Argo

Having made a name for himself as an actor, Ben Affleck has turned to the director's chair over the last six years. His first two movies were crime thrillers, 2007's Gone Baby Gone and 2010's The Town, and both showed a knack for really solid filmmaking, both of which I liked a lot. For Affleck's third film though, he had a little change of pace with 2012's Argo.

In November 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is stormed by angry Iranians upset that a deposed Shah is being sheltered by the U.S. In the chaos of the embassy takeover, six Americans escape and manage to make it to the home of the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber) undetected. Some 70 hostages have been taken though, and a long waiting game follows. Over 70 days later, the U.S. government and the C.I.A. are still trying to figure out what to do when C.I.A. agent Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes up with a plan. Posing as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a sci-fi film (a Star Wars rip-off), Mendez intends to get into Iran and get the six out safely. The plan is ridiculously dangerous, and the potential for failure is high. Time is running out though, and it's the best plan available.

I've always been a fan of Affleck as an actor going back to his first few roles in movies like Good Will Hunting and Armageddon. As much as I like him as an actor, I'm starting to think I like him more from behind the camera. Maybe it's being around the movie business as much as he has, but he seems to have a knack for this camera. The reviews were uniformly positive here, and the IMDB rating is at a very high 8.4 as I write this review. Is it an all-time classic that the rating suggests? No, but it's very well done and well-executed. It's refreshing to see a story that focuses on just that; the story. While it's rated 'R,' it can mostly be attributed to the language. Little in the way of violence, sex and explosions, everything is streamlined for the story. Nothing wasted here.

This is based on the real life events that took place between 1979 and 1981 with some 80 hostages under Iranian control. Affleck has said in interviews that some liberties were taken with the story, but that's the point. It is based on a true story. He never said it is a true story. What appeals to me about Affleck's work is why I like his acting. It's understated when it is at its best. Argo feels like a throwback to the great crime/political thrillers of the 1970s (interesting because it takes place after those movies were made, but you get the idea). It is not flashy or anything freakishly new. What is it? Lots of good actors, a dramatic, incredibly intense story, and tension that is so well-handled it gets to the point it was uncomfortable by the end. Groundbreaking? Nope, but there's something to be said for a no-frills thriller that knows what it is trying to accomplish.

Like in The Town, Affleck stars in his own flick, but like his story, it isn't a flashy part. His Tony Mendez is an exfiltration specialist, an expert in getting people out of places, who concocts a hair-brained scheme to get these 6 Americans out of harm's way. Tony is quiet and a thinker, but he's always working on something. Give him a mission, and he's not going to stop to accomplish his objectives. A solid leading part for Mr. Affleck. Joining him in two scene-stealing parts are John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Goodman plays a respected Hollywood makeup man while Arkin is a director a little past his prime, both men signing on to help Affleck's Tony create a fake film that will convince Iranian officials and armed forces his backstory is legit. Both parts fade into the background once Tony heads out on his mission, but the scenes among Affleck, Goodman and Arkin are gems. I loved all three performances. Also look for always reliable Bryan Cranston as Tony's CIA supervisor, Kyle Chandler as the White House Chief of Staff, Titus Welliver as a State Department official and plenty of familiar faces popping up in quick one and two scene appearances.

I liked the movie throughout as the story develops. We're given background, see the fake movie -- dubbed 'Argo' -- come together, and then Tony's mission. The actual mission getting the six Americans out of a bloody, chaotic and paranoid Tehran is by far the best thing going for Affleck's movie. Tension doesn't begin to describe these scenes as Tony's "film crew" tries to get through airport security. The six Americans include Tate Donovan, Rory Cochrane, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scoot McNairy and Kerry Bishe. Farshad Farahat does an incredible job with as a checkpoint guard investigating the backstory. The ending is Affleck showing his ability. He doesn't blare music at you or demand you feel a certain way as a viewer. He presents the action, lets it develop and allows the actors to do their thing. Another winner. Looking forward to see what's next for Affleck, as an actor or director.    

Argo (2012): ***/****

Men in War

The Korean War was unlike any war Americans had ever been involved in. The movies made about it certainly reflected that. There was nothing simple about it, no easy answer, but I suppose that applies to all wars. One of the best movies about Korea is also one that has gone criminally unrecognized over the years, 1957's Men in War. 

Following a horrifically costly engagement late in 1950 in Korea, Lt. Benson (Robert Ryan) finds himself in command of the ragged remains of his rifle platoon. With just 17 men and no idea where the rest of the battalion is, Benson leads his men to a prearranged objective that he's not even sure still exists. Along the way, they run into Sgt. Montana (Aldo Ray), a stubborn and very capable soldier who's transporting by jeep his shell-shocked commanding officer, the Colonel (Robert Keith). When Benson commandeers the jeep, Montana goes along more than a little unwillingly. Together, the motley group continues to their objective, an otherwise ordinary location, simply titled Hill 465. What awaits there? None of them know.

Never even mentioned among the best war movies around, this Korean War has been criminally neglected since its 1957. From director Anthony Mann, it is a cynical, extremely dark, very realistic, and even a tad existential at times. While it is based in Korea, it really could be any war. The infantry soldiers trudge on, fighting a mostly unseen enemy, just trying to survive. We learn nothing about anyone, and there's no bigger picture of the war. These men are separated from their possibly annihilated unit and walking in heavily occupied enemy territory. The North Koreans appear as needed; in the aftermath of a firefight, two survivors talk quietly -- not really hiding either -- where seconds before bullets and grenades were raining down on them. This is war and the effect it has on the individual.

Beyond that simple story is a realistic story. I try not to use this description too much, but it was truly ahead of its time. We're introduced to Benson's platoon in the aftermath of the attack that separated his platoon from the battalion. The men look exhausted to the point of fainting. One man has been killed -- stabbed in the back with a bayonet -- by a North Korean scout, and so it starts. The cynicism is palpable. Benson mumbles 'Son of a...' before veering off. Ray's Montana shoots a surrendering North Korean, albeit one reaching for a hidden pistol. Later, a second prisoner is used for bait to see if the platoon has been spotted. Filmed in a close-up black and white, I felt like a fly on the wall as a viewer. We feel like we're right there with the foot soldiers. By no means a flashy filming style, but the story doesn't call for it. Also worth mentioning is Elmer Bernstein's eerie but spot-on musical score.

Playing on the basic notion of the unit picture, 'War' has an impressive tough guy cast. It's great to see Ryan get a good guy role. Very capable of playing a hellishly bad villain, Ryan is a perfect choice to play the beaten down officer who must buck up to get his men to safety. Ray as his counter is just as spot-on, a similarly experienced soldier but one with a simpler mission. That angle (protecting your commanding officer) would be used 20 years later in A Bridge Too Far. Benson's platoon includes Riordan (Phillip Pine), the radioman, Lewis (Nehemiah Persoff), the unhinged sergeant, Zwickley (Vic Morrow), the scared to death private, Killian (James Edwards), the mechanic, and Davis (L.Q. Jones), the medic and BAR man. Seven other soldiers are listed in the cast but under the dirt, grime and three-day stubble, it's hard to distinguish them.

For the most part here, the story is fairly familiar. Nothing crazy or out of the blue. The platoon deals with North Korean scouts trying to pick them off, bickering amongst the men, even stumbling into a minefield. Where it distinguishes itself is in the finale as Benson's men reach Hill 465. There is nothing special about the hill, just a big chunk of jagged rock....that's occupied by North Koreans. The small-scale battle has elements of the surreal. The enemy fires only occasionally, only appearing for brief close-ups. In its small scale, it is a very personal, aggressive, and uncomfortable depiction of battle. Soldiers are killed, but we barely see their faces to know who it is. The film ends on a dour note, but an effective one just the same.

A war film that deserves better. Effective message that is never overbearing, great casting, almost documentary-like feel from Mann, all amount to a film well worth watching.

Men in War <---Youtube clip (1957): *** 1/2 /****

Quantum of Solace

After the ridiculously successful franchise reboot in 2006, Casino Royale, loyal James Bond fans wanted to know where the series would go next. 'Casino' was everything a Bond film should be, and it seemed to re-energize the franchise. The follow-up? That's 2008's Quantum of Solace which I revisited recently for the first time since seeing it in theaters.

In the aftermath of the fall-out at Casino Royale, James Bond (Daniel Craig) is trying to get Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) to safety for interrogation. White has ties to a completely clandestine organization that has ties in everything internationally; business, government, even MI6. With some help from an agent in deep cover, White escapes, but Bond is on his trail. The vengeful 007 follows the clues to Haiti where he finds Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a supposedly up-right citizen with ties to a charity focused on saving the planet. With help from Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a woman who wants to kill Greene, Bond discovers Greene's ulterior motives, but time is running out.

First off, I loved Casino Royale. It quickly went Top 3 Bond movies ever for me so I was naturally psyched to go see this follow-up. I came away....disappointed. Having rewatched the movie, I still can't quite put my finger on it as to why. It's entertaining throughout. Daniel Craig shows again what perfect casting he was. It's action-packed, it has that dark humor that the best Bond films had, and it isn't based in an out of this world environment where super-villains are trying to take over the world. So what happens? For one thing, at 106-minutes, it feels short. The ending is somewhat disappointing, but even that isn't it. Let's think about this.

Where 'Casino' had some epically impressive action sequences, 'Quantum' ratchets up that formula. Unfortunately, it isn't always for the better. And here's where I think the issue is. 'Quantum' tries too hard to be a Jason Bourne movie, not a James Bond movie. The action is cut so ridiculously quick with hyper-active shaky cam that it becomes almost indecipherable to watch. The opening car chase through the Italian mountains should be a gem, but it's almost impossible to keep up with everything. Not all the action is that bad -- most of it is very good, would have been great if we actually saw it -- including a chase in/around Palio di Siena as Bond guns for a double agent. Some encounters are quick (a hand-to-hand fight with an assassin) and brutally effective while others are on a larger scale (Bond flying an ancient plane through narrow canyons). It's weird to say this with a Bond film, but there may be too much action. I know. Sacrilege, right?

What isn't in question though is the continuing and developing character of James Bond. I don't know who didn't think Craig wasn't a great choice for 007 after seeing Casino Royale, but 'Quantum' should put those doubts to rest. This isn't a cardboard cut-out of a secret agent. This is a flesh and blood individual, in this case a highly trained, brutally effective killing machine gunning for revenge. Like an exposed nerve, Bond wants revenge and answers for Vesper's death (from 'CR'). He's fed up with the proper way of doing things, and does things his way instead. Craig makes Bond a real-life person, and that's huge. I liked the movies, but did you ever get that sense from the Roger Moore entries? Me either. Also, and always a bonus, Craig is a beastly presence on-screen, handling much of his own stunts. Badass much?

His supporting cast again is very solid for the most part. Kurylenko isn't your typical Bond girl, and like Vesper, she's given a hard, tough edge to her. She can handle her own as well, not a damsel in distress. Amalric's Green is an average villain, smart and manipulative but not a presence enough to be a threat to Bond while Joaquin Cosio is General Medrano, Greene's South American dupe. Judi Dench is a scene-stealer -- as always -- as M, Bond's MI6 supervisor, and Giancarlo Giannini is given too small a returning part as Mathis, the possibly treacherous agent who may have double-crossed Bond in Casino Royale. Gemma Arterton plays Strawberry Fields, a consulate agent who meets Bond. Also in a small part is Jeffrey Wright as Leiter, Bond's CIA counterpart, a criminally underused part.

Through the negative, there are some impressive positives. We're talking great positives. There are times where 'Quantum' is a frighteningly effective art-house secret agent film. Director Marc Foster shoots on-location in Italy, Haiti, Chili, Mexico, Austria and England. Some scenes are hard to top. Bond follows Greene to an elegant outdoor theater where members of Greene's organization are meeting in secret. The fall-out? A silent scene with the opera music playing over Bond's shootout escape is a gem. Later, Bond and Camille -- in their black suit and little black dress -- descending out of the desert is surreal, aided by David Arnold's score. The finale at a hotel in the desert is almost apocalyptic, making up for a lack of scale with a bizarre, other-worldly feel.

So where does this one fall? Not great, not awful, but slightly above average. What it gets right is a home run. All I can figure with the negatives is that it isn't a Bond film in the traditional sense. It tries to be what the secret agent movie has become following the immense success of the Jason Bourne movies. Worth watching, but not a classic. Bring on Skyfall!


Quantum of Solace <---trailer 1="1" br="br">

Casino Royale (2006)

Ah, here we are, just days out from the release of the newest James Bond flick, Skyfall. Why don't we take a trip in the way back machine to 2006 when the incredibly successful franchise was being rebooted. A casting choice that concerned fans was chief among the issues when 2006's Casino Royale hit theaters. Ask most Bond fans -- including this one -- but those concerns were ill-founded.

Fresh off receiving his '00' status (license to kill), MI6 agent James Bond (Daniel Craig) is pursuing a bomb-builder in Madagascar and stumbles upon clues to an international terrorist financier, Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen). The infamous financier is up to something, and Bond manages to stop his plan, but it causes another. Le Chiffre is now in the hole over $100 million to various terrorists he handles money for. Desperate and seeking his money, Le Chiffre organizes a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale in Montenegro. The biggest problem standing in his way? Bond, who with a $10 million buy-in from the government -- and treasury agent Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) -- has a seat at the table. Win? Eliminate Le Chiffre's business. Lose? Then, MI6 and England will have directly funded terrorism.

By 2002, the Pierce Brosnan James Bond movies had all been played out, closing with the atrociously bad Die Another Day. Even with the progressively bad Brosnan efforts (no fault of the actor, just the scripts), fans still objected to the casting of Craig in the iconic role of James Bond, 007 himself. It's understandable. Everyone has their favorites, even their perception of who/what Bond is. What was the end result in this 2006 reboot from director Martin Campbell (who also directed the Brosnan venture Goldeneye)? A throwback but modern effort, encapsulating all the style and action that fans have come to expect while also breathing fresh life into the franchise. Big picture? It's one of the best Bond films, and easily in my top 5 overall.

Throw aside the gorgeous locales, beautiful women, cool gadgets and ridiculous action, the success of 'Royale' is simple. It's Daniel Craig as Bond. Yes, all those other things are there, but this is James Bond as author Ian Fleming originally intended and wrote about. At the character's heart, Bond is a hired killer; a brutally effective, even obsessed killer. He's cold, sinister and has little sense of humor. Thankfully, Craig doesn't go that deep. He takes the best of the previous Bonds -- Connery's toughness, a toned down humor of Roger Moore, and the general suaveness of Brosnan -- but manages to spin it into his own character. Handling much of his own stunts, Craig is incredibly believable in the part and makes a fictional character more believable. He doesn't feel like a cliched stereotype. Instead, he's a secret agent, sometimes willing himself to survive the hellish world he's working in.

On top of the perfect 007 casting though, 'Royale' does all the little things right. The first is that style that these films always deliver on. The locations have us bouncing around from Venice to the Czech Republic, Lake Como to the Bahamas like globetrotters. The look of the film is a stunner as we follow Bond's exploits. Chris Cornell provides the theme, You Know My Name (listen HERE), and composer David Arnold's score is a gem, playing on the familiar Bond theme with a mix of action-packed music and quieter, romantic moments. From behind the camera though, Campbell most importantly gets it right. This isn't just an action movie. Yes, there are boatloads of action (more on that later), but there's also an interesting, twisting story, quieter moments between Bond and Vesper that feel authentic, and that incredibly dark humor that rides along with the story. Like I've said before, it's the little things that make a good movie a great movie.

Now to be fair, yes, all those other things are very important to a Bond movie. But let's be honest. Bond is a secret agent, and that means A-C-T-I-O-N! 'Royale' is a great movie, but it's also a great action movie on a whole other level. The opening sequence has Bond pursuing a bomb-maker (Parkour/free runner Sebastien Foucan) through a construction site; Bond's physicality vs. Foucan's effortless movements. Watch it HERE. That scene is an essential one in showing how Craig's Bond will stop at nothing to accomplish a mission. Another highlight has Bond chasing down a hired gun trying to take out the largest airliner ever built in a ridiculously cool back and forth chase on an airport tarmac. The other action sequences are on the small scale, hand-to-hand combat, more personal fights that are effective in that smaller scale. All together though, they're a gem. In a weird way, the poker scenes are like action sequences; packed with tension and adrenaline.

And how about the rest of that cast? Green is not your typical Bond girl, but in that sense, she's perfect. Her Vesper is similar in character to Bond, making them an ideal pair as they basically hate each other for much of the film. Mikkelssen too is an atypical Bond villain; not one bent on destroying the world, just staying alive and getting his money back. However you cut it, Green and Mikkelsen are ideal casting choices. Giancarlo Giannini is a scene-stealer as Mathis, Bond's ally in Montenegro. Judi Dench returns as M, Bond's veteran MI6 superior, and doesn't disappoint while Jeffrey Wright is a new and welcome addition as Felix Leiter, Bond's CIA counterpart. In the Bond eye candy department, look for Italian beauty Caterina Murino in a small but key part.

I'm a diehard James Bond fan, but I am able to judge the flicks for what they are -- some classics, other good to great, and a few just plain bad. But this 2006 film -- the 21st in the official franchise -- is about as close to a perfect Bond film as you can get. It has everything going for it, and the capper is the final line, a perfect end to the film if there ever was.

Casino Royale <----trailer (2006): ****/****

Days of Wine and Roses

When I hear the names Blake Edwards and Jack Lemmon, my mind automatically jumps to the madcap, sprawling 1965 comedy The Great Race. It was a favorite of mine growing up, and I still enjoy it a lot. As far as critical acclaim, the duo paired for a film that couldn't be a bigger departure in tone, 1962's Days of Wine and Roses.

A successful public relations man for a firm based in San Francisco, Joe Clay (Lemmon) both likes his job and is equal parts frustrated with it. During a boat party hosted by one of his clients, Joe meets Kirsten (Lee Remick), a beautiful secretary who he likes, but she wants nothing to do with him. Upon actually talking with Joe though, she starts to fall for him, and then it's only a matter of time before they are dating and then married with a kid. As their relationship develops though, Joe's main passion, drinking, begins to affect Kirsten too. What starts off as a drink here and there turns into something much more severe, threatening to tear the relationship apart.

As I watch certain movies, I try to remind myself that the purpose of every single movie is not necessarily to entertain. Some movies you just sit back and watch. Take in the acting, the cinematography, the music, whatever. This is a dramatic movie. I feel safe saying you won't just out and out enjoy it, much less like it. Edwards' film documents in great detail two people's descent into alcoholism, and not surprisingly it isn't a barrel of monkeys to watch. It is intensely uncomfortable to watch and never even eases up just a little.

So looking at the entire film, I just can't give it an overly positive review. Seeing the descent into alcoholism is fascinating to watch in a sick way. Early on, we see Joe bring over two grocery bags of booze to Kirsten's apartment, emptying them and giggling about it. He introduces his future wife to alcohol, the duo just drinking occasionally only to eventually end up as boozehounds. The issue becomes -- on a purely movie basis -- is that it just wasn't interesting to watch (for me at least). How many times can we see people going back to the bottle after achieving some sort of sobriety? Yes, I realize that's the reality of alcoholism, but as a film, that doesn't make it any easier to tolerate. It gets tedious, and with a 117-minute movie, it feels significantly longer thanks to its episodic story techniques.

Where the movie is worth recommending is the performances from Lemmon and Remick as Joe and Kirsten. Their chemistry is without question. They look, act and talk like a couple madly in love, drawn to each other as if the universe wants them to be together. There is a genuine connection of some sorts between them, but eventually their relationship becomes more about the alcohol and bonding over their mutual love of alcohol than anything. Their drunk scenes are pretty bad (literally with some unintentional laughs but also uncomfortable to watch), and their crumbling relationship is difficult to watch. On performance alone though, it's two great acting jobs. Both were nominated for Oscars, Lemmon losing to Gregory Peck (To Kill a Mockingbird) while Remick lost to Anne Bancroft (The Miracle Worker).

The story requires a focus heavily on Joe and Kirsten, but two other performances stand out. One is Charles Bickford as Ellis, Kirsten's widowed father. This is a Dad who just wants the best for her daughter, even seeing that this relationship could be an issue the first time he meets Joe. Also look for Jack Klugman as Jim Hungerford, Joe's eventual Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor. Both are small parts, but both left a very positive impression.

Again, my review is only based on an entertainment level as I try to do with all my reviews. As a film, it is easier to judge. The acting is great, Edwards' direction solid as always, and the shadowy black and white cinematography is ideally suited to the darkness of the story. On the other hand, it simply wasn't a film I enjoyed. It's a tough film to get through in spite of all those more technical positives. Ahead of its time for a 1962 audience, yes, but just not a film I will revisit soon.

Days of Wine and Roses <---trailer (1962): ** 1/2 /****

Machine Gun Preacher

The movie title certainly jumped off the page when I stumbled upon it, 2011's Machine Gun Preacher. It sounded like a schlocky action, drive-in movie from the 1970s that Quentin Tarantino would have loved. But no, it's actually a true story based on the life of Sam Childers, a drug-dealing biker turned obsessed missionary. The end result is a mixed bag, but there are certainly positives to take away.

Fresh out of jail, Sam Childers (Gerard Butler) returns to the exact things that put him in jail -- drugs, robbery, assault -- and quickly sees the error in his ways when he almost kills a man. Seeking help, some sort of redemption for all the bad he's done, Sam joins a church with his wife, Lynn (Michelle Monaghan), and tries to turn over a new leaf. He starts over, building a construction company from the ground up, starting a church for individuals like himself, but most importantly, he hears about the atrocities being committed in the Sudan and Uganda. Sam wants to do something to help the children living daily on the brink of death, but walking into a revolution, nothing will be simple.

This is an interesting mix of a movie, for good and bad reasons. Based on Childers' life, it has an authentic feel to it, and Butler does a fine job with the part (more on that later). But at the same time, it can't quite figure out what to say or do. At 127 minutes, it's both too short and too long. Focus on Sam's home life with his wife and daughter (Madeline Carroll) is necessary to show Sam's inner struggles and demons, but those scenes vary from dull to repetitive. Where the movie is at its strongest is when Sam travels to Sudan on multiple occasions to build an orphanage for children left on their own because of the revolution. It's just too bad more focus couldn't have been put there.

When the focus is on the fighting between the LRA and the freedom fighters, 'Preacher' is moving along at its best. There are moments of emotional perfection and sheer horror as Sam sees the atrocities being committed. In a startling opening sequence, we see a LRA attack on a peaceful village, a boy, William (Junior Magale), forced to kill his mother because the LRA demands a death. As Sam sees these horrors, he comes completely undone when he sees a boy killed by a land mine. Later ventures have him making choices that will end in someone's death, a decision that obviously weights heavy on his head. Butler's scenes later with Magale's William are about as perfect as you can. When the movie works, it really works.    

Also a producer on the film, this was clearly an important role to Gerard Butler, and he does a great job portraying Sam Childers. At times since the success of 300, Butler seems to have trouble picking the right roles, but this is an ideally suited one for him. Early on, Sam is a despicable person -- and an easy one to hate -- but he needs that low point to help turn things around. Butler is a live wire here, emotionally charged, driven and frustrated that he can't do more. All he wants is for others to see the brutal atrocities being committed and want to help, but even that's too much sometimes. Saving the orphaned children becomes an obsession with him to the point he blocks out his family and friends. A very good performance from Butler. Monaghan is good as Lynn, Michael Shannon is underused as Sam's similarly troubled friend, Donnie, with Souleymane Sy Savane a scene-stealer as Deng, a freedom fighter who comes to be Sam's friend and partner in fighting.

Because I felt a little misled, I'm going to point this out. Hearing the title 'Machine Gun Preacher,' I was expecting a slightly different movie. This is not an action blockbuster. While the action scenes are exciting and well-made, brutally efficient in their quickness, this is a personal story about Sam and what causes the violence. A lot of time -- too much for me -- is spent on the religious aspect, Sam's missionary work at home, and at times heavy-handed messages about God and religion. It never goes too far (but it gets close at times) so be forewarned going in. A good movie that could have been better, but one that's still worth a watch.

Machine Gun Preacher <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****

China Venture

Blah. That's all I'm coming up with for 1953's China Venture, a WWII story from director Don Siegel. Blah. Pretty weak, isn't it? It's not even good enough to mildly praise nor horrible enough to rip to pieces. It's just there, wasting away in its 83-minute running time. And away we go!

Leading a small patrol of Marines into China late in 1944, Capt. Matt Reardon (Edmond O'Brien) receives a message from Chinese guerrillas high up in the mountains. A high-ranking Japanese general (Philip Ahn) has crashed in the jungle, and for a price -- $10,000 -- the guerrillas will sell him to the Americans. Radioing for help, Reardon's patrol is "reinforced" by a Navy intelligence officer, Thompson (Barry Sullivan), a doctor (Dayton Lummis) and a nurse (Joceln Brando) to interrogate and care for the general. Heading into the thick jungle, Reardon's patrol is in a race against the clock as Japanese forces close in on the downed general too.

From director Don Siegel, 'Venture' is not meant to be some groundbreaking, innovative WWII story. Made in 1953 and not even breaking the 90-minue mark, it is a no-frills story that blends the men on a mission story with a handful of other familiar genre conventions. None of it really amounts to much, the different conventions working against each other in such a short time. The angle of the fighting in China is always interesting -- Americans, Japanese and Chinese warlords all fighting -- but the story never gets to push the limits. Even 1959's Never So Few (in all its amazing badness) went a little further. The "love story" between O'Brien and Brando is a flop too, slowing things down needlessly.

Where some positives come out is Siegel's tough guy talent behind the camera. At different points, 'Venture' reminded me some of Siegel's underrated WWII gem, 1962's Hell is For Heroes. Shot in black and white, it has the gritty, dirty look of an episode of Combat. The jungle is a gnarly, nasty place, and jungle fighting is full of ambushes, booby traps and all sorts of unpleasantness. While there isn't enough action, what's there is appropriately unpleasant. I just wish there was more of it, but instead we get long, uncut tracking shots of Reardon's patrol walking through the jungle, walking up and down hills. Not exactly adrenaline-pumping action.

Leading the cast, O'Brien has some good and some bad going for him. As the smart-mouth but capable Reardon, he's believable; a tough officer looking out for his men. The romance angle with Brando's Lt. Wilkins is painful to watch at times. Sullivan is solid as Cmdr. Thompson, the Navy Intelligence officer with no jungle-fighting experience. Reardon's squad includes Leo Gordon as the tough Sgt. Janowicz (O'Brien's scenes with him are highlights), Dabbs Greer, Alvy Moore, Wong Atarne and several other completely unlisted actors in the cast listing. The whole 'men on a mission' angle is wasted. Instead the focus is on the bickering between Reardon and Thompson, and the lovey-dovey stuff with Brando's caring nurse.

In the last third of the movie, the chance for some betrayals and actual excitement is there, but even that is mishandled. Leon Askin (later General Burkhalter on Hogan's Heroes) is badly cast as Wu King, the Chinese warlord auctioning off the Japanese general. Stereotypical doesn't begin to describe the part. As the rescuing Japanese forces close in, Reardon and Thompson are forced to make an extremely difficult decision, and the result proves to be the movie's strongest scene. But in the moments after, the finale is rushed. The movie isn't bad or good in the end. There are worse ways to spend 83 minutes, but I can think of a lot of better ways.

China Venture (1953): **/****

Silver Streak

This spring I reviewed Stir Crazy starring Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor and liked it a lot, the complete random nature of the comedy appealing to me. I didn't want to rush into other Wilder-Pryor pairings though, letting it breathe a bet, so recently after a several month wait, I dove back in, watching 1976's Silver Streak, the duo's first film pairing.

Traveling from Los Angeles to Chicago via the Silver Streak train, editor George Caldwell (Wilder) is looking forward to a couple days of quiet travel. Aboard the Streak, he meets Hilly (Jill Clayburgh), an assistant to an author traveling on-board, and they quickly hit it off. Back in George's sleeper bunk (uh-oh, adult situations!), George swears he sees a dead body, Hilly's boss, hanging outside his window but shakes it off as his head playing tricks on him. The next morning he goes to the boss' sleeper only to find a mysterious character (Ray Walston) rummaging through his bags. What the heck is going on in this train?

I don't know exactly what I was expecting out of this movie, but with Wilder and Pryor involved, I feel safe saying I expected a pretty funny flick. And you know what? It was. It's not a mile a minute laugh fest, but when I laughed, it was genuine. But overall, what a weird movie. The first 30 minutes are basically a slow burn as George and Hilly seduce each other. Then there's a murder, more murders, some investigating, new characters, shootouts, and a twist with a vicious, murdering art appraiser. I assure you that's the first time I've ever wrote that in a review. Director Arthur Hiller has an entertaining mess of a movie here, but it's a mess in a good way. A romantic, action-packed comedy. How often can you see those, and good ones at that?

What surprised me most was that Pryor doesn't appear until an hour-plus into the movie. What isn't surprising? The movie is at its best when Wilder and Pryor are on-screen together. There is a natural, easy-going and very funny chemistry between them that most actors and duos can only aspire to. Pryor plays Grover T. Muldoon, a small-time crook who ends up helping Wilder's George in his efforts to save Hilly. How do you ask? George is thrown off or falls off the Silver Streak three or four times, meeting Grover in the process. For no other reason than the story requires it, Grover helps the efforts, teaching this very un-criminal-like George how to be a crook. Things get crazier and crazier, but through it all the hijinks and shenanigans from Wilder and Pryor keep this one going at its frenetic pace.

The bits do come fast and furious after the dramatic, mystery scenes. A running bit with George being suspected as a rapist is hilarious in its bizarre oddness and inherent darkness. The highlight though is obvious; George -- being looked for by the police for murder....it's a long story -- is forced to pretend to be a black man. Courtesy of some shoe polish, a Rastafarian hat, a shiny jacket, and some "cool" lessons from Grover, George tries to embrace his inner cool black guy with some obviously politically incorrect but truly funny scenes. That's probably the biggest laugh, but most of the humor comes from a simple line delivery or a perfectly expressed facial reaction. It doesn't always have to be a big laugh to be effective, it just has to work for what it is.

I loved the Wilder-Pryor duo, but the cast here is nothing to shake your head at. Clayburgh does her best as the damsel in distress, having some surprising chemistry with Wilder. Because he always played a bad guy, Patrick McGoohan plays the Bad Guy, the conniving, murdering art appraiser with Walston, Bond villain Richard Kiel and Stefan Gierasch as his henchmen. Ned Beatty has a very funny supporting part as Bob Sweet, a vitamin salesman who strikes it up with George aboard the train, waiting to deliver a twist. Also look for Clifton James, Lucille Benson, Scatman Crothers and a young Fred Willard in supporting parts. 

Another winner for Wilder and Pryor, a definitively different, unique comedy that wasn't quite what I was expecting. Off-the-point expectations aside, this was a winner with a good cast, a lot of laughs, and just a good old-fashioned goofy comedy.

Silver Streak <---trailer (1976): ***/****

Unknown

Here we are again....amnesia. Okay, at least partial amnesia. I didn't really care for 2011's Unknown, but because Liam Neeson and some other typically reliable (and cool) co-stars were in it I stuck with it. I kept waiting for it to get better, and it didn't. Maybe I'm missing something. The reviews I'm reading seem to be from a different movie.

Traveling with his wife, Elizabeth (January Jones), to Berlin, Dr. Martin Harris (Neeson) is prepping for a biotechnology summit. Going back to the airport to pick up a left-behind briefcase via taxi, Harris is in a horrific accident and is only saved by the driver (Diane Kruger). He wakes up some four days later though in a hospital with a serious head injury. Freaking out that his wife must be terrified at his disappearance, Harris heads back to the hotel, but Elizabeth doesn't even recognize him. She's with a different man (Aidan Quinn) who claims to be Dr. Martin Harris. Security forcibly removes Harris, leaving the good doctor to question what the hell is going on?

Because I'm struggling coming up with a transition here, the Wikipedia (yes!) entry lists this 2011 flick as a psychological thriller, and I'm thinking....yeah, I guess so. It seems like my 2012 Phrase of the Year, but like so many failures, there's a ton of potential here. Okay, maybe not a ton, but certainly some. Amnesia in thrillers is nothing new -- cough Bourne movies cough -- but when everything around you that you know just isn't right, that's an unsettling feel to watch. Your wife doesn't recognize you?  She's now with a different man claiming to be you? That's a great jumping off point.

Unfortunately that Twilight Zone feel to the story is undone by a couple different things. The biggest obviously is the execution. At one point, Neeson and Quinn are yelling the same conversation at a man to prove they each have talked to him before. Literally, word....for...word in unison in an angry, pissed off tone. I'm assuming it was a scene meant to be dramatic, but it got a laugh out of me. And that's the problem. The developing story is overdone. Neeson is running around Berlin yelling "I'm Dr. Martin Harris!" in seemingly every scene. That uncomfortable feeling becomes unintentional comedy.

The only reason I won't completely torch this film from director Jaume Collet-Serra is the cast. Even in schlock like this, they're still worthwhile. Liam Neeson is Liam Neeson. Even when the drama is overplayed, he's still fun to watch. Kruger makes the most of a part similar to her role in National Treasure 1 and 2. She's unknowing female sidekick, the pretty lady dragged along with our hero because he needs someone to talk to. Aw shucks, that January Jones sure is purty, but she just isn't a good actress. Quinn is okay in a pretty generic part. Bruno Ganz is a real bright spot as Jurgen, a former investigator Neeson's Harris uses to look for answers. Frank Langella is here too, but it's such an obvious, telegraphed part. When Frank bleeping Langella shows up 75 minutes into a movie, it's not because he's a Good Guy. That takes away some of the fun, although Langella at 74 is still all sorts of creepy and cool.

As things continue to unravel, I was hoping the big twist, the huge revelation would at least partially save the movie. Eh, not so much. When it comes along, it works in the moment, but that's all. Once you start to think about it, the whole story goes to hell. It's the type of twist that relies on far too much coincidence. At any number of given points, all it would take is one character saying one sentence to Neeson's Harris, and everything is settled. The problem? Then we have a 45-minute long movie. Movies held together like that -- because a scene NEEDS to happen -- come across as lazy to me. Steer clear, even if Liam Neeson is cooler than you.

Unknown <---trailer (2011): * 1/2 /****