Rough Riders

Okay, history nerd alert. Who's your favorite United States president? Mine's easy to peg; Theodore Roosevelt, a President who did a little bit of everything. Beyond his two-term presidency though, what is he most known for? His involvement in the Spanish American War, told quite well in a 1997 TV miniseries, Rough Riders.

It's 1898 and the American government is in a bit of a spot. News of Spanish atrocities and cruel leadership in Cuba are making international news to the point American intervention seems like a sure thing. Who's at the forefront of that movement? Assistant secretary of the Navy Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (Tom Berenger). He's been given approval to assemble a volunteer regiment of cavalry that will be sent to Cuba with American forces to stop the Spanish. Who is he looking to volunteer? Cowboys, mountain men, trailsmen, and anyone who can handle themselves when the bullets start to fly. He gets that and more as the volunteers assemble in Texas for training. What awaits the regiment of rough-hewn volunteers? Only the fighting in Cuba will tell.

Over the last month or so, this becomes the third TNT TV movie I've reviewed with 2001's Crossfire Trail and 1997's Buffalo Soldiers. I wish TNT still made historically-based movies like this! This 1997 miniseries is probably the network's biggest venture, a movie with impressive scale, a deep cast and a 187-minute running time. It comes from director John Milius (who also wrote the script with Hugh Wilson), a good, underrated tough guy director to helm a good tough guy flick like this. 'Riders' doesn't rewrite the historical epic/action genre, just content to tell a historical story that is known if not widely known. Elmer Bernstein turns in a fine throwback(ish) musical score, the cast looks to be having a lot of fun, and seeing a story that sticks pretty close to the historical truth? How can you lose?

The historical truth is pretty daunting for a filmmaker to take on. 'Riders' does a good job portraying not just Roosevelt and his famous cavalry volunteers, but many involved in the war from a variety of perspectives. We see the government, including President William McKinley (Brian Keith, a Milius favorite) and his secretary of state (R. Lee Ermey). We see the journalists/writers from William Randolph Hearst (George Hamilton) to Stephen Crane (Adam Storke), Frederick Remington (Nick Chinlund) to Edward Marshall (Williamt Katt). From the military perspective, we see Gary Busey and Dale Dye (a Marine Corps veteran) in power positions trying to lead the Cuban expedition. 'Riders' more than justice to the times, tackling a lot but doing a good job across the board in setting the stage for our historical story. It could have been easy for it to all slip away, but Milius helms it all nicely.

This is an ensemble cast -- a pretty strong one at that -- but I thought Tom Berenger stood out from the rest as future President Teddy Roosevelt. You read about Roosevelt, and it sounds like a caricature but no. This was one fiery, lively, opinionated, fun-loving man with some wide-ranging interests. Berenger brings him to life from his unique speech patterns to his very physical movements and non-stop energy. He makes Roosevelt more though, a human being, not just a caricature. We see Teddy with his wife (Illeana Douglas) who he misses to an extreme level, how he bonds with his men around a campfire during training, how he's emotionally distraught at seeing his men killed in battle, the exhaustion that sets in after a costly battle. Big and boisterous but never overdone, Berenger does an excellent, scene-stealing job as Roosevelt. I also learned something from the film, finding out Roosevelt wasn't always the commander of the Rough Riders. He became the commander but no spoilers.

Okay, a movie about the Rough Riders so let's talk about Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders. Milius uses a familiar, well-worn and effective formula here; the unit picture. Assemble a group of men from different backgrounds, put them together, let them train and bond and then throw them into battle. There's a lot of characters so there's not always a ton of development but who stands out from the rest? Brad Johnson plays Nash, an outlaw (with partner Buck Taylor) who joins the outfit to escape a posse. Sam Elliott brings his tough guy swagger to play Capt. Bucky O'Neill, an Arizona lawman turned drill sergeant. And also, Chris Noth plays Craig Wadsworth, an upper class New Yorker looking to prove himself in battle. It's a very solid cast, and that's just the start. The rest of the group isn't necessarily big names, but there's familiar faces playing some cool characters.

Who else to look for? Joining Noth as the upper-class NYC gentlemen are Holt McCallany, Mark Moses, Titus Welliver and James Parks. As for the less-gentlemanly among the Rough Riders, watch for Geoffrey Lewis, Francesco Quinn, Eric Allan Kramer, Bob Primeaux, and in an excellent supporting part, Marshall R. Teague as a young Black Jack Pershing, commander of a regiment of Buffalo Soldiers fighting alongside the Rough Riders.     

Nothing too fancy here, just a good, entertaining movie with a throwback kind of feel. The first 90 minutes sets up the background, assembling the regiment and introducing the characters, and then throwing them into training. By the end of the first half, we're thrust into the fighting in Cuba. The centerpiece of the second half of 'Riders' is not surprisingly the attack on San Juan Hill, the battle that made the Rough Riders an instantly recognizable name and regiment. There are some slow moments building up to the battle, but the actual assault on the heavily fortified hill is a gem of an extended sequence. An excellent flick on all accounts. History buffs will especially enjoy it so it gets an easy recommendation from this guy.

Rough Riders (1997): ***/****

Eagle's Wing

Keep on looking, and eventually you'll continue to find movies you've absolutely heard nothing about that still appeal to you. Now if I could just win that dang lotto, I could spend all my time looking for hidden gems like that. Here's a good example. Cool cast, genre I love, interesting premise. What's the final verdict on 1979's Eagle's Wing?

It's in the 1830s in the wild expanses of the New Mexico desert. An inexperienced frontiersman and former soldier, Pike (Martin Sheen), is on his own after his partner is killed during a run-in with an Indian war party. Riding across the desert looking for what's next, Pike stumbles across a Comanche burial, a beautiful white stallion picketed nearby. Pike manages to escape with the horse, but he's not the only one interested in the horse. A Kiowa warrior, White Bull (Sam Waterston), has also seen the horse and wants it more than anything else, a run-in on the trail more than likely with such a prize on the line. That's not all though. A stagecoach and burial hearse loaded with gold and jewelry, not to mention a small group of beautiful women, is traveling across the desert at the same time. What will happen when these disparate individuals all meet up?

So ever heard of this one? Yeah, me neither. From director Anthony Harvey, 'Wing' is considered a Euro-western (I guess) as it was backed by an English studio and filmed on-location in Durango, Mexico. It received decent film reviews back in 1979 but struggled to find a footing in theaters. And wow, what a mixed bag in the end. Purely on a visual level, this flick is a stunner. You get a sense of how big the desert is, how immense the wilderness truly was when Indian tribes ruled the west and a few brave mountain men, traders and trappers navigated the country. A gorgeous film to watch, but does it rise to something else? Something more?

My biggest criticism is that 'Wing' isn't content to just be a western story with some interesting characters in an interesting historical time that doesn't always get its due in film. It has to be something more, like an allegory about human wants, needs and what drives them. Yes, it is an immaculate white stallion with impeccable speed on the line. It becomes more though. How far will these individuals go? Waterston's White Bull begins to abandon everything else he owns to keep the horse. Sheen's Pike risks bleeding to death with a wound rather than risk losing the horse. Members of a posse trailing them all turn to greed, murder and backstabbing. Maybe the premise would work better if handled a little differently, but the story never quite develops how I'd like. The second half of the movie (I saw a version about 105 minutes) is significantly better, but the finale disappoints too, open-ended without any real closure. So it's got that going for it!

And then there's the casting, some interesting, some good, and some just odd. First of all, Sam Waterston as an Indian warrior? It's not that this is a bad performance -- he doesn't speak much -- but seriously....Law and Order's resident district attorney Mr. McCoy as an 1830s Kiowa warrior? Tsk tsk, that's not ideal casting. For such a wily trailsman, White Bull also seems to make some insanely dumb decisions along the way. Sheen escapes with less damage, at times channeling his dream-like voiceover from Apocalypse Now, as the frontiersman quickly learning how to survive. Also worth mentioning? Harvey Keitel is around for about 30 minutes as Henry, a far-more experienced trader and frontiersman trying to teach Pike the ways of the wilderness.

Other characters include Judith (Caroline Langrishe), an Irish woman kidnapped by White Bull, a widowed woman (Stephane Audran) with the desert hearse, the two most persistent members of the pursuing posse (Jorge Russek and Manuel Ojeda), and Judith's brother, the Priest (John Castle). 

An interesting movie for sure. As I mentioned, the second half is significantly better with the pace quickening and the chase coming to its sorta conclusion. The premise is excellent, a handful of individuals with limited weapons and fewer supplies all pursuing each other, all for different reasons. I wish I liked it more, but as is, it's a decent western with some big positives and hard to avoid negatives.

Eagle's Wing (1979): ** 1/2 /****

Beetlejuice

So can we all agree on this next statement? Strange, odd and as downright creepy as he can be at times, Tim Burton is one talented, eccentric filmmaker. Following the success of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure in 1985, Burton was looking for a script for his next film. He struggled to find the right vehicle, ultimately settling on 1988's Beetlejuice. Though I grew up watching the Beetlejuice cartoon on Saturday mornings, I never saw the movie....until now!!!

With a two-week vacation ahead of them, husband, Adam (Alec Baldwin), and wife, Barbara (Geena Davis), have decided to sit around on the house and relax doing odds and ends. Well, that's their plan at least. Picking up some odds and ends, the couple is killed in a car crash, and now they're trapped in some sort of after-life purgatory....in their own home. Is it heaven? Is it hell? Is it neither? Adam and Barbara find a "Guide to the Recently Undead" book in their attic but don't know what to make of it. They're trapped in their house and don't know how to get out. It's a minor problem until a new family moves in, an uppity family from New York City, wanting to make lots of changes that the recently dead couple is really in trouble. Maybe their only option? A live-wire, bio-exorcist ghost named Betelgeuse (Michael Keaton), who may have some ulterior motives.

Look at the films a director makes -- the good directors at least -- and you can get a good glimpse into their beliefs, their backgrounds, their childhoods. What about Burton? He is a nut. A talented, crazy, chaotic nut with a beautifully insane outlook on life. From Pee-Wee to Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands to writing Nightmare Before Christmas, Burton isn't afraid to make movies that he likes. They're weird (sometimes gloriously weird), and he's okay with that. Watching these movies is a trip so you've gotta know that going in. Watching a Burton flick is like being transported into an alternate world with crazy visuals, crazier characters, and a dark, cynical sense of humor. Sound good? I'm not a huge, diehard fan of Burton, but I can definitely appreciate a talented director like he is.

So what's an unlikely source for some laughs? Dying, death and whatever twisted vision of the afterlife that Tim Burton has. It's wickedly colorful, always slightly ajar and off-center, and though it produces laughs, it's always played straight. At no point does it feel forced. The laughs are bizarre, but they work because Burton and the cast simply lay things out for you. Here's the joke. Laugh if you want. If you don't, no skin off my back. Case in point? When Adam and Barbara visit the afterlife offices, we meet Juno (Sylvia Sidney), their afterlife case worker who fills them in on their new situation. While smoking and explaining, smoke filters out through her throat. Was her throat slit? Did she have cancer? Just go with it. There's a whole office of stuff like that, a desk clerk who hung himself and now moves around the office by noose. The football team that died in a bus wreck. The shrunken-head victim of a witch doctor...and the dead voodoo doctor. The magician's assistant sitting next to her severed lower half. Incredibly dark but oh so funny.

Enough with all that mumbo-jumbo. Let's talk Beetlejuice! Having worked for most of the 1980s in a variety of films, this was the movie that made Michael Keaton a star, albeit a star that shined brightly but quickly. Wearing heavy makeup and some kooky outfits, Keaton throws himself completely into the part as our big-exorcist ghost looking to have some fun...a lot of fun actually. He's actually not in the movie a ton but makes the most of every minute he's on-screen. He falls for the Deetzes' daughter, Lydia (Winona Ryder), who embraces all sorts of weird, producing some great moments as he tries to escape the afterlife (sort of). It's goofy, often dumb, mostly smart, and Keaton is a scene-stealer. His character theme song is a gem too, kicking in HERE about 30 seconds in.

There isn't a weak spot in the entire cast. Baldwin and Davis get laughs because they play it straight, especially when they realize that as dead people they can do all sorts of horrifying, manipulative things to their bodies. As well, they're dead, but they're not quite Beetlejuice dead, establishing a sort of afterlife hierarchy. Catherine O'Hara and Jeffrey Jones are perfect together as Delia and Charles Deetz, the wife looking to gut the house while the husband wants to relax and live a country life...until there's money on the line. Ryder too is especially good as the quirky Lydia who can see the ghosts/dead. Glenn Shadix has some great moments too as Otho, Delia's interior decorator with a wicked sense of everything.

Just a funny movie from beginning to end. Too many good moments to mention, and what's the fun in me giving them all away? Check it out, an excellent Halloween-themed flick for October!

Beetlejuice (1988): ***/****

The Great Sioux Massacre

I caught part of They Died With Their Boots On recently on a cable movie channel. It got me thinking. There just isn't many movies made about George Armstrong Custer, and then I quickly corrected myself. There aren't many good movies about Custer. Yeah, Boots is good if dated, and the TV miniseries Son of the Morning Star is an exception. Well, here we sit with another entry. Where does 1965's The Great Sioux Massacre end up?

Having received new orders, Lt. William Benton (Darren McGavin) rides west to the fort where the Seventh Cavalry is stationed. He's looking forward to meeting his new commander, Colonel George Armstrong Custer (Philip Carey), a renowned Indian fighter who's reputation precedes him. Tensions with the Plains Indians are rising with each passing month, but that's just part of the problem for Benton. A woman from his past, Caroline Reno (Julie Sommars), is stationed at the post with her angry, alcoholic father, one of Custer's officers, Major Marcus Reno (Joseph Cotten). Benton immediately requests a transfer to avoid the drama, but Colonel Custer convinces him to stick it out. A fight with the Indians is coming, and Custer has some master plans for his cavalry regiment and for his future beyond.

One of the most fascinating personalities in American history, George Armstrong Custer is a divisive individual. Was he a hero, a brilliant military strategist and Indian fighter? Was he a bumbling officer, a gloryhound seeking his own fame? It's some of both most likely, but the moral of the story is pretty simple. This isn't a good movie. From director Sidney Salkow, 'Sioux' takes the history of the late 1860s and into the 1870s, throws it into a blender and pours what's left into this 102-minute B-western. He rewrites the history that is really interesting in itself and makes it....well, not interesting. That takes some doing when you consider the background.

So where to start? It's based on Custer, the Seventh Cavalry and the Battle of the Little Big Horn, but there are tweaks at basically all turns. Everyone else is named after the historical individuals they're based on, except for McGavin's Lt. Benton, supposedly based on Lt. William Benteen. The actual Benteen isn't interesting though so let's switch things up!!! In the facts, Benteen and Major Reno were both born in 1834, but here Benteen (um, Benton) has dated Reno's daughter. Yeah, personal drama! Reno is also apparently an angry Southerner who still holds a grudge against the North. Benton is also a Southerner with McGavin sporting a painfully awkward southern accent. Seriously, folks? Are we really doing this? We're degenerating a really fascinating historical story into a really forced, not worthwhile love story.

But somehow and some way Colonel Custer will save us. Right? Right?!? No, not especially. Carey doesn't have the star power or charisma to bring Colonel Custer to life. There is so much potential for character development and really delving into the guts of a military leader with an instantly recognizable name. Some of the actual history is explored, especially Custer's efforts to expose government corruption surrounding the Indian agencies. Before the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the actual Custer was actually removed from command and potentially facing some serious threats from President Grant. The story and facts are interesting, but the actual execution is not unfortunately in the film. Also look for Nancy Kovack as Libby, Custer's supportive wife.

Much of the screentime is focused on Custer, Benton and Reno, wasting some potentially cool supporting parts. I thought the most interesting character was the cavalry scout, Dakota (John Matthews), a white man who saw his family wiped out by Indians. Also look for Michael Pate as Sitting Bull and Iron Eyes Cody as Crazy Horse, underutilized as warrior counterparts to our bumbling cavalry officers. There's also House Peters Jr. appearing late as Cambridge, a reporter tasked with building up Custer's heroic actions.

So Custer couldn't save things. Could the actual battle scene, the infamous Custer's last stand? Um, no. Throughout the movie in hopes of hiding the film's small budget, footage is liberally borrowed from a 1954 western, Sitting Bull, also directed by Salkow. Small world, huh?!? Basically any shot of cavalry leaving the fort or riding across the plains or heading into battle is from the 1954 movie, not the 1965 one. The filming locations are vastly different so this footage stands out like a sore thumb. Just not good. Oh, so not good.

The Great Sioux Massacre (1965): * 1/2 /****

Draft Day

So the National Football League has been getting a lot of negative press lately if you haven't heard. Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, commissioner Roger Goodell, and that's just the start. A series of domestic violence involving wives and children, a major sports commissioner lying and those are just the ones dominating the headlines. So how about some good timing? It didn't exactly tear up the box office -- making just $29 million -- but can you imagine if 2014's Draft Day had been released this fall as opposed to this past spring? We're talking bad timing of mammoth proportions.

 The 2014 NFL Draft is just hours away and teams around the league are scrambling to make the right move, to make a big move, to make a splash. High on that list? The Cleveland Browns, slotted in at No. 7 and with a lot of tough decisions ahead of the franchise, especially general manager Sonny Weaver Jr. (Kevin Costner). The morning of the draft, Browns owner Anthony Molina (Frank Langella) all but threatens Sonny to hit a home run with the coming draft or get fired. What to do? Sonny has options, especially with the Seattle Seahawks call him offering the No. 1 draft pick. The asking price is pretty hefty -- three first-round draft picks -- but Sonny feels backed up against a wall. It's a tough call, but he pulls the trigger. The Browns have the No. 1 pick in the draft, now less than 12 hours away. With his job hanging in the balance, what will Sonny do? Who will he pick?

So why exactly did this sports flick flop at the box office last spring? Well, it reeks of being backed by the NFL and all its support. There are times it feels shoved down our throats about getting an inside look at the inner-workings of an NFL front office. From director Ivan Reitman, 'Draft' is a movie shot in swanky offices, conference rooms with dry-erase boards and lots of scouts, and one team office after another. It's dumbed down for even the most casual football fans -- "Seattle.....Home of the Seahawks" -- and never feels forced. It clocks in at 110 minutes and is enjoyable throughout. Just beware of all those real NFL cameos from Goodell to Chris Berman and Mel Kiper Jr. Potentially nauseating? Yes, basically at all times, but I liked it a lot just the same.

It's not the spectacle that works though. It's the smaller moments. Those windows where you feel you're actually getting an insight into an NFL team prepping for a draft. Sonny and the Browns are focusing on three players, the can't miss QB from Wisconsin, Bo Callahan (Josh Pence), the freakishly athletic LB from Ohio State, Vontae Mack (Chadwick Boseman), and the dual-threat RB from Florida State with some law issues, Ray Jennings (Houston Texans RB Arian Foster), who's got ties to the Browns via his father (Terry Crews), a former Browns superstar. Why does a team ultimately decide on their player? What detective work goes into it? Is it talent, character or drive? There are a couple great scenes where you feel you're getting some inside info, especially one trick several teams use concerning their playbook with potential rookie QBs.

Who better to lead an NFL franchise from the general manager spot than Kevin Costner? Trick question. No one. No one is better than Costner. It's been cool to see Costner jump back into regular acting roles from Jack Ryan to 3 Days to Kill to Man of Steel. He seems at ease in everything he does, bringing that cool, calculating charm to the screen with each role. Yeah, the personal drama with his salary cap analyst/girlfriend (Jennifer Garner) and his angry mom (Ellen Burstyn) and ex-wife (Rosanna Arquette) don't work as well as the football drama but that's to be expected. Costner is cool even if he's dealing with some hammy, forced personal and family issues. He's a G.M. trying to piece it all together with about a thousand different options at his disposal. Welcome back, Kevin Costner. We're glad to have you!

Also look for Denis Leary as the a-hole new head coach, Tom Welling as the Browns' incumbent quarterback, Sam Elliott as Callahn's college coach at Wisconsin, Patrick St. Espirit and Chi McBride as the Seahawks' GM and President, Kevin Dunn as a Browns official, Sean Combs as Callahan's all-powerful agent, and NFL/Cleveland legends Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar appearing briefly as themselves.

Things get a little goofy at times once the draft comes around in the final act. There's an epic case of luck as Weaver makes a decision that should have doomed his career as a G.M. and possibly the Browns as a franchise too in terms of player personnel. Is it a cool ending? Sure, Costner gets to flex his muscles with one twist after another. A little too tidy? Oh, yes, very much, but it works. Oddly enough....it's not too far from what the Browns actually did in the 2014 draft. Did this movie see into the future?!? Meh, that's too much thinking involved. It's a good, not great movie, that's an enjoyable way to pass two hours. An easy flick to watch and be entertained with.

Draft Day (2014): ***/****

The Carpetbaggers

One of my favorite movies growing up -- and still is -- is the 1966 western Nevada Smith starring Steve McQueen. Wouldn't you know it? It's a prequel to a novel by Harold Robbins called The Carpetbaggers. How's that work? Well, it does and it doesn't. I'm still looking for the book, but I can check the film adaptation off the list. That's 1964's The Carpetbaggers.

It's the early 1920s and Jonas Cord Jr. (George Peppard) is a young man without a care in the world. Any problems he has, his rich father will solve or give him money or turn a blind eye to his antics. When Jonas' father suddenly dies from an aneurysm, a whole business empire is thrust upon Jonas. Will it crumble with the irresponsible Jonas at its helm? Far from it if he has anything to do with it. Young Cord wants to expand and grow and dominate the world. He starts the steady climb up, parlaying one factory into another and there's no market anywhere that Jonas doesn't want his hand in. He wants the power, the money, the prestige and nothing is going to stop him. But in the 1920s and 1930s, can anything actually slow Jonas down? Maybe only himself.

This was a movie I've long been aware of, one that I was vaguely familiar with because of 1966's Nevada Smith. For quite awhile it lingered on my Netflix Saved queue and lingered and lingered. Seriously....do people just hold onto the movies for months at a time?!? 'Carpetbaggers' finally popped up on the Retro Movie Channel, and I had to jump. I'm glad I did. From director Edward Dmytryk, it is a well-told story about business, ego, power, corruption and all that good, dark, sexy stuff that audiences can't turn away from. It clocks in at 150 minutes which might seem long, but the story moves at a lightning pace throughout. The timeline covers around 20 years but never feels rushed. We see the important moments from the good to the mostly bad to the really bad and often painful.

There's something simple and appealing about rise to power stories. How do they climb up? How do they stay there? What, if anything, will ultimately prove to be their downfall? This is a dark movie. There aren't good guys, just less bad guys. Everyone is out for themselves and willing to screw anyone over to get what they want with Peppard's Jonas leading the way. 'Carpetbaggers' takes place in posh hotel suites, busy movie sets, on new-model airplanes, in factories and follows Jonas with every decision he makes. It's nothing crazy original -- sure seems like a Howard Hughes-esque main character -- but there's something enjoyable, entertaining and appealing about this flick. I especially liked composer Elmer Bernstein's musical score with some familiar touches from other scores but forming its own identity. Listen HERE to the main theme.

Look at George Peppard's 1960s filmography, and you only see a couple classic movies, Breakfast at Tiffany's and How the West Was Won. But there's more there to appreciate, but he's got a handful or two of really solid movies worth seeking out. This film definitely counts. Peppard specialized in playing the anti-hero, that a-hole lead you just hate but can't look away from.This is a character who's icy, calculating, brutally efficient and with some deep-seeded personal issues. Obviously this isn't a character you're rooting for, but he's perfectly fascinating. We want to see what makes him tick. We want to see his next brutal takeover, whether it's on a personal basis or putting together a corporate buyout. An excellent performance from one of my favorites, Mr. Peppard. Nice work all around.

Peppard's Cord is the lightning rod for the story, but we meet a whole lot of other folks, most of them just as egotistical, greedy and downright lousy. Some good performances in a deep cast, starting with Alan Ladd in one of his all-time best parts as aging cowboy Nevada Smith. A checkered past to his name, Nevada tries to help Jonas knowing it can never really work. There's also Carroll Baker as Rina, Jonas' stepmother who's the same age as him and looking to make a name for herself. Slinking it up and quite sexy, Baker delivers an excellent part. There's also key supporting parts for Elizabeth Ashley (Jonas' wife), Robert Cummings (an agent turned producer), Martha Hyer (another femme fatale), Lew Ayres (Jonas' much-maligned yet capable accountant), Martin Balsam (a rival movie studio owner), Ralph Taeger (a pilot and business part of Jonas'), Archie Moore (the house servant who knows all) and Leif Erickson (Jonas' tough-love father).

If there's a weak point, it comes in the ending. I was looking for something better, something more appropriate and something DARKER. This is a tidy ending. An easy ending. The build-up makes up for it though to the point the last five minutes can't and won't ruin things. As for the connection to 1966's prequel, Nevada Smith, I think it is best to consider it two unrelated movies. Things don't jive just right, especially Brian Keith's Jonas turning into manipulative, evil Leif Erickson. One produced the other so that's cool, but that's about it. Both excellent movies, and let's leave it at that.

The Carpetbaggers (1964): ***/****

Reds

The amount of information, facts and tidbits I don't know about Russian history could full volumes. I love history -- ALL of it -- but something about the immensity of Russia and its history has proved rather intimidating to me. Where to even start? Well, movies seem to agree with me. I liked but didn't love 1965's Doctor Zhivago, but there's another Russian epic that's long been recommend to me. Let's get going with 1981's Reds.

Living in Portland, Oregon in 1915, Louise Bryant (Diane Keaton) has a relatively safe if dull life. She's married, does art and is a hopeful writer. Then, she meets John Reed (Warren Beatty), a highly respected if somewhat controversial writer with an impressive following. She is immediately drawn to him and ends up following him to New York City to be with him while also hopefully pursuing a career as a writer and a journalist. There's a relative catch though. John is a staunch supporter of the socialist movement, a movement that threatens to tear World War I apart as workers around the world, especially in Russia, begin to push for more rights, more privileges. In the midst of World War I (and with the Russian Revolution looming), Louise has entered into one of history's most tumultuous times. She loves John and he loves her, but the world seems on the brink of blowing itself up. What will happen next?

For years, my Mom has recommended this movie to me. It's one of her all-time favorites, and she knows far more about the time and backstory than I do. For some background reading, read about the Russian Revolution HERE at Wikipedia. It's not even fair to say this is a Russian Revolution movie. This is a story about two people's lives amidst that turbulent time in world history with a heavy socialist focus. For more reading, read about John Reed and Louise Bryant, two incredibly interesting individuals. It is a big, epic movie, clocking in at equally intimidating 194 minutes, and took Beatty (who starred, directed, produced and wrote) and his cast and crew a full year to film. That's before you consider a lengthy editing process. Beatty is no dummy, taking on films that mean something to him, and this is the definition of that. This is a message movie, an intellectual, thought-out, impressive film. Is it good though?

I will say it is more interesting than it is good, if that makes sense. 'Reds' picked up 12 Oscar nominations, ultimately winning three, including Beatty as Best Director. For a movie that clocks in at almost three and a half hours, it did well at the box office and resonated with critics and has developed quite a following among fans. It was filmed in New York City, Finland, England, Sweden and Spain. So....yeah, what else? 'Reds' is an epic. The scale and immensity is impressive. This is an epic about an idea though, the idea of socialism. This is 194 minutes of almost entirely talking. This is talking about a principle, about government, about corruption, about history, about the system. 'Reds' isn't Lawrence of Arabia or The Godfather or Gone With the Wind. It is its own epic, and with Beatty backing it all the way, it is quite okay with being its own film. I struggled at times because it is such a smart, well-written movie. Is that enough to hamstring a film? I don't know, but definitely know what you're getting into here.

Picking up two of the film's four Oscar acting nominations, Beatty and Keaton carry the film. Either one or the other is in almost every scene, and apparently the filming was so strenuous on their off-screen relationship they ultimately broke up. I didn't necessarily buy their doomed love, their unexplained chemistry. What did I buy? Their performances themselves are excellent. These are two extremely intelligent individuals, drawn to each other but who's personalities butt heads because they're both so strong-willed. Based on historical figures, both characters are 3-D, blood and guts people, not cardboard cutouts. Kudos to both actors who again make their characters interesting/fascinating if not necessarily likable.

Up until 2012's Silver Linings Playbook, 'Reds' was the last film to receive Oscar nominations for all four acting categories. The culprits? Jack Nicholson as playwright/writer Eugene O'Neill and Maureen Stapleton as famed anarchist Emma Goldman. These aren't huge supporting parts, but what's there is choice, two actors making the most of their relatively small screentime. Also look for Edward Herrmann, Jerzy Kosinski, M. Emmet Walsh, Paul Sorvino, William Daniels, Gene Hackman, and R.G. Armstrong in supporting parts. Some of them are pretty quick, none of them truly developed, and a couple are nothing more than a single scene. Of the smaller parts, Kosinski is memorable as a socialist leader working with Reed and Hackman as a booze-loving, honest newspaper editor.

One of the best choices Beatty makes as a director was a wise style choice. Along with the actual story, interviews with those who knew Reed and Bryant during the 1910s and 1920s are interspersed throughout the movie. These people -- now in their 70s and 80s -- reminiscing about John and Louise, about the times, about how things have changed, these are the moments that proved most memorable for me. Check out the list of witnesses HERE. So as I mentioned before, this is an excellent movie. One you appreciate and admire and respect. I felt like I learned some things as the story develops, but did I love the movie like I hoped I would? Nope. Still very much worth checking out, but not quite the movie I was expecting.

Reds (1981): ** 1/2 /****

The Village

What is director-writer-producer M. Night Shyamalan associated with? The twist ending. The BIG twist ending. From The Sixth Sense to Signs, Unbreakable to The Happening, Shyamalan has made a career out of that pull the rug out from under you feeling. I've seen most of them, and now I can check off 2004's The Village, another Shyamalan vehicle with a twist in the end.

In a small, isolated village in the Pennsylvania countryside in the late 1890s, life goes on pretty much as normal on a day-to-day basis. Well....pretty much. The close-knit community is isolated from the rest of the world, all the townspeople unable to leave a perimeter surrounding the village. Why? The town has a delicate truce with something living in the woods, creatures dubbed "Those We Don't Speak Of." One of the townspeople, Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix), a young man, is sure the creatures will let them pass if approached in non-aggressive fashion. He is close to Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a young woman who lost her vision as a child, who also believes Lucius' plan. It is a pleasant if limited life, but Lucius wants to explore, to question. Can he convince the village elders to give him the chance? Will Those We Don't Speak Of stop him before he can do anything?

Here we sit. Though his films have struggled some at the box office and especially critically, Shyamalan is a talented director. He is. He has few rivals when it comes to building tension, to setting the mood, creating that unbearable sense of doom looming just over the horizon. What's coming next? What's gonna happen?!? Sometimes though, it feels like the films get so wrapped up in building up to the twist that the movie suffers. The focus becomes all about that twist. 'Village' suffers from that issue to a point. At different points, there is A TON of potential that seems to be building to something really crazy, interesting and entertaining. The gloomy setting -- it's seemingly always cloudy -- sets the mood in ideal fashion, and composer James Newton Howard picked up an Oscar nomination for his haunting, eerily beautiful score. So where does it go....

Semi-SPOILERS for this paragraph. I won't give anything specific away, but I've got to at least address it. There's actually two different reveals, one revealed about the hour-mark of the 109-minute movie, the other popping up about the 90-minute checkpoint. They're not bad. The big twist doesn't feel so forced, so out of left field that you question why the script (Shyamalan doing the honors) even went there. It's original. It's unique. It's just not necessarily....well, good. There are some hints dropped along the way, but it did catch me by surprise. If there is a goof, it's in the reveal of the first twist. It comes along too early, taking away from a later scene that would have been dripping with tension and terror if we didn't know what we do (if that makes sense). The biggest issue is that the ending feels rushed without letting things breathe a little bit. Too bad because as far as twists go, this one could have been a doozy of a gem.

Now with the mood, the tension, the mystery, the cast and characters do a good job with a story/script where the focus isn't specifically on them. They're a means to an end. Phoenix does a good job as the moody, questioning Lucius (quite a stretch, huh?) while Howard especially shines as Ivy, the blind young woman who is a favorite in the village because of her generally pleasant outlook on everything. As for the town elders, look for William Hurt, Sigourney Weaver, Brendan Gleeson and Cherry Jones.  For some of the other townspeople, keep an eye out for Judy Greer, Michael Pitt, Jesse Eisenberg, and Adrien Brody as Noah, the mentally challenged adult who never grew up. Some very good actors committing to generally unwritten parts and doing their best to bring it to life.

There's something missing in general here. The build-up is there, that tension and fear of the unknown palpable through much of the first hour. From there on in though, the story loses momentum with a focus on the village and the people. I wanted to like it more. I wish I had liked it more, but it's not bad, just not as good as it could have been unfortunately. A disappointing semi-misfire.

The Village (2004): ** 1/2 /****

Crossfire Trail

When authors are writing a story, a short story, a novel, do you think they write thinking of a movie star or actor that could portray their characters? I know I've written like that. When western author Louis L'Amour was writing one of his many memorable western novels, I can't help but think if he specifically thought of Tom Selleck as a potential star. Talk about a match made in heaven from book to film. One of several worthwhile examples is a 2001 TV movie, Crossfire Trail.

It's 1880 in the Pacific Ocean and a ship is making its way to San Francisco. On board, a man named Rafe Covington (Selleck) has made a promise to a dying man who owns an expansive cattle ranch in the Wyoming Territory. He's long been away from the ranch and his wife, Anne (Virginia Madsen), and doesn't know what's come of them. With two friends along to help out, Rafe heads for the ranch not sure what he's stepped into. Anne is under the assumption that her husband died well over a year ago and for better or worse has moved on, and is even engaged (sort of) to the local businessman and head honcho, Bruce Barkow (Mark Harmon). No matter the extreme difficulties thrown his way, Rafe intends to keep his word to a dying friend, even when Barkow resorts to violent measures to get what he wants.

Want some proof that the western genre isn't dead? Debuting on TNT in January 2001, 'Crossfire' racked up over 12 million viewers. It was the most watched TV movie until....2007's High School Musical 2 (Yeah, there's a proud moment for you). Why did this 2001 made-for-TV western resonate so well with audiences? There's something to be said for Louis L'Amour westerns whether they're in film form or good, old-fashioned novels. We're talking good guys and bad guys, keeping your word versus betrayal and backstabbing. Don't get me wrong, I love the more adult-themed 1950s westerns, the ultra-violent spaghetti westerns and the cynical 1970s westerns, but it's nice on occasion to go back and revisit the heart of the western; good vs. bad. Kudos to director Simon Wincer (Quigley Down Under). Oh, and Alberta, Canada fills in nicely for the American west with some gorgeous-looking film locations.

No stranger to Louis L'Amour adaptations, Selleck picks up where he left off with The Sacketts and The Shadow Riders. He's also put his western stamp on films like Quigley Down Under (with Wincer), Last Stand at Saber River and Monte Walsh. Selleck just seems at home in the western and especially so in bringing L'Amour's laconic, steadfast heroes. He does a great job as Rafe Covington, a cowboy, a drifter, a sharpshooter, and a man who sees a chance to settle down and create something for himself. A man of few words, he's comfortable in his own skin and lives by his set of morals, judgements and beliefs. Selleck makes it look easy and has some excellent chemistry with his co-star, Virginia Madsen. Maybe more than that, he looks like a cowboy in the saddle, throwing down with a bad guy who's just asking for it, and lining up a shot with his new-model Winchester rifle.

As with several other western/L'Amour novels, our hero needs a team. Familiar, archetypal characters, but good characters. Here, Rafe isn't alone as he's got Joe Gill (Wilford Brimley), the grizzled ranch-hand, Rock Mullaney (David O'Hara), the fun-loving, hard-drinking Irishman, and J.T. Langston (Christian Kane), the youngster of the group proving he belongs with the rest, proving he's a good cowboy. There's some great moments among the group of four, cowboys from different backgrounds riding the trail or sitting around a campfire, those perfect little moments that stand out in the western genre.

For a TV western, there's a pretty decent cast overall. Before his NCIS days, Mark Harmon gets to villain it up as Barkow, the smooth businessman with a sinister streak right up his back. As his enforcer, Brad Johnson appears about halfway through the movie as Bo Dorn, the hired killer with absolutely no scruples. His scenes with Selleck's Rafe especially crackle with intensity. Also look for Barry Corbin as a sheriff with no backbone, Rex Linn, Marshall Teague, and Patrick Kilpatrick as assorted cowboy fodder for Rafe, and William Sanderson as Dewey, the saloon bartender. Not huge names but some very solid actors and performances sprinkled throughout.

Look, Crossfire Trail is a good western. It's not a classic, and it makes no effort to rewrite the genre. You could easily see John Wayne playing Rafe Covington with a cast full of familiar faces around him in a 1950s western directed by Henry Hathaway. There's not a ton of gunplay, most of that saved for the finale as all our different good guys and bad guys have it out in a vacant western street. You know the ending before it's even there, and you know what? It doesn' matter in the least. A good story, a perfect star, an excellent supporting cast. You don't need much more when it comes to the western. Enjoy this one. I certainly did.

Crossfire Trail (2001): ***/****