Knockaround Guys

Gangsters and mobsters have been in movies dating back to Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney and many others in the 1930s, and since then have never really left popular culture.  There have been lulls here and there, but other flicks like The Godfather trilogy have a way of bringing them back.  There's so many gangster/mobster stories you start seeing repeats, almost the same movie made over and over again.  Released in 2001, Knockaround Guys revels in some of those genre conventions, but adds a cool twist as a topper.

With the exception of The Godfather, most mobster movies deal with just that...the mobsters.  'Knockaround' goes deeper than that, exploring the effects and consequences of growing up in a mafia family.  Through no fault of your own, growing up just became that much more difficult because of your last name, not because of who you are as a person.  Al Pacino's Michael Corleone embraced the life his father tried to keep away from him, basically becoming his father.  The main character in 'Knockaround' wants to be that guy, but it doesn't come as easy to him, putting him in quite the situation.

As a low-level operator for his underboss dad (Dennis Hopper), Matty Demaret (Barry Pepper) is fed up.  He can't get a job because of his name, and his father won't entrust him with anything important. With some help from his also-connected uncle (John Malkovich), Matty finally gets approval from his father to do a job, a simple pick-up and deliver. Matty gets his friend and pilot, Johnny Marbles (Seth Green), to fly to Spokane and pick up a bag brimming with cash that needs to be delivered on time. The worst happens though when Marbles loses the bag while refueling the plane in an isolated Montana town.  Matty is forced to fly out to try and find the bag or pay the consequences, bringing along two friends, Taylor (Vin Diesel) and Scarpa (Andrew Davoli) along for help.  But the clock is ticking, and the money bag is nowhere to be found.

At a brisk 92 minutes, this is a streamlined story that doesn't waste time with any unnecessary subplots or characters that serve no purpose.  The premise of a youngster trying to prove himself is nothing new and can apply to just about any movie genre out there, it just translates well to crime, mobsters and murder generally.  There's nothing spectacular at all about this movie.  It just flows along without trying to deliver a message or blow you away with huge twists.  For all those reasons, I actually liked the movie a lot more than I would expect.  Things fall apart a bit in the last 20 minutes or so, but with the right mix of story, character and a dose of black humor, I liked this movie.  Loved it? No, but it's worth a watch.

The biggest appeal here will be the strong casting, both the stars and the supporting parts that amount to cameos.  Barry Pepper has been one of my favorite character actors ever since I saw him as the god-fearing sniper in Saving Private Ryan, and here as the lead he turns in a great performance.  He struggles in this in-between state of how much to commit to the family.  He's not a killer, he just doesn't have it in him, but his Matty also wants to help out his father, live up to the old man's expectations.  Glad to see Pepper step into the limelight instead of his typical supporting parts.  The other scene stealer is Vin Diesel who in a rare non-action movie delivers one of -- if not THE -- best performances of his shorter career.  Think of Robert Duvall's Tom Hagen, but in the sense he could beat you to death with a crowbar.  Diesel's Taylor is a tough guy, always has been, who realizes to a point that he's never going to climb up the ladder like Matty because of his Jewish/Italian background.

With such a short running time, there isn't a ton of background scenes among Matty and his three friends.  Instead there are three quick early scenes that introduce all three, and then we're right into the story.  I enjoyed watching the dynamic among the quartet because like real friends do, they fight and argue constantly but always come around in the end, especially when needed the most.  Directing combo Brian Koppelman and David Levien do a fine job with the script, crafting a story that allows these characters to breathe some while also reining them in when need be.  There are times late in the movie where it would have been easy to detour and go down a different road, but thankfully it always stays on line.

As for those two cameos, Hopper is only in three or four scenes that need him to be a smartass and glare at someone occasionally.  Malkovich gets to chew the scenery a little more as Uncle Teddy, a mafioso underboss like Hopper who helped raise Matty when his father was thrown in prison.  But like so many good actors in average movies, them just being in this movie aids the cause.  Also listen for a good if underused score by Clint Mansell, and an excellent rock soundtrack to boot. A solid if unspectacular vehicle that does try something new within the mobster movie sub-genre.  A decent enough way to spend 90 minutes.

Knockaround Guys <---trailer (2001): ** 1/2 /****

Merrill's Marauders

After reviewing a heavily anti-war movie yesterday, I thought it was only right to counter today with a different look at war and soldiers in a more heroic light.  The 1960s were full of war flicks that focused on real-life military units, like 1968's The Devil's Brigade that dealt with the First Special Service Force, and then for a change of pace here, 1962's Merrill's Marauders in the Pacific theater of WWII.

Directed by WWII vet Samuel Fuller, Marauders tells a mostly factual story of the 5307th Composite Unit (provisional), dubbed Merrill's Marauders after their commander, General Frank Merrill. This was a fighting force of 3,000 American volunteers with experience in jungle warfare after years of island-hopping across the Pacific on places like Guadalcanal, Bougainville, and many others. Fuller doesn't try to present the Marauders as a unit of Superman-like soldiers who can't be defeated.  These are men pushed to their physical, emotional and mental limits as they undertake a near-suicide mission late in WWII.  Heroes of course, but Fuller isn't going to shove any rhetoric down your throat.  Here's the story, and if you don't like it, tough.

Early in 1944 as the advantage shifts toward the Allies in WWII, the 5307th Composite Unit marches into Burma from India with a dangerous mission, get behind enemy lines and walk 125 miles undetected in Japanese territory to knock out a key Japanese supply base.  Commander Brigadier General Frank Merrill (Jeff Chandler) is at the lead, pushing his men every step of the way. The mission is a success if a costly one, but it's only the start.  The Marauders are ordered to continue on, marching further into the Burmese jungle on their way to an essential airfield at Myitkyina where they will link up with British forces.  Out in front leading his scout platoon, Lt. Stockton (Ty Hardin) begins to see the men wear down but somehow continue on, ready for whatever awaits them.   

Telling the story of the Marauders, Fuller puts together a fast-paced, full of action story that never slows down, even in the moments following the firefights as the men wait for orders.  With backing from the U.S. Army, Fuller films his story in the Philippines which does a fine job filling in for Burma.  Much of the movie is filmed in dense jungle, giving a feel of what trudging through such horrifically dense landscape would be like.  Howard Jackson's musical score borrows some from 1945's Objective Burma! but stands well on its own, supplying a driving pace at times that balance out the softer moments as the Marauders cope with their situation.

Chandler tragically died at the age of 42 before this last movie of his was ever in theaters, a shame because of how good his performance is.  Never a huge star, he was a class professional, and makes Merrill a red-blooded character, an officer who knows he must sacrifice some of his men if the Allies ever hope to win the war.  Difficult decisions, but he knows the end result will prove it all worthwhile.  He has a father-son relationship with Hardin's Stock, the platoon leader who struggles dealing with the ever-increasing casualties among his men.  Joining the platoon is Bullseye (Peter Brown), the sharpshooter, Kolowicz (Claude Akins), the tough but fair sergeant, Muley (Charlie Briggs), the mule driver with his pack animal Eleanor, Chowhound (Will Hutchins), the platoon a-hole, and Taggy (Filipino star Pancho Magalona), a Filipino volunteer. We get to know little to nothing about these men, but by seeing their actions, as viewers we get a strong sense of who they are as people.  The personal background would be a wasted effort.

Certain moments can bring a war movie up a notch or two, and it doesn't require an epic battle or a heroic sacrifice.  Here, it comes following a bloody battle at a railyard.  Stock walks over cement posts where the heaviest fighting took place, the bodies mingled together so closely it is impossible to tell who was American and who was Japanese.  It is one long tracking shot as Stock surveys the battle silently, Jackson's score playing softly.  A few minutes later, Akins -- in a career-best performance -- is offered food by a young boy and his grandmother.  They're just offering a cup of water and a bowl of rice (very little in the grand scheme of things), but Akins' Wolowicz breaks down, the exhaustion taking over of months behind enemy lines.  These are the moments that stick with you more than anything else, the mark of a truly moving story.

With his lightning quick pacing, Fuller covers a ton of ground in just 97 minutes. The studio made certain cuts -- including a slightly different ending -- giving the story a sometimes disjointed feel, but it never distracts for long.  The battle sequences sound like toy guns instead of real guns (Fuller opted for blanks instead of sound effects), but they're shot so well you hardly notice minutes in.  The movie ends on a positive note, asking the question that's been brought up the whole movie by Doc (Andrew Duggan). Men on the brink of exhaustion after months of fighting with limited supplies, how do they do it?  They did it because they had to.  A great, underrated WWII movie well worth catching up with.

Merrill's Marauders <---trailer (1962): *** 1/2 /****

Yesterday's Enemy

War movies can be categorized into a wide variety of sub-genres, but two really stick with me the more I think about.  I'm struggling to come up with one that doesn't fit into one or the other in some way, anti-war and then a more heroic look at war.  Anti-war will typically get better critical reviews, think Platoon, Paths of Glory, Born on the 4th of July, Full Metal Jacket, and many, many more.  One that has been almost completely forgotten because of its controversial story is 1959's Yesterday's Enemy, a movie years ahead of its time that still packs a punch over 50 years later.

Anti-war movies typically have to tread that fine line between powerful and moving emotionally and just being preachy.  'Enemy' is just too honest, too forthright with the realities of war to be preachy.  It drags you into this story and quickly dispatches any notions you have about war movies you've seen in the past.  Sure, there's some genre characters, but they don't act like characters you've seen before.  These are soldiers fighting a hopeless mission where chances of survival range from slim to none, but they continue on because it's what they do, they fight.  Later after the plot review, I'm going to give major plot points away so be forewarned as you continue reading.

After a surprise Japanese attack, the ragtag remnants of a British battalion trudge through the Burmese jungle hoping to hook up with the main line of defense or at least find other wandering units.  Commanded by the highest ranking surviving officer, Capt. Langford (Stanley Baker), the survivors -- totaling between 40 and 50 men -- stumble across an isolated village where they find information about an upcoming Japanese offensive.  It's news that could save the lives of hundreds and maybe thousands of men if it reaches headquarters.  The radio is out though, forcing Langford to send a small squad forward with the news led by his right hand man, Sgt. McKenzie (Gordon Jackson), hoping the news reaches HQ.  With the Japanese not far behind, Langford stays behind in the village with the rest of the men, trying to buy as much time as possible while maybe, just maybe, surviving the coming firefight against impossible odds.

With WWII, there is and was a perception that the Allies were all heroic soldiers while the Axis were all demonized murderers intent on mass slaughter.  War crimes were committed on both sides of the war in Europe and the Pacific no matter what people believe.  That's part of what sets this movie apart from others.  In 1959 just 14 years since the end of WWII, 'Enemy' shows British and Japanese troops committing acts that would have been prime grounds for a war crime trial.  But in the context of the movie, it's necessary.  Baker's Langford is going to do whatever it takes to protect his men. A war correspondent (Leo McKern) asks though at what point does it become an atrocity? Two innocent people killed? 10? 100? Thousands? Topping this off though, director Val Guest doesn't answer that question. It's up to the individual to decide. If one person dies, is it worth the 10 that were saved?

It's rare you see a war movie, especially a pre-Vietnam war movie, that is so brutally honest.  Baker orders the execution of two Burmese villagers to get a Japanese informant to spill his guts.  Later, a Japanese officer (Philip Ahn) puts Langford in a similar situation, demanding he tell him everything he knows or his men will be killed.  Neither man does this because they relish killing in cold blood.  They do it because if they want to do their job and win the war people have to die, often in horrific, blood curdling situations. The whole movie delivers a powerful message, but it really hits home in the end.  Not knowing that McKenzie's squad has been ambushed and killed, Langford and a handful of survivors stand fast till the bitter end.  It is an unknown futile effort, but maybe it is more courageous because of that.  They don't know their stubbornness is wasted, their bravery unnecessary.  It is their duty and they intend to live up to it.

Known most for his performances in Zulu and The Guns of Navarone, Baker delivers a career-best performance as Capt. Langford.  He's not a raging, homicidal maniac, he's an officer who thinks things out in detail.  Forced to make extremely difficult decisions that will knowingly cause death in his own ranks, Langford commands this battalion remnant with a bigger picture in mind.  This isn't a hero or a villain, it's one man in an uncompromising situation who has to make decisions that could have horrific consequences and then has to live with it.  The conscience of the movie comes in three characters, a priest (Guy Rolfe), McKern's correspondent, and a medical officer (David Oxley), all questioning the humanity of what they're doing, Rolfe and McKern especially delivering strong performances.  Along with Jackson's Sgt. character, rounding out the unit among many others is Percy Herbert, David Lodge, and Richard Pasco as Lt. Hastings, the young officer dealing with the inner demons that tell him survival is a better option than blind courage. 

Filmed mostly on an indoor set, 'Enemy' still manages to give the feeling of being in the humid, sweaty Burmese jungle with a claustrophobic surrounding that gives the perception of being closed in with nowhere to go.  Guest films in black and white -- adding to the stark feeling -- and makes his soldiers look like soldiers who've been jungle fighting for months.  They're sweaty, wear unkempt beards, and their uniforms are in tatters.  Like everything else in this forgotten war movie, it all rings true.  Forgotten because of it's controversial subject matter and portrayal of Allied soldiers, Yesterday's Enemy is one of the best war movies I've ever seen. Honest, brutal, incredibly realistic, and a must see movie.

Yesterday's Enemy <---TCM trailer (1959): ****/****

Two Women

Does the Academy Awards tend to give an actress more credit for a role when she plays down her looks, like Charlize Theron in Monster or Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry?  I'm guilty of it as well, seeing a gorgeous actress and forgetting at times what a strong actress they can be.  But I do think there's something to it that when their looks are left by the wayside for a part people take them more seriously.  Unfortunate yes, but what are you gonna do about it?  I'm trying to decide if 1960's Two Women applies to that premise.

Italian star Sophia Loren won the Best Actress Academy Award for her performance of a widowed mother trying to get her 12-year old daughter through war-torn Italy late in WWII. It was the first Oscar ever given for a performance in a foreign language film, and one Loren fully deserved.  She's not playing against type because regardless the movie, serious or comedy, Loren was able to get into that character.  But it is a powerhouse performance that tries to dumb down her look, putting her in plain clothes with no makeup.  All I could think though was 'Good luck trying to make Sophia Loren look like an Italian peasant.'  But does her performance apply?  As of now, I'm thinking not at all, it's just a great performance.

Late in WWII, widowed mother Cesira (Loren) lives in Rome running a little grocery with her 12-year old daughter Rosetta (Eleonora Brown).  The war is not going in the Axis' favor, and Rome is being bombed more regularly, forcing Cesira to make the decision to leave the city until things quiet down.  With her daughter, they head to Cesira's village where she grew up as a child.  There much of her family waits, including many refugees and one intellectual (Jean-Paul Belmondo) who can't wait for the Germans and Italians to lose the war. Their biggest problems with so many people are finding enough to eat and drink every day, but as the war approaches the isolated country village, Cesira finds out that no matter how much you prepare, you can't prepare for everything.

Many of the WWII movies I've reviewed are of the front line soldier variety where we see the war from the perspective of a soldier or his unit in a certain battle.  While the war drives the story in 'Two,' this is a story that focuses almost completely away from the battles and the front lines other than a few strafing runs or appearances of lost patrols looking for help.  Director Vittorio De Sica creates this vision of war-torn Italy and lets the characters go to work.  It's a world where everyone is basically on their own for their own survival, and dangers lurk around every corner.  There aren't so much Allies and Axis soldiers as good and bad on both sides, a situation that comes into play late in the movie.  Everyone is affected by the war, and for these characters, they don't care who wins as long as the war ends.

Off and on throughout the movie, I didn't always get the sense of the danger that hung over Italy and more specifically Cesira's life in her village.  The biggest problem facing the single mother and her extended refugee family is food, finding enough so everyone can eat.  The war is the cause of this shortage, but it feels like a far-off war at many times.  More time is spent in the relationship between Cesira and Belmondo's Michele character, an intellectual who shakes his head at the whole premise of the war while also falling madly in love with Cesira (do you blame him?).  German characters drift into the story and leave -- along with two British commandos and a Russian deserter -- but the focus is more on the day-to-day survival caused by the war.

Where Loren won the Oscar for me was in the last half hour as Cesira and Rosetta return home to Rome via the country roads, the Americans and Allied soldiers advancing past them on tanks, trucks and jeeps.  This is where the real horrors of war come into play which I'm not going to spoil here.  It comes as a surprise because to a certain point we've been lulled to sleep by the relative safety of the country village.  But here Loren's mother has to protect her daughter in a way she's only considered, never thinking it would come true.  Loren's performance as a whole was excellent, feeling like a real mother with only two real concerns, her daughter and herself, but the final 30 minutes or so sets the character apart from other similar characters.

As for Loren's looks, I'm not sure if it is actually possible to dull them down.  Her hair is unkempt, she wears no makeup, and she wears loose, baggy clothing (if cut a little low at the neckline), all in an attempt to make her look like a run of the mill Italian peasant single mother.  Yeah, good luck with that.  I'll say this, natural is a good look for her.  If interested, watch the movie at Youtube starting with Part 1 of 13 with Italian subtitles. Early in the movie I struggled to keep up with the speed and lightning pace of the subtitles, but you get into a rhythm soon enough.  Also look for Raf Vallone in a one-scene cameo. Watch this one for a moving portrayal of WWII's effect on the civilians, especially Loren in one of her best performances.

Two Women (1960): ***/**** 

The Brotherhood

A classic since it hit theaters in 1972, Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather is and always will be remembered as one of the greatest movies ever made.  It set the groundwork for how to do a movie about gangsters, crooks, the Mafia, and somehow make these otherwise extremely nasty characters sympathetic in the eyes of the viewer.  It's been spoofed, honored, ripped off, and referenced in countless movies and TV shows since.  But it certainly wasn't the first Mafia movie, seemingly borrowing from 1968's long-forgotten The Brotherhood.

Mario Puzo's The Godfather first hit book shelves in 1969 a year after 'Brotherhood,' but I'm not going to go out on a limb and say he plagiarized this Martin Ritt-directed movie. With stories based on similar backgrounds (the Mafia) there are going to be similarities.  It just seems that a lot of similarities made the jump from one movie to another.  No worries though, 'Brotherhood' isn't about to overtake Godfather as a better movie, but it makes an interesting companion piece, maybe a good double feature.  Using some of the same character backgrounds, setting and story vehicles though, the 1968 flick is a more low-budget, studio oriented venture than the classic that would be released four years later.

Living in Sicily, Frank Ginetta (Kirk Douglas) lives in privacy with his wife (Irene Papas) away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. He receives a message one day that his brother Vince (Alex Cord) is coming to visit, making him wonder if his brother has been sent to kill him. Flashback to years before at Vince's wedding when he approaches his mafioso brother, asking him if he can join in the family business.  Frank is happy to have him as the Ginetta empire grows.  But as the times change, Frank digs his heels in for the old ways, how things used to be done, instead of going along with a business proposition that could possibly net millions of dollars.  The elder Ginetta is making unnecessary waves, only to find out that a traitor from years past is still close to him, forcing him to make a difficult decision.

Starting the movie, I thought the opening and finale were great.  Frank drives to a prearranged meeting point to meet someone who's come to see him, not knowing it is his brother.  The beginning and ending were filmed in Sicily, and as the story plays out the Sicilian countryside sure isn't bad to look at.  But total, the story is probably only in Sicily for 20 minutes -- ten on either side of the flashback.  The rest takes place back in New York at Vince's wedding after he's returned from Vietnam (cough Michael Corleone cough Corleone wedding cough).  The problem is most of the rest of the movie is talking, a lot of talking that doesn't always go anywhere.  The talent involved won't let it get boring, but it's not exactly exciting either way.

Douglas was an extremely gifted actor, but playing an Italian Mafia Don seemed like a stretch for me and was one of the big reasons I picked this one at Netflix.  It's a solid if unspectacular performance as Douglas does what he can with a script that needs some work.  Too often he does go for the over the top, theatrical portrayal of an Italian man with lots of rapid fire Sicilian and 'Mama Mia!' when he's upset.  Okay, he doesn't say 'Mama Mia' but you know what I mean.  Frank is a cool character though, seeing that the old ways don't necessarily work but refusing to go along with the new ways.  An old school don, a creature of habit, nothing is going to change his mind, especially any threats.

The rest of the cast is all right, no one really calling too much attention to themselves.  Cord as Frank's younger brother looks the part, but the performance is a little flat, a little lifeless.  Vince is supposed to be this math/bookkeeping whiz, but that doesn't translate well in terms of a visual or a story effect.  He's the one man who could convince his big brother to go along with the times, but we're never given a reason to see why he's so convincing.  The "board" of Mafia higher ups and important local officials include Luther Adler, Murray Hamilton, Val Avery and Alan Hewitt, one of them playing a key role in Frank's possible rise and fall. As Frank's wife, Papas has little to do with a part that needs her to worry about her husband before fading into the background.  Too bad because when given the chance she almost always hit a home run.

On to some other points, both good and bad.  Ritt films in New York for some of his outdoor shots, giving a picture of late 1960s New York which is always cool with some location shooting.  Any interiors look like studio sets though, canceling out any credit earned through the on-location shooting.  Lalo Schifrin's score is good is not particularly memorable.  Also, the constant use of Sicilian without any subtitles.  I feel like I missed a lot just because characters are always talking in Sicilian.  An average movie on the whole, but interesting in terms of comparing it with The Godfather's release some four years later.

The Brotherhood (1968): **/**** 

The Last of the Mohicans

Over the years, director Michael Mann has become known and highly respected for his ability to craft a crime story like nobody's business.  Movies like Heat, Miami Vice, Collateral, Thief, Public Enemies, all dealt with a criminal underworld, and Mann churns out movies like this that are always entertaining, stylish and highly professional with a polished look. But sprinkled in with these crime dramas are some equally entertaining flicks, including maybe his best work in a completely different genre, 1992's The Last of the Mohicans.

Completely comfortable in the world of modern city shootouts and back alley deals, Mann instead works here with a story based loosely -- very loosely -- on the classic novel by James Fenimore Cooper. It is a period piece heavy on historical accuracy of a story based in 1757 in the middle of the French and Indian War. Everything feels dead-on accurate from the clothes and apparel to the weapons and fighting styles of all the opposing sides.  That's just the basics though, Mann builds off this incredibly strong base and creates a nearly perfect movie.  A blend of romance and action, there's something for every movie fan.

It's 1757 and three frontiersman, Mohican warrior Chingachgook (Russell Means), his warrior son Uncas (Eric Schweig) and his adopted white son and noted rifleman Hawkeye (Daniel Day-Lewis), survive on their own, completely ignoring the war raging around them in New York and the neighboring colonies. On the trail one day the trio saves the remnants of a British patrol from a Huron war party.  Riding with the patrol are Cora (Madeleine Stowe) and Alice Munro (Jodhi May), the daughters of Colonel Munro, the commander of the nearest British fort. Hawkeye and Co. agree to accompany them to the fort along with a British major (Steven Waddington) who wants to marry Cora. But while the British and French tear each other apart, there may be a bigger threat, a Huron warrior, Magua (Wes Studi), who seeks revenge on Colonel Munro and his family.

It's rare you watch a movie that puts everything together so well in a way that should please a large majority of moviegoers.  Looking for romance? You've got it as Hawkeye and Cora fall hard for each other, not to mention Uncas and Alice having some sparks.  But instead of just being a throwaway portion of the plot, the romance is actually interesting, and you get a feeling that it is all genuine.  Thrown together where at any moment either one could be killed, Hawkeye and Cora look and feel like they're truly in love.  As for the action, that's a dumb question if you've seen any Mann movie. If you haven't, the action on a small and large scale works.  Epic battles with hundreds of extras are countered with intimate one-on-one fights between two warriors. Graphic without being gory, the action presents an accurate look at what 18th Century combat must have been like.

How do I describe Daniel Day-Lewis as Hawkeye without exaggerating? His Hawkeye may be the coolest, most badass character...EVER. Day-Lewis doesn't scream out 'ACTION STAR' when you see him, but he delves into this character, an expert frontiersman and dead shot with a rifle.  Then piss him off by messing with his true love, and we've got a problem.  His romance with Stowe is dripping with chemistry, but he's able to put it aside when some killing is required.  Add in this great dynamic he has with Means and Schweig as his adopted family, and you've got a great character.  The funny thing is that none of these three have a ton of lines, but they establish early on this kinship, this bond they have.  Hawkeye's cool on his own, but add two more equally badass warriors, and we've got quite a trio.

When reviewing movies, I try to mention musical scores when one really sticks with me, but it's usually in a sentence or two.  Not so here as Randy Edelman and Trevor Jones turn in what's possibly one of the best all-time musical scores for a movie.  It's a score that is hard to peg on just one level because it works on a ton of levels.  Listen to the main theme HERE.  Mann filmed the whole movie in the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina, and paired with this phenomenal score, you get a feel of what an epic movie truly is.  The visual and the sounds fit together like puzzle pieces.  It's just one of many things that sets apart an average period piece from a much better, and in this case, classic movie.

Everything builds and builds here to maybe the best final 10 minutes of a movie to hit theaters in a long time.  With obvious SPOILERS, watch it HERE. For almost 10 minutes without more than a word or two spoken, Edelman and Jones' score plays as the final confrontation takes place on a cliff face overlooking an idyllic green valley.  There are moments that just thinking of them as I write this gives you that feeling like you've been punched in the stomach.  For as stylistically beautiful and emotionally moving as the ending is, it's a real downer in terms of story.  It has to end this way though.  A perfect end to a perfect movie.  I could write more, but the review's getting a little long already.  Just know this, give this one a chance and you surely won't be disappointed.

The Last of the Mohicans <---trailer (1992): ****/**** 

On the Beach

Not having lived through the Cold War, it's hard to fathom a life that always had a death cloud hanging over the world.  If the U.S. and the Soviet Union did decide to go to war, it would have been over in minutes with no real winner thanks to weapons that guaranteed both sides would be wiped out.  There was always that threat, that looming danger of what could be.  Movies like Fail Safe, Dr. Strangelove, and The Bedford Incident are just some of the movies that have dealt with this subject, but it's the rarer film that deals with after that big what-if, like 1959's On the Beach.

An American submarine commanded by Capt. Dwight Towers (Gregory Peck) surfaces off the coast of Australia and docks.  A nuclear holocaust has wiped out most of the world's population, but Australia was untouched by the apocalyptic fighting.  Towers and the U.S.S. Sawfish arrive to find a country and a continent not quite sure what to do with themselves.  Scientists and intellectuals predict that Australia has five or six months before radiation from the fallout reaches them, and then it will be a quick process of a week or two before all survivors are killed too.  With possibly months to live, what do you do?  Towers and his sub head north to see if there's any hope of survival, that the radiation may miss Australia.

First off, this has to qualify as one of the most depressing movies I've ever seen.  Director Stanley Kramer creates quite a vision of what a post-apocalyptic world would be like. The whole purpose of the movie is to ask what would your reaction be if you knew you only had months to live?  The vehicle of a nuclear fallout is how you to that question, but it works just as well dealing with mortality, we're all going to die.  It's just a matter of when and how.  The story is honest and doesn't try to whitewash anything here, these people are doomed and respond in different ways.

We see these reactions through a wide range of characters.  Peck's Towers lost his wife and two kids back home but sees similarities in an Australian woman, Moira Davidson (Ava Gardner), who has nothing and no one to live for. A young navy officer (Anthony Perkins) deals with his wife (Donna Anderson) who refuses to admit that anything is wrong, and that down the road to avoid unspeakable pain she may have to take her life and that of her baby.   An older scientist/doctor (Fred Astaire) copes by drinking and working on a Ferrari sports car he's purchased. No one reacts the same way, all responding individually to this horror that is presented.

Some moments provide these powerful instances of how the individual would respond.  While patrolling outside San Francisco, Towers' sub has a member of the crew (John Meillon) who is a native of the city escape from the sub and swim ashore, knowing he will die in a matter of days instead of months waiting back in Australia.  He tells Towers he wants to die at home, not in some strange place.  The scene where the sailor talks with Peck (via loudspeaker) is an incredibly moving one.  Just as moving, a scene where Astaire explains how this probably all started; one man probably looking at a computer screen swearing he saw a blip, an attack, and pushing the button or turning the key to assure the mutual destruction.  Kramer's film has a lot of these powerful moments, both those two stand out from the rest. 

For a movie that deals with the end of the world as we know it, in other words an epic scale, it also a very personal movie.  It depends on your reaction to the end of the world, your feelings about knowing that death is coming and there's nothing you can do about it.  My worry about halfway through the movie was that Kramer was waiting to pull the rug out from under the viewer, provide some sort of ridiculous solution that will allow these people to survive.  My worries were unfounded, Kramer is too talented of a director to do that, force some happy ending on the viewer for a story that needs to have an unhappy one.  The last 10 minutes are a perfect ending -- watch HERE -- including a final, very timely warning to 1959 viewers.

My one complaint, a minor one at that in relation to the whole movie, is that no one in Australia really tries to do anything to ensure survival.  With five or six months, much could be accomplished whether it's bomb shelters or finding some protection from the radiation.  Maybe it's naive to think that, probably only saving a few extra weeks or months, but all of Australia is content to go on with their lives as normal, drink a lot, go to the beach.  Everyone just seems freakishly calm, no riots, no looting.  They're all very mannerly about the end of the world.  A minor flaw in an otherwise really effective movie, but one I felt I had to point out.  Don't let it stop you from checking this one out.

On the Beach <----TCM trailer (1959): *** 1/2 /****

The Incredible Hulk

With all the franchise reboots, sequels and prequels in the market now, it never comes as much of a surprise when one hits theaters.  But what about when a studio cuts their losses and admits a mistake and does another reboot, just five years after the previous effort?  Released in 2003, Hulk was a disappointment to fans and to the studio even though it made over $130 million in theaters. I was one of the few who actually liked that one, but in 2008 Marvel Studios released a new Hulk movie, aptly titled The Incredible Hulk. Maybe they just needed to start over for the new Avengers movie, announced for 2012.

The 2008 version starts after Bruce Banner has accidentally turned himself into the Hulk via some gnarly gamma ray exposure.  The opening credits actually serve as a prologue of sorts, explaining how he became the Hulk and the fallout that was to come because of his actions.  While the reboot has some potential, it follows basically the same formula as the 2003 version so it made me ask, what's the point?  Hulk has also been in the news recently because star Edward Norton has been bumped for Mark Ruffalo -- no explanation why -- for the Avengers movie.  As a Norton fan, it's sad news because he is a strong point in 2008's Hulk.

Hiding in Brazil as he runs from the U.S. military and General Ross (William Hurt), scientist Bruce Banner (Norton) is doing everything he can to experiment on himself and see if he can ever go back to being just Bruce instead of turning into the Hulk if he gets too angry/excited.  Ross is hot on his trail and sends in a Special Ops commando, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), and his team to extract him.  Bruce manages to escape and sneaks back into the states where he tracks down lost love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and a doctor (Tim Blake Nelson) who may be able to help him. But all the while, General Ross and Blonsky -- after some medical experiments -- are close behind, doing everything they can to get their hands on Banner.

First off, I did like this movie if not exactly loved it.  The visuals are great, full of bright, vibrant colors that look lifted right out of a comic book.  The action is solid if a little repetitive, and that's where the problem comes in.  Christian Bale playing Batman is one thing, he's a regular dude with a badass suit.  But when Banner turns into Hulk and Blonsky transforms into Abomination late in the movie, it's just two freakishly huge CGI creations beating the crap out of each other.  It loses some effect as most CGI creations tend to do to me.  Oh cool, look at those two computer images fight!  I don't know the solution, and at a certain point you just have to go along with it, but it is a big problem I have with superhero/action movies.

Starting a franchise over again, director Louis Leterrier had to work with a cast that's as good if not better than 2003 Hulk. I thought the cast of Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte and Josh Lucas was one of the best selling points for Hulk.  For the 2008 reboot, I'd say it's a push.  An actor's actor, it's fun to see Norton in a blockbuster where he can just have some fun.  I've always had a crush on Liv Tyler, and she's okay here but Connelly is the better actress. Sam Elliott or William Hurt? Do I really have to go into that one?  Nolte and Roth are about the same, and Lucas is better than Blake Nelson in somewhat similar roles.  Moral of the story, both casts are good, neither one pulling too far ahead of the other one.

One of the biggest complaints of 2003 Hulk was the lack of action, a superhero movie that was too cerebral which sounds ridiculous to me.  What's funny is that 2008 Hulk doesn't up the ante too much.  There's a chase through crowded Brazilian streets early, and we see Hulk in shadows and darkness, never getting a great look at him.  The best action comes in a scene where Ross and Blonsky have cornered Banner, and he's forced to protect Betty on a college campus.  There's some epic qualities to this segment that make it worth rewatching.  I've mentioned the finale -- CGI monster vs. CGI monster -- which is all right but nothing spectacular.  The two last scenes are cool, including a very brief snippet of what's to come in the Avengers movie.

Overall for a reboot, I'm looking for something new, something different that improves on the previous franchise ventures.  The Incredible Hulk doesn't do that, instead taking steps side-to-side instead of forward.  It's a good enough movie, good to watch with a bucket of popcorn that lets you sit back and enjoy, but that's about it.  Other superhero movies like Iron Man have raised the bar, and this one isn't quite there.  Cool throwback tribute, look for original Hulk Lou Ferrigno in a cameo as a security guard.

The Incredible Hulk <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /**** 

The Purple Plains

As movies go, if you're a pilot and you fly enough, eventually you're going to crash in the wilderness somewhere and A. march back to safety B. fight a giant bear or C. survive Lord of the Flies style when your fellow survivors turn on you.  Most of these downed pilot movies I've seen qualify in the A department, a majority of them set in the military in one way or another, like Behind Enemy Lines with Owen Wilson and Gene Hackman.  But before that action extravaganza, that plot device has been used many times, like 1954's The Purple Plain.

In 1945 Burma in the closing months of WWII, Canadian fighter pilot Bill Forrester (Gregory Peck) is battling with some inner demons on a daily basis.  Early in the war his newlywed bride was killed in a bombing raid in London and ever since he's been looking and trying to die in combat with no luck, instead earning medals and citations. Forrester meets a young Burmese woman, Anna (Win Min Than in her only movie) working with the missionaries and falls in love with her, giving him a reason to live. But just when things are looking up him, a routine flight goes awry, and Bill is forced to crash land in the Burmese jungle with a passenger and a navigator.  They land safely, but they're 30 miles into Japanese territory with little supplies.  Do they attempt to march out or wait and hope help is coming?

'Plain' is divided fairly evenly between the two different stories, one is Forrester and his background and his personal struggles as he meets and gets to know Anna, and two his efforts to survive with an obnoxious whiny doctor (Maurice Denham) and an inexperienced navigator (Lyndon Brook) in the jungle. Director Robert Parrish doesn't go overboard with a sappy love story -- thankfully -- and also doesn't overhype the second half survival story. He finds a good mix in between because that first half is necessary if the second half is supposed to do anything to the viewer emotionally.  We've seen where Forrester is coming from, and now we get a chance to see what he's like when his mind is all there.

I've always been a Gregory Peck fan, but the more I see of him the bigger a fan I become.  I've yet to see a performance of his that isn't a solid one.  Some obviously work better than others, but he's almost always trying something new.  His Bill Forrester is a tortured individual, a man who wants nothing more than to die so he can be reunited with his dead wife.  While still fighting the war, he is clearly going through some post-traumatic stress disorder as he deals with his past.  The performance is a strong one for Peck, especially the second half as the character arc comes full circle.  Forced to improvise and become a leader or lay back and die, Peck's Forrester steps up to the plate and does what he has to to survive.

The survival aspect of the story is clearly the one that appealed to me more.  The on-location shooting was done in Sri Lanka where The Bridge on the River Kwai would be filmed three years later.  It's a funny thing, but the jungles look like real jungles.  Who would have thought that?  By the time Forrester and Co. crash, there's a real feeling of claustrophobia as if the jungle is closing in on you.  In a wise choice, Parrish never has the trio run into a Japanese patrol, much less see any trace of a single Japanese soldier.  The threat is enough, their ever lurking presence.  Besides, the real threat is among the group as Forrester and Blore try to decide what to do, make their own luck or wait for a rescue?

This isn't going to be a particularly long review.  I liked the movie, and that's about it.  It's not a great movie, but it is a different story and I'm always up for that.  Also in the cast look for a pre-James Bond Bernard Lee as Dr. Harris, a physician interested in helping Forrester out, and Brenda De Banzie as Mrs. McNabb, a missionary working in Burma who is like a mother to young Anna. The movie is available to watch via Youtube starting with Part 1.

The Purple Plain <---TCM clips (1954): ***/****