive-by shooter. Torrey thinks back on what happened. The suspect talked -- at the time nonsensically -- of a coming hit. Could the man have been onto something? Torrey begins to investigate, and the clues lead right to the top of the Mafia.

I've mentioned this before. Crime thrillers from the 1970s have a certain charm that you're either going to love or hate with very little middle ground. They can be low-brow, aggressively violent, sexually suggestive (usually pretty obviously), and in general.....just a hell of a lot of fun to watch. That's what you will be getting here with this Bronson-Winner pairing. Bouncing back and forth between NYC and L.A., the story never slows down as Bronson's Torrey gets deeper into the case. The soundtrack from Roy Budd is an odd mix of jazz and funk (listen HERE), but it works in a ridiculous way. That low-budget, gritty, dirty feel permeates the story -- for the better -- and even when it's not a "good" movie, it's still highly entertaining.

Based off a book by John Gardner (with maybe the best title ever) titled 'A Complete State of Death,' 'Stone' gets some points for originality. Released the year after the classic The Godfather, there are similar/familiar touches of that mobster story. It was hard for every mob movie made after 1972 not to have at least some hints of it. The touches are there, but 'Stone' also has a unique streak. Martin Balsam plays Al Vescari, a Sicilian mobster with quite a bit of power who intends to exact some long-awaited revenge. His plan? Recruit disillusioned Vietnam vets with clean records, and train them to lead the assault on a mob war across the country. It's a cool gimmick, and one that's fun to watch.

Oh, Mr. Bronson, you're pretty cool, aren't you? By 1973, Charles Bronson was typically playing the same character over and over again. That's far from a bad thing. He's perfect at the stoic, silent anti-hero. His Torrey is fed up with all the protocols and rules that limit his effectiveness, and basically, he just doesn't care. He will get the job done no matter how brutal his tactics are. Like many of his parts, he gets to throw a couple wisecracks here and there, and genuinely looks like he's having fun. Considering the part he would play a year later in Death Wish, it's hard not to smile at his Torrey who is basically Paul Kersey with a badge. Also look for 1970s familiar faces Jack Colvin, Stuart Margolin, Paul Koslo, Norman Fell, Ralph Waite and a young John Ritter as a beat cop on the investigation.

In his 1970s flicks, Winner had a formula, and he sticks to it here. Action, action and....um....oh, right, action. In a 91-minute movie, he packs it in at an almost frenetic pace. An opening chase in an NYC apartment is quick and to the point to get things going. A mid-movie chase with Torrey (in a boat of a car) chasing Paul Koslo (on a motorcycle) is priceless, a true gem in the ridiculous department with Torrey's car seemingly indestructible. Watch it HERE. A final showdown at the desert hideout of the Mafia army is a solid finish as well, an entertaining finish for an entertaining movie. I know it's far from a classic, and maybe it's just a bad movie, but I liked it a lot. Watch the entire movie HERE at Youtube.

The Stone Killer <---clip (1973): ***/****  

The Last of Sheila

Whodunit?!? Was it the suspicious relative who stands to earn millions of dollars on someone's death? Was it a hired gun? Oh, the murder mystery, where you can throw a long list of characters/suspects into  one story, and let the chaos ensue. There are comedies like Clue, dramas like Murder on the Orient Express, and somewhere in between the two genres, 1973's The Last of Sheila.

It has been a full year since the death by hit-and-run of the wife of powerful Hollywood producer Clinton Green (James Coburn), and he's got a plan. Green has invited six friends of both his and his dead wife to a week-long vacation in the Mediterranean on his expansive yacht. All of them with different motivations and reasonings, they all agree. Green has a complicated scavenger hunt for them that will take them to six different ports, all to see who can figure out the end game first. But as the clues come together, the guests begin to realize there may be something more sinister going on.

For the last couple of years, I've been aware of this 1973 murder mystery with a touch of comedy amidst a much darker undertone. I'll get into it more in a bit, but the star power is impressive so it would be hard to completely miss it. From writers Stephen Sondheim and Anthony Perkins (yes, the actor) comes a script that is very smart, very clever and very entertaining. The game turns into a genuine mystery as a second murder comes into question. It's fast paced though, and the first hour is basically perfect as clues start to come together about what exactly Green is up to.

And what is his plan? The Hollywood producer has issued each of his guests a notecard with a single message; "I am a....." They seem like personality traits taken from the ether, but the guests begin to figure out that Green has identified very specific traits from each of his guests, one more embarrassing than the others. One clue is the worst though. "I am a hit and run killer." Does Clinton Green hope to reveal the identify of his wife's murderer? The scavenger hunt provides two great mood-setting scenes, equal parts dark humor and then just plain old darkness. It's clever without being too clever, and in tone alone, it's different from basically any other murder mystery I've ever seen. Win-win.

Now onto that cast, and no James Coburn is not the only star. This is a part that's pitch perfect for him. He's likable, he's charming, and he's an a-hole. His Clinton Green knows how to get under someone's skin like he's being paid to do it. By the 1970s, Coburn seemed to specialize in these amoral characters with questionable....well, everything. Green lures his guests in with the promise of possibly producing a movie about his wife, and he wants them all involved. There's Tom (Richard Benjamin), a screenwriter fallen on tough times, and his wife, Lee (Joan Hackett), Christine (Dyan Cannon), a talent agent who's had a relationship with Clinton in the past, Philip (James Mason), a director now forced to direct TV commercials, and Anthony (Ian McShane), an assistant/agent for his movie star wife, Alice (Raquel Welch). Not a weak performance in the bunch.

From here on in, I continue admitting that I liked this movie a lot and will give it a positive rating. But following my enjoyment from the first hour, I didn't go along as much for the second hour. The story takes a very surprising twist around the 60-70 minute mark that I didn't see coming in the least. The remainder of the story twists, turns, veers, U-turns and brakes all over the place. It all comes together in a long, detailed and fast-moving scene late as everything comes together, but all I could think was that I was missing something. Definitely an ending (and its build-up) that would probably improve on multiple viewings. I'll add it to the list, but for now, I very much enjoyed my first viewing. Above average murder mystery.

The Last of Sheila <---trailer (1973): ***/****

The Organization

For so many reasons, 1967's In the Heat of the Night was a key movie that helped mark the change of the portrayal of race on-screen. It was a groundbreaking movie, one that's noteworthy for the working relationship between two cops, one black, Sidney Poitier, and one white, Rod Steiger. While that film is fondly remembered though, Poitier returned with the same character in two sequels, 1970s's They Call Me Mister Tibbs and 1971's The Organization.

At a heavily guarded business, a murder has taken place, but there is little in the way of evidence pointing to the culprits, leaving the police and investigating officer Virgil Tibbs (Poitier) grasping at straws. As the investigation develops though, Tibbs is contacted by an urban revolutionary group with some revealing information. They take credit for robbing the business -- a front for a criminal organization -- of $4 million worth of heroin, but nothing about the murder. Tibbs is left to make a difficult decision. Help this group that broke the law (multiple times) even though their intentions were pure, or turn them in to face the law.

My first reaction when I found this movie on TCM's schedule was that Poitier was slumming with these two sequels. I've never seen 'Mister Tibbs' so take that into account here too. These two movies in no way affect the power or effectiveness of 'Night,' but what's the point? Why make two sequels? The original got the message across, and even though Poitier's Virgil Tibbs is one badass character, was there a need for more stories back in his hometown instead of the deep South? Nope, not really. Even more unfortunately, the sequel's script and story just isn't up to par. I'm not a huge fan of sequels to begin with, but if the effort is there I'll at least go along with it for the ride. Moral of the story is simple; cool character does not equal cool movie.

Thanks to Poitier and the San Francisco backdrop for the story, the movie isn't a complete waste of time. The script simply doesn't give Poitier much to do as the lead character. He gets deeper and deeper into this case with no easy way out, but there's nowhere to go other than straight down. We get some background with his wife, Valerie (Barbara McNair), and son (George Spell), even some oddly toned scenes where they talk about the birds and the bees. It's far from Poitier's best work, but even a mediocre performance from him is still worthwhile. There's not much else worthwhile in the character department though, leaving Poitier to do all the heavy lifting.

The sinister aspect of "THE ORGANIZATION" is wasted here because the story never picks a route to take. Instead, it bounces all over the place. The urban revolutionaries (including Raul Julia, Ron O'Neal, Billy Green Bush, Lani Miyazaki among others) could have been given their own movie, but instead they are background players here -- a means to an end -- and they never amount to anything more than that. The Organization and all their henchmen are nameless faces (intimidating if nothing else), and the bosses (Fred Beir and John Lasell) have little personality. This criminal organization is given no background, no history, no truly sinister nature other than what we see, but there's no reasoning or motive. So Poitier's Tibbs wants to take them down, but what's the point?

On the positive, look for 1970s eye candy Sheree North as a woman with a possible link to the case and Gerald S. O'Loughlin as a fellow police officer, Lt. Pecora, working with Tibbs on the investigation. Mostly though, the movie on the whole never connects. The story drifts along without much of an end-game in sight so the chases and shootouts don't amount too much. They're there in the story, but when you're not interested in the story to begin with, those sequences lack any energy or much of an interest level. As Bullitt and the Dirty Harry movies proved, San Francisco is a great backdrop for a cop story so the locations stand out, and Poitier is solid, but there's little else.

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

Deathwatch

It's difficult to imagine the horror that was trench warfare in World War I. Wasting away in the mud with filth, rats and disease all around, soldiers were rewarded with what amounted to suicidal charges into enemy machine guns. In other words, basically the worst environment available. Maybe because of that situation -- and its general uncomfortable quality for viewing -- WWI movies aren't as prevalent as WWII. So how do we tweak that plan? A horror WWI movie, 2002's Deathwatch.

It's 1917 along the Western Front in France, and Pvt. Charlie Shakespeare (Jamie Bell) and the rest of his infantry company take part in a nighttime charge on a heavily guarded German position. The casualties are horrific, and in the morning Shakespeare and a small group of fellow survivors are lost and separated from any other British units in the fog. They stumble upon a maze-like set of trenches held by just a trio of German soldiers so their commander, Capt. Jennings (Laurence Fox), orders them to hold the position, believing they've taken a forward German position. The group settles in, but something isn't right. Something else is in the trenches with them...some sort of evil.

Poorly reviewed/rated since its 2002 release, Deathwatch is still an interesting -- if heavily flawed -- movie. A lot of it appealed to me, and I'm not usually one for horror movies. That might be its biggest positive though, and that would be the ability to combine genres. A war movie meets a horror movie? You don't see many of those around. A WWI trench is an ideal setting for a movie for the look and feel alone. It rains basically the entire movie, turning the trench into one vast mud pit. The walkways are cluttered with debris, dead bodies and who knows what other horrors. Setting the story in an intricate set of maze-like trenches sounds simple, but it is original and gives a great backdrop to an interesting cross-genre plot.

I've made no secret of my typical dislike for horror movies. I don't like being scared watching movies. I want to enjoy them. That said, 'Deathwatch' is an incredibly uncomfortable, unsettling movie that had me on the edge of my seat. What is it that awaits these British soldiers in the trench? No spoilers here, but it is an unseen -- mostly at least -- evil that seems to pit the soldiers against one another. The trench is literally littered with corpses, German soldiers too. Serial killers, slasher movies, yeah, they're scary. But what about an enemy that is evil incarnate? How do you defeat something that is at its base...evil and in theory, can't be defeated? That sense of doom and foreboding is disgustingly effective here because until late, we don't see what these soldiers are actually up against. A twisting, turning maze can hold all sorts of horrors, and no one knows what to do to combat it.

Combining a war story with a horror movie allows director Michael J. Bassett to use the 'unit picture' idea in his casting; a small group of men from one unit working together to survive some sort of hellish war situation. In one of his first roles, 18-year old Jamie Bell is decent but nothing spectacular as Pvt. Shakespeare, the young soldier trying to overcome a fear that cripples him in battle. Fox as Jennings is the new officer who no one quite trusts. The other noteworthy performances include Hugo Speer as Sgt. Tate, the experienced non-com, Andy Serkis as Wilson, the unhinged killer, Matthew Rhys as Fairweather, the medic, Dean Lennox Kelly as McNess, the clear-thinking, worrying Scotsman, and Hugh O'Conor as Bradford, the religious radioman. The other soldiers include Ruaidhri Conroy, Kris Marshall and Hans Matheson. Torben Liebrecht has a creepy part as Friedrich, a German soldier captured in the trenches.

What splits a lot of people -- myself included -- about this movie is the ending. Spoiling it here with no doubt ruin your whole viewing of the movie, but I will say I liked it....to a point. It feels familiar, like other films I've seen with a similar twist. The last scene leaves the story open to interpretations a little, and the final shot is a startling one that sent a shiver up my back. In general, the story is good, but at times it tries to do too much. It explores religion amidst war, the brutality, goodness in a horrific situation, and a will to survive when everything around you is trying to kill you. The story/script could have been a little more pointed, but I still liked this one a lot. Well worth checking out for a creepy change of pace movie.

Deathwatch <---trailer (2002): ***/****