Gladiator (2000)

The age of the historical epic has long since past, the 1950s and 1960s full of three-hour movies with a cast of thousands, scale to spare and a window into a historical time long since past. It's hard to beat these movies in terms of pure entertainment quality, a time when Hollywood -- a pre CGI Hollywood -- was willing to drop a lot of money for that quality. Over 40 years later though, there was and still is a demand for movies like that, and when done right, they rank up there with the best of the past, especially 2000's Gladiator.

Having won a brutal victory for Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) in Germania, Roman general Maximus (Russell Crowe) is betrayed and left for dead for when Marcus' son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), forcibly takes the throne away from his aging father. Maximus races home to find his wife and son tortured, raped and murdered, but in the aftermath he is scooped up by a traveling caravan and as a slave is sold to Proximo (Oliver Reed), the owner of a gladiator school in Zucchabar. At first wanting nothing to do with this life, Maximus realizes that with each win in the gladiator ring, he takes one step closer to meeting Commodus again, and for the general-turned-slave-turned gladiator, all he wants is one more shots at meeting the Roman emperor who took his life away from him.

If the story has a little bit of a scatter-brained quality, I apologize. That's more on me trying to condense a 155-minute movie into a paragraph synopsis. Fans of 1960s epics will no doubt recognize some of the story; it borrows somewhat liberally from 1964's The Fall of the Roman Empire and does use some real-life historical basis for its story. Some historical inaccuracies aside, director Ridley Scott has an epic gem here. It has the feel and look of an epic, and sometimes that alone can be enough. Is the portrayal of ancient Rome spot-on in terms of accuracy? No, not especially, the screenplay taking some liberties there. But traveling from the gloomy battlefields of Germania to the far-off desert communities of the Roman provinces to the glory and majesty of Rome, Scott gets it right in spite of any historical inaccuracies.

A respected and at least somewhat well known actor who'd been working in Hollywood for years, Russell Crowe became a household name courtesy of this movie and his starring role. Crowe won the Best Actor Oscar for his part as Maximus, the betrayed Roman general who must avenge his family's murder at all costs. It's appropriate that Crowe was chosen for the part because he has the star-power quality of a Charlton Heston or John Wayne. As an actor, he belongs in big, expansive epics where that star power can shine through. A story of an obsessed man looking for revenge can be tricky, but Crowe makes Maximus likable which sounds easy but is essential to the movie's success. He is an ultra-capable commander, a brutally effective and skilled warrior, and a stout and ready leader of men. Great lead performance.

Without the huge A-list supporting cast, Gladiator is probably a little better for it. The cast -- big names or not -- does not disappoint, the depth of the cast making up for any lack of star power. Phoenix is uncomfortably evil as Commodus, the power-hungry but ultimately insane Roman emperor. He sneers and glares as he scoops up power, wanting nothing more than an incestuous love from sister Lucilla (Connie Nielsen in a very strong supporting part). My favorite character is Reed's Proximo, a former gladiator granted his freedom and now an owner of a gladiator school. A cynic looking for the biggest payday, Proximo sees that potential in Maximus -- dubbed the Spaniard in the gladiatorial ring -- but also starts to see more than that, sees there's good and bad, right and wrong, more than just money. Reed unfortunately died before production wrapped, but it is a scene-stealing performance. The same goes for Harris as Marcus, an aging, dying emperor looking to right wrongs he's done and save Rome from itself.

Beyond those key supporting roles are several more, a little more in the background but just as important. This was my first introduction to Djimon Hounsou who plays Juba, an African slave turned gladiator. He bonds with Maximus, both men having been violently separated from their families. Ralf Moeller is also very good as Haken, a bear of a man and a Germanic gladiator who sides with Maximus and Juba. Derek Jacobi plays Gracchus, a strong-willed member of the Senate who hates what Commodus has done to Rome, with David Schofield and John Shrapnel as other Senators of varying loyalty. Tomas Arana plays Quintus, Maximus' former second in command, with Tommy Flanagan playing Cicero, Maximus' aide in camp. David Hemmings also has a brief but memorable part as Cassius, the Colosseum's announcer.

With the epic story moving all over the Roman Empire, one thing rises above all others as I rewatched Gladiator recently, and that's the scale and blood-splattered quality of the action sequences.  Oh, and there's plenty of them. In creating these sequences, Scott uses computer-generated images, but he never overdoes it. The opening battle in muddy Germania is a bloody, chaotic mess, the action then moving onto the equally bloody but beautifully photographed gladiatorial fights. The fights in the provinces are efficient and bloody, the scale more impressive once Maximus, Proximo and Co. reach Rome and the Colosseum. All of the action is aided by composer Hans Zimmer's score, everything you hope and want an epic musical score to be. Listen to a sample of a battle sequence music HERE. Action galore and on a gigantic scale, you should not be disappointed in that department.

The only thing I did come away somewhat disappointed on my recent viewing was the talky quality of the movie as Commodus takes power in Rome. Yes, they're necessary scenes to establish characters and motivation, but dialogue scenes of Rome, republic, the mob, and the Senate become a little tedious. Scott seems to know it too, never waiting too long to unleash another action sequence in our direction. That said, the last 45 minutes are nearly perfect, the pieces all falling into place for one final showdown. Epically dark and cynical as betrayals, backstabbing and murder rule the day, the last half-hour plus does not disappoint, helping make up for some of the slower portions building up to it.  An epic and a great one at that. They're getting rarer these days so enjoy them as much as you can.

Gladiator <---trailer (2000): ****/****

The Ship That Died of Shame

The first and most lasting impression I have of British actor/director Richard Attenborough was his part in 1963's The Great Escape. He played a driven, almost obsessed P.O.W. leading a mass escape from a prison camp deep in Germany. A flawed character, but a heroic one nonetheless. As I discover more of Attenborough's parts though, I'm seeing he played far more sinister, much more flawed, and much darker characters, like in 1955's The Ship That Died of Shame.

Having lost his wife during WWII to a bombing raid and struggling to adjust to a post-war life, Bill Randall (George Baker) is waffling along through his day-to-day life. One day at a reunion of former sailors, Bill meets George Hoskins (Attenborough), a former member of his crew on a motorized and heavily armored patrol boat. Hoskins seems to be very well off, and Bill quickly finds out why. He's involved in smuggling actives through the English Channel, and Hoskins is offering him a job. He's even managed to track down their patrol boat -- the 1087 -- so they can use that in their activities. Smuggling some generally innocent items, Bill agrees, but the items start to change, and the boat starts to malfunction. What exactly is going on?

Another case of stumbling across a movie on Netflix, I wasn't sure what to expect of this 1955 British war film from director Basil Dearden. The plot synopsis sounded like a zany story of a boat with a heart who starts to act up against its owners and their actions. As a Disney fan, my first thought was that I stumbled into a prequel of sorts to The Love Bug. How could Herbie the VW Bug in a post-WWII story not be good?!? Well, I either misread it, misinterpreted it, or it was just a crappily written synopsis. It's straight drama, the boat's "objections" to the smuggling kept generally low-key (i.e.; the engine dying, the wheel refusing to turn) while avoiding too much in the way of heavy-handed symbolism or message.

On the whole, 'Ship' is surprisingly good because it manages to stay low-key. The World War II backdrop is a good jumping off point -- including an opening daring raid that introduces the crew of the 1087 -- but the focus is more on how the sailors and soldiers respond after the war and the fighting is done. We see through Bill's eyes that he's floundering along, unsure what to do with himself. Reunited with his old ship and part of its crew, Bill is rejuvenated, given a new lease on life. Hoskins is just the opposite, reveling in the black market business of smuggling. A third crew member, Bertie (Bill Owen), also jumps at the chance to get back to work in any way possible, only starting to question what they're actually doing when the cargo on-board gets far more sinister.

Playing George Hoskins, Attenborough does a great job in one of two starring parts. He isn't an out and out bad guy -- always the shades of gray -- but at the same time, you can't call him a hero either. His intentions are money as he undertakes the smuggling business. The cargo changes, and George, Bill and Bertie all begin to question what exactly all this trouble is worth. Attenborough does a great job portraying him down the middle. We're not always sure of his intentions, and the ride getting there is more fun because of it. Randall  is okay as Bill, a one-note downer performance, while Owen as Bertie is similarly solid if not so memorable as Bertie. The dynamic among the three is more important than the individual here. Bernard Lee is a scene-stealer as a customs officer who cuts across the path of the refurbished 1087 a few times with Roland Culver playing the villainous Major Fordyce, Hoskins' source for jobs. Virginia McKenna has a small part as Helen, Bill's wife.  

There isn't anything particularly new or innovative about 'Ship,' but there's something different I can't quite put my finger on. It is very British in its tension -- underplayed, low key and incredibly subtle whenever possible -- but that not so abrasive, not in your face style works for the better. I wasn't always sure where this one was going, but I ended up liking it after some early struggles. Worth a watch.

The Ship That Died of Shame (1955): ***/****

I Confess

As a director, some individuals just have a talent that others can only hope to attain. I've always thought of Alfred Hitchcock as one of those very unique, very talented directors. He's able to turn the typical, the usual, even the mundane into something special and fun to watch. Anyone who's ever watched a police procedural has heard of doctor-patient confidentiality, or the same principle between a priest hearing someone's confession. But a whole movie on that simple law-abiding premise? Hitchcock does it again with 1953's I Confess.

Working at St. Marie's Church in Quebec, Father Michael Logan (Montgomery Clift) is in the quiet, empty church one night when Otto Keller (O.E. Hasse), the church caretaker, stumbles in. Keller tells Father Logan that he's accidentally killed a man and doesn't know what to do. Logan hears his confession but doesn't know what else to do. The next morning he visits the dead man's home where Keller has "stumbled" across the body and called the police. Through an unlucky set of circumstances and clues, the police, including persistent Inspector Larrue (Karl Malden), believe Logan is a top suspect. It seems ridiculous, but could Father Logan actually be hiding something? His vows as a priest prevent him from completely exonerating himself as he's unable to tell the police who the killer really is

With some obvious tweaks, 'Confess' bears some resemblance to The Wrong Man, Hitchcock's film made three years later where an innocent man is believed by everyone and their mother to be a killer. But just looking at this 1953 venture on originality alone, 'Confess' gets a lot of brownie points. The whole success of the story -- and Clift's typically fine acting -- depends on that one unique situation. Clift's Father Logan's situation hangs in the balance. Does he maintain his vows and keep Keller's confession secret? Does he save himself, basically renouncing everything he admits he believes in? It is the simplest of plot devices and the most clever at the same time. Hitchcock takes that simple premise and instead of swinging and missing, hits a home run.

One of the coolest things going for this movie was the use of on-location shooting for much of the indoor and outdoor scenes. It took me a little while to realize the story was set in Quebec, and why everyone was either speaking French, had a French name, and why Father Logan seems very American. Interior shots at churches, hotels, and a variety of spots around Quebec give the proceedings an authentic feel that studio shots just couldn't match. Also worth mentioning is Dimitri Tiomkin's musical score. It's obviously a little different from a typical Franz Waxman (Hitchcock's usual composer), but it is effective to build up some tension as everything points to Father Logan being the real killer.

The combination of the ultra-professional in Hitchcock and method acting Clift not surprisingly produced some fireworks on-set during filming. The director grew increasingly frustrated with Clift's botching multiple takes as he tried to get scenes just right. Whatever the process to get to the end result, I thought Clift did a great job with the role. No one did the tortured, flawed individual in the 1950s quite like Montgomery Clift, and he doesn't disappoint. His past comes out over the course of the movie -- wouldn't you know it? It's a checkered past -- and he truly wants to maintain his beliefs and principles, even if it ends up costing him his career, his reputation, and possibly his life if the evidence does enough to convict him.

Beyond Clift as the tortured priest with a moral and ethical decision, the cast is uniformly solid. Hasse as the real killer, Keller, is a despicable human being. He admits to the murder having looked for some easy cash, but then to protect himself basically turns on everyone around him, including guilt-tripping his wife (Dolly Haas). A villain who starts as one thing and develops into another, one who's very easy to hate. Anne Baxter is the mysterious Ruth (what a sexy name, huh?), a woman who may be involved with the murder and Logan's past too. Malden is the dogged police investigator, following the clues as needed in a case with no obvious suspects. Brian Aherne is the chief prosecutor, smelling blood in the water once a suspect is presented, Roger Dann is Ruth's well-to-do and powerful husband, and Charles Andres as Father Millars, the head priest at St. Marie's.

I Confess is not always mentioned as one of Hitchcock's best, instead hiding in the weeds with all his other solid if unspectacular films waiting to be discovered by audiences. It isn't necessarily on par with his best efforts, but it certainly is above average. Definitely worth a watch for his fans, but also a good introduction to Hitchcock in general.

I Confess <---trailer (1953): ***/****

Red Tails

What the 54th Massachusetts was to the Civil War, the Tuskegee Airmen -- the 332nd Fighter Group -- was to World War II. It was a unit of soldiers in the Army Air Corps made up entirely of African American soldiers with segregation still alive in the armed forces. The first African American aviators in the army, the unit was forced to deal with prejudice and racism on the small scale and the large scale; rivalries from other units, doubting commanders above who questioned if they could actually handle aerial combat. It struggled in theaters, but 2012's Red Tails does a solid if unspectacular job at telling their story.

It is 1944 in Italy, and the 332nd Fighter Group, commanded by Colonel A.J. Bullard (Terrence Howard) and his executive officer, Major Stance (Cuba Gooding Jr.), is wasting away. Headquarters refuses to give the African American fighters a chance to prove themselves, sending them on patrols over already-taken land, giving escort to planes well behind enemy lines. Finally after months of arguments over the issue, the 332nd, including squadron commander Marty 'Easy' Julian (Nate Parker) and close friend and the group's best pilot, Joe 'Lightning' Little (David Oyelowo), are given a chance. They're given little room for error though so when assigned as bomber escorts for a key mission, the 332nd knows the unit's success hinges on the mission being accomplished.

Much like 2006's Flyboys, 'Red' is a unit picture that has the tone and message more of the 1940s-1960s than a 2012-released war movie. Maybe its my cynicism at modern audiences, but stories like these just don't seem to appeal to audiences in a huge way anymore. Current war movies have to be ultra violent, realistic and offer something new. Stories that look at our armed forces in a heroic way? That premise might not fly as much. From director Anthony Hemingway, 'Red' does its best to honor the Tuskegee Airmen as best as it can. Without doing anything groundbreaking, it manages to be entertaining and exciting, going back to the well one or two times too often on war movie cliches, conventions and characters. Still, it's a solid movie.

The movie comes from George Lucas' studio -- Lucasfilms -- so that should tell you a lot about the movie. Especially the three more recent Star Wars movies, Lucas' movies seem more interested in impressing than just telling a developing story with interesting characters. In other words? A world-class script isn't essential. The background here is simple; tell the story of the Airmen as heroically as possible. The script doesn't do any favors though. The acting can be atrocious at times -- script or actors? Both? -- and the line deliveries are laughable. At one point, a white American bomber pilot actually says about the black Airmen "They're sacrificing glory to save our asses!" Subtle this is not. There's also the epically evil German pilot, played by Lars van Riesen, who ends up being the face of the German war effort. He sneers, growls, and at one point says in amazement 'Those pilots are colored!' For goodness sake, the man even has a facial scar. Could this movie be any more obvious?

Filling out the cast is a relatively unknown cast with two major stars (well, sort of) having what amounts to cameo parts. Thanks to the script, the cast never really develops 3-D, red-blooded characters. Instead, 'Tails' stays in that comfortable comfort zone of stock characters. Parker and Oyelowo are worth mentioning, rising above their familiar characters. As squadron commander, Parker's Easy struggles with command, turning to booze, while Oyelow's Lightning is a hot-shot pilot who gets a love interest, Sofia (NCIS: LA's Daniela Ruah), an Italian woman who can't speak English. Oh, awkward budding romance! The rest of the pilots are pretty bad, including Junior (Tristan Wilds), the youngster trying to prove himself, Joker (Elijah Kelley), seemingly trying to channel Chris Rock's voice and pitch, and Smokey (hip-hop artist Ne-Yo), doing his best drawling Bill Cosby impression. Howard has to deliver a few key monologues, Gooding Jr. has to smile a couple times and smoke a pipe. Andre Royo and Method Man are solid too as the 332nd's mechanical support staff.

So by this point, it sure sounds like I'm ripping the movie, but I did enjoy it enough to recommend it. Most of that positive karma comes from the aerial sequences as the 332nd tangles with German fighters over Italy and Germany. For the most part, I'm guessing much -- if not all -- of these sequences were done with computer-generated images, but you know what's good about that? I can't tell for sure. The CGI is seamless, making the aerial combat exhilarating to watch as these 1940s fighters and bombers swoop through the air with clouds of flak, shrapnel and bullets flying through the air. Clocking in at 125 minutes, 'Red' has plenty of time for these sequences, and we're the better for it. The slower, duller and cliched portions down on the ground seem a long way off when the dogfighting begins.

Mostly though, I think 'Red' tries to do too much even with a two-hour running time. Lots of characters, lots of history, and it still manages to get an unnecessary love story jammed in there, a subplot in a German prisoner of war camp, and scenes back in Washington showing the bureaucracy of running a war. With all that said, it's still an enjoyable enough movie. Probably not for everyone, but I liked it just enough to recommend it. Also worth mentioning? Check out Gooding Jr. in a made-for TV HBO movie from the late 90s about the Tuskegee Airmen.

Red Tails <---trailer (2012): ** 1/2 ****

Soldier in the Rain

Making the jump from television to movie star, Steve McQueen had an interesting run through the first half of the 1960s, including his star-making role in The Great Escape with other strong parts in The Magnificent Seven, Hell is For Heroes, and two or three other parts. There were more positives than negatives, but the ones that missed have been generally forgotten. Unfortunately, 1963's Soldier in the Rain is on that short list of misses.

A few weeks away from getting his discharge papers, Sgt. Eustis Clay (McQueen) is dreaming of all that civilian life can offer him, all the freedoms the army has kept him from. A wheeler-dealer who trades for anything and everything he needs, Eustis has big plans to make a fortune once he's free of the army, but it all starts with one key caveat; he wants the help of friend and fellow supply officer, Master Sgt. Maxwell Slaughter (Jackie Gleason), who is similarly up for reenlistment but hasn't made his decision yet. As normal, everyday life goes by on the army base, Eustis does his best to convince Maxwell to join him in all his post-army plans, but can he do it?

With less than 30 feature length films to his name, McQueen's star burned fast and bright through the late 1950s, then into the 60s and 70s before his death in 1980 from cancer. He's one of my all-time favorite actors -- trapped in a dead heat with John Wayne and Clint Eastwood -- and this is one of the few films of his I had not seen. With so few remaining unseen, I'm sorry to report how disappointed I was with the effort. From usually reliable director Ralph Nelson comes a mess of a story, not sure if its a light buddy comedy or a significantly darker fare, slapstick goofiness or hardcore emotional. The most damning issue? If it's trying to be funny, it produces few to no laughs. If it's going for the drama, it's completely void of it up until the last 20 minutes.

As a huge McQueen fan, this is a bizarre film to watch because of the 33-year old actor's role. With later parts in Bullitt, The Sand Pebbles, and The Thomas Crown Affair (among others), McQueen perfected the part of the quiet anti-hero, the loner who works in society but only because he has to. Biographies point to him removing whole scenes of dialogue from scripts, insisting he could do something more efficiently with a glance or a quick sentence. Wouldn't you know it? It almost always worked. And then there's his part here....basically the polar opposite. Two years prior in The Honeymoon Machine, McQueen showed he could pull off a somewhat obvious comedic part. He had impeccable delivery and was able to do any physical scenes flawlessly. It's the type of part that made you wish he did more comedy in his career. Something doesn't quite make the transition to this flick then. 

It's hard to describe why this performance doesn't work. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, part of McQueen's appeal was this effortless cool. It never looked like he was trying too hard to impress you. His part in 'Soldier' is for lack of a better description.....obvious. It feels forced, like he's playing a stereotyped, cliched character so McQueen decided to ratchet it up a notch. His accent is supposed to be southern (I think?), but it sounds like he's got marbles in his mouth. Eustis is naive, innocent and a dreamer, but one key character ingredient is missing. It's hard to like him. Maybe I've just come to expect that much more of McQueen, but this is one of his lesser efforts although God bless him, he's certainly trying. Also in the shrill, annoying and overacting department are Tuesday Weld and Tony Bill in supporting parts. Ed Nelson and Lew Gallo have some fun with some adversarial parts, always tangling with Eustis and Maxwell.

The saving grace for 'Soldier' is Jackie Gleason. I grew up watching Gleason in some episodes of The Honeymooners where he was loud, exaggerated and all over the place. As I've found though in his best roles, Gleason was a great actor usually when he could underplay a part, like he does as Master Sgt. Slaughter. A nobody as a civilian, Slaughter enjoys all the perks of his job, but never really lets it go to his head. In Eustis, he has a friend and an adoring fan who looks at him like a hero in whatever he does. Rather than brush it aside though, Slaughter looks at country bumpkin Eustis and embraces him like a brother he's got to look out for. There is a friendly charm to Gleason here, just a good man who makes the right decisions to help others out. Don't mess with someone that's close to him, or he'll come after you.

So while I can't truly recommend this film, I can say that parts of it work extraordinarily well. Even when McQueen's performance can be a little grating, his scenes with Gleason have an easy-going natural charm (more impressive when you read about their on-set differences). A buddy film/relationship minimizes it to a point, but that's what it is. Two different people who end up being close friends. Still, the movie on the whole doesn't amount to a whole lot, especially in the final 30 minutes as it takes a turn to the extreme dark. Probably for McQueen completists and Gleason fans alike.

Soldier in the Rain <---Youtube clip (1963): **/****

Ted

With animated TV shows in Family Guy, American Dad and The Cleveland Show to his name, Seth MacFarlane has become one of the more bankable names around currently working in television. It was only a matter of time then before he made the jump to movies, right? Thankfully, he picked a very solid, very funny venture, 2012's Ted.

Growing up with his family outside of Boston, young John Bennett is far from a popular kid and struggles making friends. One Christmas he receives a teddy bear that becomes his best friend and more. One night he wishes that Teddy was real, and in the morning....ta-da! Ted is real. The talking, real-life bear becomes an international sensation for awhile at least. But some 25-plus years later, John (Mark Wahlberg) is all grown up with Ted (voice of MacFarlane) his roommate. The only problem? John's been dating Lori (Mila Kunis) for four years, and she'd like a commitment from John, and that means Ted has to move out. Choices, choices, your long-time best friend or your beautiful girlfriend?

Do you like Family Guy? If you answered 'yes,' you'll like this movie. Probably like it a lot. If you answered 'no,' this probably isn't the movie for you. Using his very dark, usually intelligent, sometimes dumb and always helter skelter sense of humor that viewers see on Family Guy, MacFarlane brings that same manic touch to 'Ted.' It helps if you have even a vague knowledge of 1980s-1990s pop culture, anything from lousy music to iconic movies and TV shows. We even get a couple dream-like sequences, a few dropped in flashbacks, and an over the top, sometimes exaggerated effort going for laughs. It's filthy, dirty, and filthier so definitely know what you're getting into here. Like Family Guy and MacFarlane's other shows, it will almost certainly divide audiences.

The movie on the whole is not great, but it is very good, even near perfect in its humor at times. What works best? Not surprising answer here. That's a CGI teddy bear voiced by MacFarlane. Check that; a foul-mouthed, pop-culture referencing, pot-smoking, sex-obsessed CGI teddy bear voiced by MacFarlane. It's criminally simplistic why this works. It's that image of a cute, fuzzy, soft teddy bear....doing what he does. We're introduced to a "grown up" Ted smoking pot with John and then driving him to work minutes later, just his ears poking up over the wheel. MacFarlane does a great job with his familiar voice talents (even poking fun at how much Ted sounds like Peter Griffin) bringing Ted to life. What's better? In this world, no one seems to question this teddy bear come to life, and it's the better for it. Ted is a great character, and one that ends up carrying the movie.

None of that is to say the rest of the cast isn't memorable. It's just that they're not as memorable in any scene Ted is in. Wahlberg does a great job acting alongside, well, nothing. His back-and-forth with Ted speaks to their long history, an easy going relationship between two guys (okay, a bear) who are genuine friends but don't mind busting each others' balls when deserved. Their Thunder Buddies song is a highlight too, both of them still terrified of thunder. Kunis (of Family Guy) isn't given a lot to do, but gets points for not being the stereotypically shrill girlfriend. Also look for Joel McHale as Lori's skeevy boss, Patrick Warburton and Matt Walsh as John's co-workers,and  a creepy Giovanni Ribisi as an obsessed fan of Ted's. Also look for Nora Jones, Tom Skerritt and Flash Gordon himself, Sam Jones, all appearing as themselves. Even keep an eye out for Ryan Reynolds in a wordless but very funny two-scene appearance.

I struggle at this point with comedy reviews. How much should I reveal in terms of laughs? IMDB's Memorable Quotes does a fair job of that so I won't go into great detail here. Without giving anything away, I can say the parts that work here are hilarious. Ted's apartment party is a highlight, quickly taking a turn for the worse. A running gag with his job at a grocery store and his boss are priceless as he tries to get fired only to earn promotions. A brutal, knock-down fight between John and Ted is unreal too. Moral of the story is simple. It's an above average comedy, with more jokes/gags working than those that failed. The ending too is surprisingly sweet. All in all, highly recommend this one.

Ted <---trailer (2012): ***/****

Savages

First released in 2010, author Don Winslow's novel Savages is a mostly entertaining, sometimes maddening and uniquely written story. The trailer for 2012's Savages -- the feature film version -- had me intrigued so I read the book first and was glad I did. The movie? Mostly entertaining, sometimes maddening and....yeah, that ending. Wow, what a mess. Still worth a watch, but I'll have some advice on the ending later.

Selling and distributing some of the best marijuana that southern California has ever seen, Iraq war vet Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and pacifist/botanist Ben (Aaron Johnson) are making money hand over fist and have been doing so for years. In fact, their business is too good because now they've attracted the attention of the powerful Baja Cartel in Mexico, run with an iron fist by the brutal Elena (Salma Hayek) and her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro). Seeing through the ruse of an offer, Chon and Ben turn down an offer to become "partners" with the cartel, and quickly feel the repercussions when their mutual girlfriend, O, short for Ophelia (Blake Lively), is kidnapped by the Baja cartel. What to do now? Go along with the previously offered plan, or come up with a new one that will bring O back to them?

With movies like World Trade Center, W., and his Wall Street sequel, director Oliver Stone got away from that brutal, in your face, aggressive style that shot him to stardom behind the cameras. It's safe to say that with this drug crime thriller, he's back to basics. This is a world where our heroes are drug dealers, somewhat idealistic drug dealers (well, Ben at least), but you get the point. It's a down and dirty world where lives come cheap, and the end result is accepted if there is enough money or supply to justify the means. The bad guys are bad whether they be the indie drug dealers, the sadistically evil cartel, or even the corrupt DEA agents involved. It's good to see Stone get back to that darker view of the world. Hopefully he keeps up with movies like this.

What allows the movie to be entertaining considering it deals with such a dark, nasty occupation is the style Stone brings to it. It's the type of style you're either going to go along with it and enjoy it or resent it almost immediately. The intro gets things rolling, Lively's O stating "Just because I'm telling this story doesn't mean I'm alive in the end." There are artsy retro title cards to introduce where the action takes place. Stone films with a variety of film styles; black and white, digital, good old-fashioned formatting, hyper edited in a few instances. And the Laguna Beach/Mexico location sure adds a lot of color to the proceedings. The soundtrack too is a positive boost, an eclectic mix of classical music, choirs, modern pop/rock, and an almost ethereal sound of beach music. Throwing so much at the wall and seeing what sticks shouldn't work like this -- it just shouldn't -- but the completely random collection ends up doing just that.

Opinions will vary no doubt, but the casting department did a fine job selecting its three young leads. The dynamic among O, Chon and Ben is certainly unique; two well-to-do, attractive 20-somethings sharing a girlfriend? Hayek's Elena has some fun with that, telling O they'll never love her as much as they love each other. However you interpret that odd triangle, Kitsch, Johnson and Lively are all surprisingly good. Kitsch especially stands out, his Chon a veteran of a 2-year stretch in Iraq and Afghanistan where he saw the worst the world can offer. His enforcer attitude works well alongside Johnson's Ben, his highly intelligent, idealistic business partner. Ben struggles to comprehend the violence the duo will have to undertake if they hope to succeed. My least favorite character in the book as well as the movie, O as done by Lively is the weakest link, but it's not a bad performance, especially late when the kidnapping goes down. Her narration is beyond bad at times (not her fault), that awful mix of trying to be smart and pretentiously unique. She says at one point "I have orgasms, Chon has wargasms." Oh, clever!

Then there's the fun, more over the top, and in some cases, stereotypical roles, but dammit, these actors are enjoying themselves. Start with Salma Hayek as Elena, the leader of the Baja cartel who does it with as little humanity as possible. She's cold, sinister, intimidating and seems to be channeling some Spanish soap operas at times, but it's a solid performance. Del Toro as Lado is a scene-stealer. He is callous in his brutality, less than honest in his dealings, and interested in saving his own backside first and foremost. Rounding out the bigger parts, John Travolta is also a scene-stealer right up there with Del Toro as he plays Dennis, the DEA agent working with Ben and Chon -- and seemingly everyone else -- to keep the drug wars away....and a little extra cash in his pocket. Also look for Emile Hirsch in a quick, memorable part as Spin, Ben and Chon's money launderer, and recent Oscar nominee Demian Bichir as Alex, Elena's "accountant" of sorts.

So here we are. The ending. Winslow's ending in the novel is a bloody, chaotic gem that worked on so many levels, both for the characters, the story and the general darkness of the story. The odd thing? Stone uses that ending too, and then literally rewinds back and erases that ending, O explaining 'And this is how it really happened.' It is the definition of a cop out. Not only that, you feel duped as a viewer. We see one ending -- a highly effective one -- and then are introduced to a genuinely dumb, tacked-on ending. What was Stone thinking? This new ending is single-handedly able to ruin the movie. So rather than rip the entire movie, I'm trying to think outside of the box a little. For me, the ending comes right before "O's rewind." That epilogue, explaining how everything turned out, doesn't exist in my mind. I can't believe Stone willingly changed that "alternate" ending though. It's that bad. The movie though is still very entertaining and worth a watch.

Savages <---trailer (2012): ***/****

5 Against the House

Here's a thinker for you to puzzle. Have you ever thought what an episode of Happy Days would have been like if Richie, the Fonz and the gang tried to take down a casino? Or how about Betty, Veronica, Jughead and the crew? Oh, you haven't thought of that premise? Yeah, me either, but if it ever came to be, that movie would certainly have the feeling of 1955's 5 Against the House, a heist flick with some solid potential that's also weighed down by a lot of dead weight.

Heading back to a new semester at Midwestern University, four college students and friends -- Al (Guy Madison), Brick (Brian Keith), Roy (Alvy Moore) and Ronnie (Kerwin Matthews) -- stop in Reno to gamble a little at Harold's Club, a famous casino. They witness a botched robbery, overhearing a police officer mumble that no one could rob the place. As the semester wears on and things get boring, Ronnie comes up with a unique plan to do just that though; rob the place. His intention? Prove he can pull it off, then return the money (smart, huh?). Al is less than interested, focusing more on fiance Kay (Kim Novak), Roy goes along with it too a point, and Brick....well, Brick has his own plan.

From director Phil Karlson, this is an odd little movie. Comparing it to a Happy Days heist movies isn't fair, but that thought certainly crossed my mind as I was watching this quick 82-minute movie. There are good and bad -- like any movie I suppose -- but the bad is real bad. As we meet this foursome of friends, we're introduced to them through a nauseating and never-ending set of one-liners, most delivered by Moore. Madison walks around a casino telling them what time it is until they leave. Billed as a late film noir entry, it just ain't that type of movie. It's too light and fluffy early. The jokes are not only forced, but more importantly, just not very funny.

There's more to poke holes at, but that's the worst offender. The others involve two subplots, one more painful than the other. It's a heist movie, right? Then why is so much time spent on Al and Kay's budding romance? In one of her early roles, Novak looks great and sings two songs (sort of, she was dubbed for one), but she doesn't have chemistry with Madison at all. They fight, they kiss, they fight, and then they're back in love. A romance subplot is fine with me as long as it adds to a movie, not detracts from it. Anytime these two are on screen, it's a slow, halting trip. The other subplot has Roy and Ronnie convincing a freshman, Francis (Jack Dimond), to work as a servant-slave. Oh, those 1950s hijinks! It's just another example of the trying too hard, very forced and very unfunny humor that's jammed into the story.

So that gets the negatives out of the way, and we're onto the positives! Madison and Keith were 33 and 34 years old respectively when this was released so how do they come off as college students? Less than believable, but a key subplot involving them helps cushion that age difference. They're both veterans of the Korean War, Keith's shell-shocked Brick suffering through some version of post-traumatic stress disorder, Madison's Al doing his best to look out for a friend who saved his life. The relationship between the two "college students" is a high point of the film. Madison wasn't a great actor, but playing alongside Keith, they have an easy-going patter back and forth that reflects their history. Now if more time was spent on this aspect of the story, now we're onto something.

And then there's the heist aspect. In 1955, this is an early example of a heist film, and judging 'House' on that alone, it's a pretty solid movie. It was clearly an influence on the original Ocean's 11, released four years later. The heist is basically one big con job, pulling the wool over the casino's eyes while they steal away with the money. As part of a western fest, the quartet dress up as cowboys -- boots, beards and hats all -- to "blend in" with the rest of the clientele. Like much of the movie, the heist is low-key, but that doesn't away any of the tension. We're not sure exactly the details of the job, but we've gotten enough hints to see what's going on. As well, the film has several very cool on-location shots of mid 1950s Reno, a window, a time capsule into a very cool time in American history.

In the end, 'House' is a flawed venture. When it works, it's slightly above average. When it doesn't work, it struggles to maintain any pacing. Too bad a more pointed, heist-driven story with less romantic subplots couldn't have been used.

5 Against the House <---trailer (1955): ** 1/2 /****

Strange Wilderness

I love a good stupid movie just like everybody else. But like anything, there's dumb, dumbest, stupid, stupidest, and mind-bogglingly stupid, the kind of stupid that makes your head hurt to watch it. The jury is still out for 2008's Strange Wilderness and where that one ends up.

When his father dies, Peter (Steve Zahn) steps in and takes over his long-running, very successful nature show, 'Strange Wilderness'....and promptly drives it into the ground. The quality drops, the educational aspect plummets, and the show is on the brink of being canceled. Peter, soundman Fred (Allen Covert), and Wilderness's ragtag crew have only two weeks to turn the show around, but how can they manage that? A story falls right into their lap, but first they've got to find it. Bigfoot has been sighted in Central America! Let the road trip begin.

Should I be surprised that this 2008 stoner comedy came from the brilliant minds of Happy Madison Productions, Adam Sandler's film company? I suppose not, but it sure does help make sense of this mess of a movie. Excluding the closing credits, it doesn't even hit the 80-minute mark. The "story" is a sham of a script held together by bathroom humor, awful physical comedy, and a reliance on anything crotch-related or even close, one running gag after another. At one point, Zahn's character actually has a turkey attack him, the animal attempting to swallow his penis. Yes, the scene of Zahn running around hysterically is funny, but I can't think of a stupider, low-brow type of humor. Repeat that for 79 minutes and you've got your movie. One scene has the crew giggling away because a man's name is 'Dick.' That's all. No last name. Watch it HERE. For every funny moment, there's an excruciating one close behind.

The odd thing? The parts that do work are very funny. The disgusted TV producer (Jeff Garlin) goes through a quick succession of clips from previous shows, and the complete random quality of the clips produces some quality laughs. They include lions having sex with a sexually-themed voiceover, giraffes head-butting each other, an alligator eating a man ("We wanted to honor him"), a man at a peace rally on running around on fire, and so on. Any actual Strange Wilderness footage is hysterical from a shark episode (watch HERE) to a bear episode (watch HERE) with portions devoted to beavers, piranhas, and monkeys among other. Zahn's calming, almost monotone voice nails the voiceovers. These parts are so mind-bogglingly stupid it makes me think someone with talent wrote them. They're that stupid, but go figure, they're funny too. Their discovery of Bigfoot, their encounter with him, and the rationalization of how they handled that encounter is priceless too.

Going for the stupid and not smart laughs, the cast is hit-or-miss. Zahn is a decent lead, hamming it up like a crazy person as needed, longtime Sandler co-star Covert a worthy straight man with his long hair and floppy mustache. Rounding out the 'Wilderness' crew are Jonah Hill as Cooker, the freaky conspiracy theorist, Kevin Heffernan as Whitaker, the alcoholic mechanic turned animal handler, Justin Long as Junior, the stoner cameraman, Ashley Scott as Cheryl, the necessary babe, and Peter Dante as Danny, the idiot. That's all. He's an idiot. Hill is funny when he's subtle, not like here where he's so over-exaggerated he becomes obnoxious. Heffernan is very funny, Long leaves little impression, Scott looks good, and Dante is the worst offender of the bunch, playing the same part he does in all the Happy Madison movies. His best bit? A dark but truly funny bit where he dresses up like a sea lion and is promptly attacked by a shark.

In some bizarre casting, watch for Ernest Borgnine, Joe Don Baker and Robert Patrick in small parts. You read that right, all three names. How they took these parts I'll never know. None of them are given anything to do -- short of a disgusting sight gag Patrick gets -- but all three are professionals and do their job. It's especially cool to see Borgnine (91 years old at the time) in the movie, introducing himself to a new generation of moviegoers.

You don't go into a movie like this thinking you will be watching a masterpiece. I realize that, but this is one screwy movie. The funny part? As they made the movie, they know it was screwy. It ends with Zahn, Covert and Garlin laughing out loud at the ridiculous nature of the story....and that's the ending. No gag reel. That's the ending. Epically stupid, good for some laughs, but too stupid for its own good at other times.

Strange Wilderness <---trailer (2008): **/****