Oklahoma Crude

When I hear the name Stanley Kramer, I think of any number of movies. The 1960s were quite the decade for this director with movies like Judgment at Nuremberg, Mad, Mad World, Inherit the Wind and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner to his name. Oh, and that 1950s decade? The Defiant Ones and On the Beach. Quite a list, huh? And that's only listing some. I'm familiar with most of Kramer's movies as a director, have seen many of them and was at least aware of some others. One that qualifies as...well, none of those is and was 1973's Oklahoma Crude, a quasi-western with little reputation.

It's the 1910s and feisty Lena Doyle (Faye Dunaway) owns a chunk of land smack dab in the middle of the Oklahoma oil fields. She has put the time into the land, building a shack and a derrick and intends to tap the crude oil she believes is in the ground below her. There's a problem of course. A powerful oil magnate is scooping up land left and right, purchasing all the small-time owners. Well, most of them. Lena refuses to sell, claiming (rightfully so) that the land is hers. In hopes of protecting her investment, Lena gets some help from some unlikely places, including her estranged father, Cleon (John Mills) and a hired gun he hired, Mason (George C. Scott). Mason isn't quite sure what to make of the job, looking to make some quick and easy cash, but the little group is in for more than they planned on when the oil company sends out an enforcer, Hellman (Jack Palance), to make sure Lena sells.

Well, this was certainly an interesting movie if a heavily flawed one. I struggled through it at times and was rewarded with a far stronger second half of a 108-minute movie. Getting there can be a trial at times though, and even the last hour isn't as good as it could have been. Still, Kramer chooses an interesting story to tell and picks the right time to release it, the 1970s when audiences would have been all sorts of stirred up about a huge company strong-arming small businesses (I guess that'd land pretty well now in 2014 too). The development of the oil fields in Oklahoma in the early 1900s is an interesting enough historical period -- one that hasn't gotten its due in films, TV and books -- with plenty of dark, nasty material to dive into, but...

Kramer doesn't seem to be able to pick a tone, a voice and stick with it. Is it supposed to be truly dramatic and dark and unsettling? Or is it supposed to be goofy and fun and the kinda oddball romance story I typically hate? And that's where the problem is. It's both. The song that plays over the opening credits, Send a Little Love My Way, had me worried I was jumping into a folksy, disgustingly pleasant western that I do love so much. It wasn't, but it's a good forebearer of what's to come. The score from Henry Mancini is simply put, very obvious, big and loud and not appropriate for what the dark and depths of the story could have been. Instead, we get the Dunaway/Scott rivalry, the Dunaway/Mills fighting, Palance vs. the world, and all mixed in with some "I hate you until I love you" story and some all too painful comic relief. Oh, look, that naked guy got shot in the butt with buckshot!!! Yeah, it's too schizophrenic for its own good.

There is a saving grace, one that quickly popped up as the pleasant song mentioned above plays over the credits. Yeah, it's that cast thing. Dunaway, Scott, Mills and Palance?!? Yes, I will invest some time to see how this develops. The script doesn't always do this quartet a ton of favors, but there is a ton of talent here that manages to bring these characters to life. Dunaway's Lena is tough as nails, never been handed anything in her life, ready to fight for what's hers and screw anyone who gets in her way. Scott's Mason -- or Mase, his full name revealed late -- is harder to read, a worker and quasi-hired gun looking for a payday but just as interesting to see develop. I loved the energy Mills as Cleon brought to his part, a father who wasn't there for his daughter as she grew up. Now that he can help? He's going to do everything he can, even when that daughter tells him to screw off. And then there's Palance, doing what he does best, playing that near lunatic but very obsessed bad guy that you're never quite sure what he's capable of.

The human moments are not surprisingly, those that work best in Kramer's film. I especially liked the dynamic between Dunaway's Lena and Scott's Mase. It develops nicely -- but takes quite awhile getting there -- and for the most part manages to avoid all the pratfalls of a sappy story of two opposites who aren't so opposite. Mills is a scene-stealer and Palance is solid. The darkness of the second half is what the entire movie should have been. Filming out on the desolate, stark prairies, you get a sense of what these small-time drillers went through. Isolated and alone with no help in sight should it be needed. I simply wish Kramer would have committed, not trying to mix the light-hearted with the dark. At least if he kept it light, so be it. It's there. That's it. That's all. Enjoyable enough to recommend but far from a classic.

Oklahoma Crude (1973): ** 1/2 /****

Ghostbusters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

I don't know if I can truly express how much I like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, how big a fan I was growing up and now as a grown-up kid of sorts. The animated series that ran for 10 seasons and 193 episodes was a staple in my childhood, as was the film trilogy that hit theaters between 1990 and 1993. Those four famous turtles never really left the public eye with a variety of action figures, cartoon series and even a couple reboot attempts on the franchise. Our latest entry? 2014's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

Crime is running rampant across New York City as the police are seemingly baffled by the appearance of a new gang of street thugs called the Foot Clan. No one seems to be able to stop this new powerful gang led by the mysterious Shredder (Tohoru Masamune), but an intrepid young TV news reporter, April O'Neill (Megan Fox), is looking to get into the guts of the story. She stumbles into something, a vigilante fighting back against the Foot Clan...or so she thinks. It's not a vigilante, but four vigilantes but even April is in for a surprise. These four vigilantes are anthropomorphic turtles who are expert ninjas and named after Renaissance painters, Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael and Michelangelo. They live in the sewers, only revealing themselves as needed to help fight crime while keeping their identities hidden. Heavily outnumbered, can these four teenage turtles slow down and ultimately stop Shredder and the Foot Clan?

Seriously, I loved the Turtles growing up. Yeah, we're on a first name basis. They're the Turtles. I had the action figures, the Turtle van, the baseball cards, the clothes, the weapons, and I watched that show and the movies religiously. I've grown up since (some I guess, probably not a lot), but the TMNT are still epic, still awesome. I missed out on the 2007 animated version, but just the same I was a tad curious, a bit worried when I heard another reboot was coming along. That worried feeling got worse when I read the master of explosions and flashy style Michael Bay was involved -- as a producer -- and that Megan Fox was cast as April O'Neil, the best TV news reporter...like, ever. I didn't head into this 2014 reboot with high expectations but still came away disappointed.

I don't know exactly why I didn't care for this flick from director Jonathan Liebesman. It's not one big reason, but a lot of little reasons. Let's start with the Turtles themselves. This may sound like sour grapes because the ones I grew up with are my favorites, but the Turtles...they just don't look right. They look right when it's actually something on-screen, not the CGI turtles on display here. They look like they've been hitting the gym pretty good -- cough steroids cough -- under the tutelage of their ninja master, Splinter (voice of Tony Shalhoub, motion capture of Danny Woodburn). All the familiar touches are there from their catch phrases to their rivalry (Leo and Raphael are still in a power struggle) to their love of pizza. Even their back story sticks with the known stuff but for lack of a better description, it comes down to this. Those Turtles, they're cutouts of their characters. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's start with the voices and the characterization we do get. Jackass star Johnny Knoxville voices Leonardo, the Turtles' strong-willed leader. Yeah, Jackass star. I like Knoxville, but his voice wasn't a great match for the character. That's the most recognizable name among our quartet, Alan Ritchson (Raphael), Noel Fisher (Michelangelo) and Jeremy Howard (Donatello) rounding out the group. As we see here, Raphael is more intense and moody than ever, Donatello is more of a science/tech nerd than ever, and Michelangelo simply wants to bang Fox's April. It gets weird, the most lovable of the Turtles, Mikey himself, constantly hitting on April. I can't pinpoint it, but something was missing among the group whether it be the visual, the voices or just a poor script. Disappointed across the board.

Unfortunately, the Turtles' human counterparts don't fare much better. Yes, Megan Fox is incredibly easy on the eyes. One of the stars of the first two Transformers movies before having a falling out with Bay, Fox will never be called a great actress. She's miscast as April O'Neil, simple as that. Will Arnett is a funny guy in most things he does, but his Vernon Fenwick, April's cameraman, doesn't have much chemistry and the attempts at laughs didn't do much for me. William Fichtner is okay as Eric Sacks, a scientist and humanitarian involved with the creation of the Turtles who has some ulterior motives. In the odd 'What the heck?' casting department, Whoopi Goldberg appears in a couple scenes as April's boss at the news station. Minae Noji is underused as Shredder's enforcer, Karai.

There is some cool action in the last third of the movie as the Turtles do battle with Shredder and the Foot Clan, the battle starting on a mountaintop mansion and making its way to the streets of New York, ultimately wrapping up at the top of a skyscraper. It's pretty decent stuff, Bay's typically schizophrenic style kept relatively low-key while still packing an adrenaline punch. My biggest issue though? I was bored. I love these characters, love their story, love their camaraderie, and I was downright bored for almost the entire movie. I seem to be in the minority, 'Turtles' raking in the dough to the tune of almost $300 million internationally as I write this review. A sequel has already been announced so there's that too. An unfortunate negative review, a childhood favorite not living up to expectations that weren't that high to begin with.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014): * 1/2 /****

Guardians of the Galaxy

The summer of 2014 hasn’t exactly been a stellar one for big, huge, gigantic, popcorn-guzzling blockbuster flicks. Yeah, I liked 22 Jump Street, Edge of Tomorrow, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, but for the most part, there hasn’t been a Batman, a Superman, an Avengers, a HUGE summer movie. What’s been the flick that made the most money? One that deserves its distinction as the summer’s highest-grossing flick, 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy.

It’s 1988 and young Peter Quill runs from a hospital room where his mom just died. As he sits in an open field, a spaceship flies over him, a huge light shining on him. Some 20 years later and now all grown up, Peter (Chris Pratt) has become an outlaw, dubbing himself Star Lord, with a growing reputation (so he thinks) in a far-off universe made up of countless planets and species. He’s managed to steal a seemingly normal orb for a buyer, but he’s stumbled into something bigger than he knows. The orb is incredibly powerful and whoever possesses it could control the universe. With some unwilling allies, including Gamora (Zoe Saldana), an experienced assassin, Drax (Dave Bautista), an enormous warrior, Rocket (Bradley Cooper), a genetically-mutated, talking raccoon who’s become a bounty hunter, and Groot (Vin Diesel), a humanoid tree capable of regenerating), Peter must prevent the orb from falling into the wrong hands…if this crew can pull it together.

If there’s a such thing as a “risky” flick in the Marvel Universe, this one was it. No huge stars, no Iron Man or Captain America or Thor or Hulk, and a story in a far-off universe where many to most viewers have no history…yeah, I guess that is a little risky. Now all that said, $500 million at the international box office seems to indicate that movie-going audiences don’t really give a crap. If it looks good, we’ll give it a shot. Director James Gunn turns in a gem, a movie that shrugs off all those concerns to tell a story in a far-off universe with all sorts of weird characters and species that’s a heck of a lot of fun. Dramatic, funny, entertaining, well-written, action-packed, unique and transporting viewers to a really cool universe. An easy one to recommend.

This is a movie that knows where it comes from in terms of the science fiction genre. It has touches of everything from Star Wars and Star Trek and The Avengers. On another level, it eats up a chance to add a new layer to the men-on-a-mission concept with films like The Guns of Navarone and The Dirty Dozen. Touches, yes, but this is its own movie. It seeks out its own identity. This is a popcorn movie, a true blockbuster that is well-acted, well-told, but mostly? ‘Guardians’ just wants to have some fun. It is stylistically aware of itself without being overbearing. The soundtrack with a lot of 1970s/1980s pop could be aggressively over the top, but the script finds a way to blend it seamlessly into the story. A big, colorful movie that embraces all the good – and very little – of the blockbuster concept. Yeah, the story can be confusing at times with so many characters and planets and situations and history, but it finds a groove pretty quickly.

What’s the best thing going here? The aforementioned men-on-a-mission angle similar to The Avengers and countless other movies. The concept is simple. You put a disparate group of individuals together, some specialists, mostly outcasts in one way or another, and give them some impossible mission to achieve. Here, it works effortlessly, a tribute to the talented cast. Pratt is a huge rising star, the roguish Peter Quill who desperately wants to be an infamous outlaw who’s name precedes him. Saldana is sexy and smooth, Cooper is at his scene-stealing best as the fiery, feisty Rocket (yes, Bradley Cooper provides his voice to play a raccoon), Bautista – an MMA fighter/WWE wrestler – an underplayed laugh machine, and Diesel having some fun as the one-liner repeating Groot. Yes, Vin Diesel plays a tree who has one repeated line, albeit with some different inflections.

More than the action, more than the other-worldly exploration, more than all that flashy stuff, I found the script to be the best thing going here. Working with Nicole Perlman and based off a series of graphic novels, Gunn brings these people to life. That's the men-on-a-mission angle; five disparate, different individuals forced to put their differences aside to get the job done. So many scenes are memorable, most of them worthwhile because of a sight gag among the group or a quick, witty one-liner. They may not always get along, but our Guardians are gonna keep at it. My favorite scene comes late, a staple of the specialist idea. Faced with impossible odds, they have to decide if they should go on, knowing full well many may not make it back. The build-up is hysterical as they talk it out (some would say criticize each other), and the pay-off is sublime, Cooper's Rocket absolutely killing a quick monologue. It is those moments that stick with me days after seeing the movie.

Also look for Glenn Close and John C. Reilly as high-ranking officials and staff on Xandar, the universe's capital. If there's a relative weakness, it's the villains, including power-seeking Ronan (Lee Pace) and his fiery daughter, Nebula (Karen Gillan). Michael Rooker has a lot of fun as Yondu, leader of the Ravagers who kinda sorta likes Peter but also knows he can't fully trust him. Last seen in Thor 2, Benicio Del Toro makes a quick appearance as The Collector while Djimon Hounsou is wasted as a tough guard who is on Peter's trail. 

No point overanalyzing this one. Risky though it may have seemed, it is a gem, ranking up there with The Avengers as one of my favorite flicks from the Marvel Universe. Yeah, the story can be tough to follow early on. Yeah, the villains could use some pumping up, but these complaints are almost wasted. This is a FUNNY movie. I laughed here more than I did in intended comedies. For goodness sake, Bradley Cooper lends his voice to play a wisecracking, weapons slinging raccoon. Vin Diesel plays a tree. A TREE. 'Guardians' is everything that's right about summer blockbusters. Can't recommend this one enough. The easiest of recommendations.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Good Will Hunting

Just a few weeks ago, I reviewed 1989’s Dead Poets Society, a film featuring one of Robin Williams’ best dramatic roles. It even picked him up a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance. For me, it’s a push though when you stop and consider Williams’ overall acting parts. That conversation includes both Dead Poets and 1997’s Good Will Hunting.

Working as a janitor at M.I.T., Will Hunting (Matt Damon) has a pretty simple life. He works, reads, and enjoys hanging out with his friends in south Boston. There’s something special about Will though, something he only lets out in small doses. Will is an absolute genius, able to understand complex mathematical equations at will, an almost photographic memory aiding the cause. It’s more than that though. He gets in trouble with the law though, but when a professor (Stellan Skarsgard) at M.I.T. finds out what this janitor is capable of, he cuts a deal with the court to earn Will’s release. One of the requirements of the release is simple; Will must go to a psychiatrist and talk about his past, his anger, his life. He chases one away after another until he finally meets Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), a psychiatrist who finally challenges him.

Like ‘Dead Poets,’ I sought out ‘Hunting’ after the tragic passing of Robin Williams a few weeks ago. His death is still settling in weeks later, the tributes still revealing themselves as fans continue to realize what a true talent he was. Both for William’s performance and the entire cast, ‘Hunting is a gem, director Gus Van Sant helming a film that picked up nine Oscar nominations, ultimately winning two; Best Supporting Actor for Williams, Best Original Screenplay for Damon and Ben Affleck. It is the best kind of drama, a story interested in the people, the relationships, the real life drama. There are some true BIG dramatic moments, but they never feel forced. They feel very real. This was the movie that put Matt Damon and Ben Affleck on the map in a big way, a huge window into the talents they were and would become. The reason for revisiting the movie was unfortunate, but the movie itself is a gem.

The script from Damon and Affleck is a pretty perfect jumping off point. It paints a great picture of the characters and a true variety of characters. We’re talking full-fledged, red-blooded, 3-D characters that act and talk like real people. That starts with Damon’s Will Hunting. We learn as the story develops what makes Will the way he is, his checkered past littered with violence, his life growing up in foster homes. Rocking an epic Boston accent, Damon kills the part. Will isn’t an easy character to like because he does such a good job pushing people away, but you’re rooting for him just the same. You want him to figure things out, to open up, to trust some. Damon is one of the best actors currently working in Hollywood, a true talent, and this is definitely one of his best.

Damon’s performance is uniformly strong, but the scenes that resonate the most are those in which he interacts with Williams’ Sean. These scenes take place in Sean’s cluttered, homey office, a lived-in feel for sure as Sean, a psychiatrist and professor at a junior college, gets to know the troubled Will. These scenes develop like a chess match, two professionals duking it out, looking for strengths and weaknesses. Why does it work? It plays effortlessly. This isn’t acting but two guys having a conversation. It isn’t always easy to watch, but it’s always fascinating. Will’s early “analysis” of Sean, Sean’s shot back at his brilliant mind, Sean’s explaining about his own past, including a great scene about the 1975 World Series and Carlton Fisk’s famous home run, they all ring true. A true talent in Robin Williams, bringing out the best in all his scenes.

Who else to look for? This isn’t a huge cast, but what’s there is prime. Helping give a window into Will, again, is the script as we see his day-to-day life, meeting his friends as they go bar-hopping, hang out on the weekends. Affleck is a scene-stealer as Chuckie, Will’s longtime best friend, loyal to a fault but also wanting his friend to reach out and take what he can with his gift, his mind. Also look for Casey Affleck and Cole Hauser as two other close friends. Minnie Driver is a gem too as Skylar, an incredibly smart med student who clicks instantly with Will but struggles to get to know him as he puts his walls up. As well, Skarsgard is excellent as a professor with a similarly brilliant mind but not one on the same level as Will. An incredibly talented cast, not a weakness in the bunch.

As I mentioned, this is a movie about the personal drama. If I delve into the story anymore, it’s going to involve giving away some great scenes that should come naturally in the process of watching the film. Me talking about it would be one spoiler after another. Great story, great characters, cool locations in and around Boston, and a pretty cool ending on so many levels. Well worth catching up with. Highly recommended, and again, R.I.P. Robin Williams.

Good Will Hunting (1997): *** ½ /****

Colombiana

Having worked in film and television for the last 10-plus years, Zoe Saldana has made quite a name for herself over the years. She's been in comedy, drama and action but yet hasn't been able to make herself into that HUGE star. How about an effort to make her that star? That would be an action flick that tries to go for something a tad different with a female lead, 2011's Colombiana.

It's 1992 in Bogota, Colombia and young Cataleya (Amandla Stenberg) is witness to the deaths of her parents. Her father was tied up with a drug lord and had some damning information against him, prompting a hit on both him and his wife at the hands of the drug lord's enforcer, Marco (Jordi Molla). In the aftermath, Cataleya escapes, getting out of the country with some help from American law enforcement and traveling to Chicago where she meets her crime-connected uncle (Cliff Curtis). Even as a young girl she knows what she wants to do. Cataleya wants to be a killer, a hired gun, and Emilio begrudgingly agrees to train her. Some 15 years later, Cataleya (Saldana) has grown into a terrifyingly effective killer. She has turned into a bit of a vigilante, but her sights never change too much. Cataleya intends to exact her revenge on the drug lord and his enforcer, Marco, no matter what it takes or what it costs.

The ingredients were here for a solid movie from the cast to the story to a not so ordinary female lead in an action movie. Yeah, they were here, but in the end they didn't add up to a winner. Director Olivier Megaton (Transporter 2 and 3, Taken 2, soon to be Taken 3) tones down some of his usual over the top schtick in terms of style-heavy action, but working off a script from Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, something is just missing. Lots of good elements -- potentially at least -- that don't quite gel in the end. It received pretty middling to negative reviews and did okay at the worldwide box office, earning about $60 million, but was far from a big success. So what's good? What's bad?

With the Star Trek movies, Avatar, The Losers, Takers, and most recently Guardians of the Galaxy, Zoe Saldana has shown she's a tough actress more than capable of holding her own with a tough guy cast around her. So how about her getting a crack at a lead role? Like most of the characters here, the issues aren't with the acting. It's the script. The Cataleya character is interesting but never developed in truly interesting fashion. Why does she take so long to exact her revenge? Her desire for revenge becomes an obsession but she seems surprised when the drug lord fights back in brutal fashion. Think things through! Now just as an action star, Saldana nails the part. She looks like a stiff wind would knock her over, but my goodness, does she look good dispatching countless nameless henchmen. Saldana is given all sorts of chances to undress, wear tight clothing, wear very little clothing and generally look good doing it. She's got the potential to be an excellent action star if she so chooses.

But what about everyone else? The other characters seem like cardboard cutouts of interesting people. They're ideas of characters more than red-blooded people who...ya know, might actually exist someplace. I love seeing Jordi Molla's name pop up in the credits, and his Marco is a smooth villain but he's simply not around enough to be effective. The same for the drug lord he works for, Don Luis Sandoval (Beto Benites), an under utilized bad guy too. The similarly reliable Curtis is kept in the background, his few scenes with Saldana providing some solid dramatic moments but simply not enough. Michael Vartan is Cataleya's lover, a painter who's curious about this beautiful woman's mysterious qualities, and Lennie James plays the FBI officer trying to track Cataleya down as her kill count piles up. Max Martini plays his assistant and right-hand man.

It's a movie I wanted to like more. The action-packed finale packs a pretty good wallop -- stylish and bloody and slow-motion -- but getting there can be a trip at times. There are too many portions that feel rush and/or disjointed. As well, there are some cringe-worthy moments from young Cataleya turning into a parkour runner and evading an army of drug gunmen to Curtis' Emilio opening fire in public to prove a point and simply walking away as police pull up in force. Say what now?!? It doesn't help that the film is "filmed" in Chicago but the city I grew up in sure looks like Los Angeles, at least a west coast city. It sure had some potential, but it ends up being a disappointment.

Colombiana (2011): **/****

The Day of the Jackal

How do you like your movie thrillers? If you're a fan of more recent thrillers, things just aren't as subtle and underplayed as the ones I appreciate more. As in so many film genres, the current solution to everything seems to be violence and explosions, car chases, beautiful women and sex. It wasn't always that way though, like with 1973's The Day of the Jackal, one of the all-time great thrillers. How good is it? It's so brutally efficient, it's almost hard to explain.

It's 1962 and French president Charles De Gaulle is dealing with some serious civil unrest after he has given Algeria its freedom separate from the rule of France. A splinter group of rebels, the O.A.S., many from the French army, has had enough of  De Gaulle's rule but an assassination attempt fails miserably, doing nothing other than alerting French security to the OAS' plan. Desperate to stop De Gaulle's presidency and power, the OAS command puts together a desperate last plan. They hire an extremely gifted, brutally efficient hired killer, an Englishman (Edward Fox), who agrees to go by the codename 'Jackal.' He's paid handsomely but has his work cut out for him as De Gaulle is protected by one of the world's best security forces. How will he do it? When will he do it? The assassin goes about his planning, his ideas known only to himself. Though the deal was made in extreme secrecy with the OAS officials, French security manages to catch wind of the assassination attempt. Can they find him and stop him in time? Not if the Jackal has anything to say about it.

Wow. Just wow. What a good movie, director Fred Zinnemann doing an admirable job of bringing Frederick Forsyth's equally impressive/entertaining novel to the big screen. How good is it? Knowing that this story didn't in fact....you know, actually happen, you start to believe that it did happen. When it comes to tough as nails, hard-edged stories about no-nonsense tough guys, it's hard to beat Forsyth, who also wrote The Odessa File and The Dogs of War among others. This should serve as a blueprint for how to construct a no frills thriller that will nonetheless have you on the edge of your seat. 'Jackal' clocks in at 145 minutes which may sound long but simply put, it isn't. The running time flies by, absolutely flies. I've probably been saying this too much of late -- I do have my reasoning -- but I'll go out and say this is a perfect movie. I love it. Hopefully you will too.

What's the big appeal? It's so well-written you believe that maybe Fox's Jackal did exist, maybe an assassin was hired to take out De Gaulle. It's just the sort of thing you could believe a government and security covering it up for the sake of national security. 'Jackal' wreaks of realism, of authenticity that all adds up. Zinneman films it in business-like fashion, giving it a quasi-documentary feel to the fast-developing story. Through the entire film, we watch the Jackal hunt (of sorts), the police on an international level (especially France and England) hunting him, and all the while wondering how things will eventually turn out (even knowing the history). The filming locations across Europe add another dimension to the film, especially the on-location shooting in and around Paris in the final act. It just works, every bit of it.

Hopefully if you're a history buff or even just remotely know some history, you know how this story will end -- at least in some fashion. So who to watch for? An underrated actor with quite a few good flicks to his name, Fox delivers a career-best performance as the Jackal. It is sinister and smooth, subtle and underplayed, Fox bringing this character to life in impressive fashion. Why? We literally know nothing about him other than some off-hand comments made about his reputation. He gives the Jackal an air of professionalism, a brutally efficient killer who kills not because he enjoys it, but because he's freakishly efficient at killing. His actions aren't personal. It is simply business. That element adds an interesting element to the story. You're not rooting for the Jackal per se, but you're nonetheless incredibly curious how he proposes to pull off this job. An excellent performance for Mr. Fox.

So while the Jackal is the unquestioned star, the rest of the cast is a very solid ensemble. The best supporting part without a doubt goes to Michael Lonsdale as Lebel, the deputy police commissioner tasked with tracking down an unknown killer with no physical description or any real idea where he's at. It's underplayed and perfect, a stressed detective pushed to his limit, forced to use all the tricks he's learned over the years. Derek Jacobi plays his assistant in a good part. Also look for Alan Badel as the French minister of the Interior, in charge of the manhunt, Thomas (Tony Britton), a British inspector looking into the Jackal's background, Cyril Cusack as the gunsmith who helps the Jackal construct his specialized rifle, and Jean Martin as Wolenski, an OAS clerk/bodyguard, a nice nod to the Battle of Algiers which Martin also starred in.

With a story that's underplayed and subtle, you might not think the story would be a thrill a minute type of thing. But it is, and it works better because none of it is obvious. The Jackal always manages to stay one step ahead of his pursuers in these great moments, the noose closing in. By the time he makes his attempt on De Gaulle, I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see what happens. What an ending, just a crazy, adrenaline-packed finale to wrap things up. As if that wasn't enough, there's a twist in the closing scenes that adds another layer of mystery to the whole story.

Just a phenomenally well-made and well-executed thriller. Can't recommend it enough.

The Day of the Jackal (1973): ****/****

Dead Poets Society

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young Guns of Texas

So do you have a famous parent? No? Me neither, but I've two keepers. I grew up in Chicago where Michael Jordan did and still does reign king, the greatest basketball player to ever live. Once his kids started to grow up though, the pressure passed to them. Would they be as good as Pops? Well, short answer, but 'No.' When you've got famous parents, there's pressure whether it's inward or outward to live up to what the parents accomplished. Take 1962's Young Guns of Texas, a little-known western that features four actors with famous parents.

In a town in the southern part of Texas, a young man, Tyler Duane (Gary Conway), rides in and starts asking questions. He's on the trail of a small army patrol but not an everyday army patrol, instead it's one Union officer, six Confederate soldiers and one woman. Looking for answers, Tyler meets a young cowboy, Jeff Shelby (Jody McCrea), who says the patrol passed through town a few days earlier. Why is this patrol so special? Tyler reveals they're carrying $30,000 in gold, but the patrol is wearing out horses trying to get to Mexico before they're caught. Jeff sides with Tyler, agreeing to join him on the trail, but they're not able to leave before getting caught up in some town drama. Now Tyler, Jeff and a small group are also being hunted, a posse following them. A showdown in the desert looms when all three groups meet up.

God bless Encore Westerns. They seem to show the same cyclical bunch of westerns -- some classics, some good, some really bad -- on a weekly to monthly basis, but I do love a western (basically any of them). I keep tabs on their schedule because let's face it, you never know when you may stumble across one you've never seen, maybe never even heard of it. Enter this little known, very B-movie(ish) western from director Maury Dexter. The description actually said "Mostly noteworthy because of appearances by offspring of...." without actually giving....ya know, a description. Well, the story ends up being a mess, but it clocks in at just 78 minutes. As soon as it starts, it's over. Not especially good, but not long enough either where it overstays its welcome.

As for those celebrity offspring, yeah, they're here in abundance. Along with McCrea (father Joel McCrea), look for James Mitchum (Robert's son) and Alana Ladd (Alan's daughter) in key parts. Even Chill Wills' son, Will Wills (that's his name, no kidding) makes an appearance. What's the verdict? Who holds their own? Who doesn't? None are especially good to be fair. McCrea holds his own as Jeff, a young cowboy always seeming to get into trouble. Mitchum is okay but nothing flashy, trying to go for the strong, silent type that his Dad became synonymous with. Ladd isn't given much to do other than look pretty, part of a doomed relationship with Mitchum's character, Morgan Coe, a young man rescued from a Comanche tribe now dealing with prejudices of the classier white society. Of the young stars dubbed the 'Young Guns of Texas,' I thought Conway holds his own best and he's almost a background player in parts.

Simply put, 'Guns' tries to accomplish far too much. There's two main storylines, both worthy of their own feature length movie, but instead we get two decent stories jammed into one lightning-quick 78-minute story. Story 1: A young former Union officer (Conway) rides into town looking to return $30,000 in Army payroll that's been stolen by his brother. The officer and a cowboy hit the trail to reacquire the gold. Story 2: A former Comanche captive falls for the beautiful daughter of the local rancher (Robert Lowery) who doesn't take kindly to the possibility of that son-in-law...even though the rancher was the one that rescued Morgan from the Indians years before. Neither story gets the attention it deserves, wasting the potential that could have brought 'Guns' up a notch or two into some pretty respectable territory. As is, there is simply too much going on, the two stories absolutely forced to work together, coherent story be damned!

But you know what? I still liked this mess of a movie. It isn't good, but it's entertaining. At a certain point, I just stuck with it to see how things were resolved, for the sake of a review, and to see which characters get picked off in the finale. There isn't much in the way of action, and when it's there, 'Guns' borrows liberally from some 1950s westerns, including most obviously some footage from Hondo. It's an odd bean to say the least. I liked the potential, three young cowboys, a little kooky preacher in Chill Wills, the young, innocent daughter, and a tough-talking, seductive female rancher (Barbara Mansell) on the trail kept me intrigued. The payoff is okay, but it's nothing special as things are rushed together in a flash. If you're a western fan, you may enjoy it in bits and pieces. As a whole? Eh, could have been pretty decent with some tweaks.

Young Guns of Texas (1962): **/****