Edge of Tomorrow

When I think of Tom Cruise, I think of any number of movies from Top Gun and Risky Business to the Mission Impossible series. He's the type of movie star who if he's in a movie, I'll give it a shot. What genre has provided some of Cruise's best work? That would be the science fiction genre, including Oblivion, War of the Worlds, Minority Report, and a new entry to the list, 2014's Edge of Tomorrow.

It has been five long, bloody years since an alien race dubbed 'Mimics' has landed on Earth, specifically all across Europe. Banding together, mankind is finally seeing some victories coming together, their forces pushing back to the point that an immense, world-encompassing invasion of the European continent is fast-approaching. Among the military forces is Major William Cage (Cruise), a PR man who has done his best to promote the war, get the people behind the effort. Through an argument with a superior officer, Cage finds himself not as a PR man, but as a front-line infantry soldier ready to lead the first wave of the invasion. The attack is horrific, a surprise invasion not so surprising. Cage himself is killed when a new kind of Mimic strikes, but he isn't quite dead. He wakes up at the same point a day before, experiencing the identical day down to each personal interaction. A figurehead of the fighting forces, an international hero, Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), knows exactly what's going on with Cage. Can this inexperienced soldier hold the key to Earth's salvation?

Wow, this is the sort of story and premise you hope for in a really well-written, well-executed science fiction film. Heck, in any film. It will be difficult to review this sci-fi flick from director Doug Liman without giving away at least some sort of spoiler so be forewarned. I'll be discussing the major twist that propels 'Edge' into the guts of its story, one you no doubt may have heard about, but still....I WARNED YOU!!! SPOILERS!!! So what is the oh-so-original premise? This description minimizes how good the movie is, but this is Groundhog Day with a sci-fi edge. Through a mishap in battle, Cruise's Cage is reborn at the same instance every time he dies in battle. In other words, he can die seemingly infinite times only to be thrown back a day later before the invasion and do it all over again. His death literally signifies a "Re-do" button for not only himself, but the world as a whole. Life goes on, getting a fresh start each and every time Cage dies.

So yeah, that could be called a gimmick. 'Groundhog' is a classic, loved by fans. Another somewhat similar movie, Vantage Point, used a storytelling format that rewound the story so we could see it from a different perspective. I saw that one in theaters, the audience audibly groaning by the second or third "rewind." That most assuredly is not the issue here. The screenplay isn't content to be just smart. It takes the story somewhere, and once we learn what Cage is going through, we don't see everything. We see snippets of his seemingly never-ending life of one day. He dies on the beach in countless ways -- the battle showing all the countless ways he can meet his demise -- and starts over, meeting his squad leader, meeting his fellow soldiers and then is thrown into the battle. Some "days" we see a lot, others bits and pieces. It is a difficult premise to explain but just know that in the end, it is worth it. We're introduced to it, and then the story breathes.

Look, here it is. I like Tom Cruise, and yes, I know everybody doesn't feel that way. He's an actor and a movie star, and I especially liked his performance here. Where I described the story's background a little bit, I'm not going to delve too much into Cruise's Cage or how he ends up in the situation he does. I will say it surprised me because he plays against type early on, an unlikely hero thrust into a situation that could save or doom mankind. Nothing big, right? Joining him is rising star Emily Blunt, her Rita a modern day Rosie the Riveter of sorts, except she's right at the forefront of the fighting. She may not look like a prototypical action hero, but it ends up working exceptionally well. On top of that, her chemistry with Cruise is spot-on. There is a simple, effective chemistry between them that simply put....just works. Another big positive, the possible developing relationship between them is kept in the background, hinted at but never addressed head-on. Two very good performances that don't get lost in the epic qualities and scale of the science fiction story.

Who else to look for? Brendan Gleeson is the face of mankind's defense, his General Brigham the commander of the United Defense Forces. Bill Paxton plays Master Sergeant Farell, Cage's new squad leader who becomes the face of Cage's improbable dilemma. In the squad, look for Jonas Armstong, Tony Way, Kick Gurry, Franz Drameh, Dragomir Mrsic and Charlotte Riley.

As cool as the premise is (and it is very cool), I especially liked some of the quieter moments, even the scenes with some truly dark humor. In the second half of the movie, Cage and Rita are talking, Rita discovering that the two of them have been in this situation countless times before. Cage remembers. Rita doesn't. What if they stopped trying over and over again to save the world? What if they just ran away? Scenes like that add some emotional depth to a story with style and interesting story to burn. I didn't love the last 20 minutes or so, but there is a relative twist added that I thought worked especially well. The final scenes had a timeline discrepancy that I can't quite wrap my head around, but that's a minor thing.

Big picture? This is what you look for in a science fiction flick. With touches of Groundhog Day, Starship Troopers and more recently, Source Code, 'Edge' is excellent. History buffs will no doubt get a kick out of it too, the current invasion of Europe resembling D-Day right down to the tiny details. By the time the troops actually hit the beaches, it's like a modern-day attack on the beaches at Normandy. A very cool movie with lots to offer.

The Edge of Tomorrow (2014): ***/****

Backdraft

I grew up in Chicago, several classmates in grammar school with parents working as police officers and firefighters. I imagine there's a respect and admiration for police forces and fire stations in all cities, but even as a kid it was easy to see the regard in which many were held for putting their lives on their line for their jobs. Released in 1991, Backdraft delves into the lives of Chicago firefighters with some familiar family drama to keep things going.

Just seven years old, Brian McCaffrey is a frequent guest at his father's fire station along with his older brother, Stephen. On one fire call though, their dad is killed in a blast. Some 20 years later, Stephen (Kurt Russell, who also plays the Dad...albeit briefly) has followed in his dad's footsteps, becoming a respected lieutenant at one of Chicago's most respected stations. Station 17 has a couple new fireman to fit into the mix, Stephen's brother, Brian (William Baldwin), who did his best to avoid a firefighting career for years only to return to what his family knows best. The brothers have drifted apart over the years, both of them holding grudges that go back for years to when their dad died. With a career that hinges on life and death moments every single day, they have to learn to work together and put their differences aside. Meanwhile, an arsonist is starting fires all over Chicago with two dead already. Who is the arsonist? Does he have a different intention?

I was just six when this movie came out back in 1991. I remember my parents watching it at some point, and enjoying it. For me, there's a period in the late 1980s and early 1990s where because of my age, I just didn't see a lot of movies and never really caught up with them. From director Ron Howard, 'Backdraft' is a big one on that list. A box office success that picked up positive reviews while becoming a fan favorite, it's a solid, entertaining movie. It was filmed on location in Chicago -- never a bad thing -- and gives the developing story an authentic aura hanging in the air. It's not always familiar locations, "known" spots, but that works too in creating a grittier, more authentic feel. In the end, it is a good movie, even really good, that isn't quite great. Nothing wrong with that, but I didn't come away completely blown away like some reviews made it out to be.

The strongest aspect of the movie is one that treads a fine line. This is a film interested in showing the heroic actions of not only Chicago firefighters, but firefighters in general. It also delves into their personal lives, how the threat of horrific burns and wounds -- not to mention death -- hangs in the air with each passing fire. At times, the story gets a little too soap opera-esque, a little too familiar in terms of family issues and brotherly conflict. Still, the firefighting sequences are pretty insane. Firefighters watching the movie criticized Howard's film because these scenes were too clear, things too easily seen, but for the sake of making a movie, you can't criticize Howard there. You feel the fire, the heat, the warmth, the scorching flames nipping at your heels, blazing away at your face, with each passing sequence. Kudos in the reality department, transporting us into the fire with our firefighters. As a viewer, we get a sense of the hell that is these individuals' day jobs, avoiding too much hero worship.

A film archetype across all genres, the warring brothers formula is brought to life by Kurt Russell and Billy Baldwin. Both characters are a little too familiar, one rising above, the other not so much. Russell as Stephen gets the showier part, the gung-ho firefighter following in his father's footsteps. He's the best at what he does and isn't interested in too much career advancement. He puts out fires, wants to put out fires, and looks out for his crew. Look for Rebecca De Mornay as his wife, struggling to cope with the increasing dangers of his job, for her and for her son. Baldwin is okay as Brian, but the character just isn't interesting enough to merit much sympathy. His romantic subplot with Jennifer Jason Leigh's government assistant (a past fling/relationship) goes nowhere as well to the point their scenes become painful, especially the makeout session on a fire truck.....when the alarm goes off. Who saw that coming?!? 

Two supporting parts are truly worthy of mentioning. Along with Russell's Stephen, I thought Robert De Niro has the strongest part here, playing Shadow Rimgale, a fire inspector who helps determine if fires were accidental or the works of arsonists. It's that perfectly underplayed, more low-key part that De Niro could probably do in his sleep. Donald Sutherland is perfectly creepy too as Ronald Bartel as Bartel, an imprisoned arsonist who knows Rimgale all too well and may know what's going on around the city.  Also look for Scott Glenn and Jason Gedrick as fellow firefighters, J.T. Walsh playing a Chicago alderman who always has reelection on his mind.

A good, not great movie. I think it is a tad long in the tooth at 132 minutes, drifting along a little too much in the midsection before getting back to business for the finale. It is a tad cliched, too many slow motion 'Noooooooooooooo!' moments dotting the firefighting sequences. Composer Hans Zimmer's score is as solid as ever...in most scenes, sometimes reverting back to the hero worship that brings the movie down a notch. Big picture though, Backdraft has a lot going for it. An interesting story that did keep me guessing, a very solid cast, and a reveal that certainly caught me by surprise. An excellent look into the lives of Chicago firemen.

Backdraft (1991): ***/****

Purple Noon

I remember watching 1999's The Talented Mr. Ripley with the family, a rental from Blockbuster (YES, a video store) on a Saturday night. Before I could really appreciate what was going on, maybe even accurately describe it, I know I liked the creepy, stylish thriller. It is an uncomfortable, beautifully shot film with a handful of interesting performances. Wouldn't you know it though? It isn't the first film based off Patricia Highsmith's novel of the same name. That would be 1960's Purple Noon.

Hired by a rich businessman in San Francisco, young Tom Ripley (Alain Delon) has been sent to Italy with a job, a potentially very lucrative job. Tom has been hired to find Philippe Greenleaf (Maurice Ronet), the businessman's son, somewhere in Italy and bring him home, receiving $5,000 for his troubles if he can pull it off. Upon meeting Philippe though, Tom forms an unlikely friendship with the vain, egotistical and spoiled young man. It is a friendship of extreme highs and lows, Philippe constantly pushing and testing Tom. Finally with a deadline fast approaching, Tom decides he's has just about enough, especially when Philippe flat-out tells him he won't leave Italy to return to San Francisco. Deciding he wants more than just the delivery fee for his services, Tom puts a drastic plan into action, a plan that will need all sorts of luck to pull off. Can he do it? Can he get away with it?

Just another reason to always be on the lookout for those hidden gems that are out there. As a fan of the 1999 Mr. Ripley, I was curious to see how this 1960 French version differed, if at all. I haven't read Highsmith's source novel, but I intend to now. There are differences, but the basic gist is there throughout as the two films follow a similar formula. Director Rene Clement has a movie here dripping with style, a style that's pretty effortless. His camera lingers for long, uninterrupted shots that keep the focus on his stars and cast. The music by Nino Rota is underplayed, adding a sinister touch to the developing thriller, and yes, filming on location in Italy turned out to be a good thing. Who knew?!? The main backdrops are both Rome and Naples, both Italian cities adding a depth and visual look to the story. It is a sun-drenched beautiful movie, beginning to end.

Over recent years, I guess I can say I "discovered" Alain Delon. The French actor didn't star in a ton of American movies, but I stumbled across him as I watched director Jean-Pierre Melville's French heist/crime thrillers, Delon a favorite star to work with. Way back in 1960 though, he was a relative unknown having only acted in a handful of smaller scale movies. Given his first starring role in a major release, Delon doesn't disappoint. This is one creepy, underplayed and sinister performance, Delon doing it with ease and adding a sense of charm to the ever-creepier proceedings. Delon's Tom Ripley is a mystery, a man from a lower class background who sees the potential (however dark and morbid) to better himself. He adds some great touches to that morbidity, reveling in the moment when he should be horrified at what he's just done. A frightening performance, one that pulls you in to see if somehow, some way, Tom can pull it all off.

This was Delon's movie, and what a performance. That said, there isn't a weakness in the entire cast that features a handful of other key parts. Ronet is exceptionally unlikable as Philippe, the worst kind of person who's charming and good-looking and knows it, pushing the limits with everyone and anyone to see what he can get away with, especially Tom. Considering how Philippe treats him, you don't give a pass to Tom, but you at least understand what drove him to do what he does. Marie Laforet plays Marge, Philippe's fiance who is another frequent target of his outbursts, finding a friend of sorts in sympathetic Tom. Also look for Erno Crisa as a police inspector, Frank Latimore as a partying friend of Philippe's, and Billy Kearns as a more polished, suspicious friend of Philippe's.

I love movies like this with a story that's hanging on the edge. Will our protagonist be caught? Will he somehow pull it off? As I mentioned before, it's not that we're rooting for him, but that doesn't take away from the suspense. There are more scenes than I can mention, Tom's delicate plan hanging in the balance, maybe one mistake from everything blowing up in his face. The ending delivers an excellent twist too, one different from the 1999 version, and I'm curious to see what the novel's version is. A beautiful stylish movie with a scene-stealing, sinister Delon. A very easy movie to recommend.

Purple Noon (1960): ***/****

Miracle

When things are handled correctly, it's hard to beat a good, old-fashioned sports flick. Oh, and the story is based on a true story? Yeah, things just get a little bit easier. Sometimes it ends up being the craziest, no way in hell this could possibly happen angles of the story that end up being the most effective. Case in point, the story of the 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team that captivated viewers, eventually earning a film adaptation with 2004's Miracle.

It's early in 1979 and the upcoming 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York are fast approaching. For years, the Russian hockey team has rolled through opponents like a buzz saw, destroying opponents left and right. The United States Olympic Committee is trying to do something about that epic winning streak, hiring a former player turned college coach at Minnesota, Herb Brooks (Kurt Russell), to put together a winning team that can make some noise at the upcoming Olympic games. Brooks takes the job but intends to go about putting the team together in his way, regardless of what the U.S.O.C. really thinks or wants. With little expected of the American team, Brooks decides on his team at tryouts and goes to work. His methods are tough, his players bristling at times at his authority, but Brooks isn't interested in making friends. He's interested in making this American hockey team something special, a team that could be on a collision course with the Russian powerhouse. 

Whether you're a hockey fan, a sports fan, or maybe even hate sports, this is a story that resonates. Audiences typically eat up underdog stories, and this is one of the all-time greats in U.S. sports history. Read about the true story HERE with more details. I've never been a huge hockey fan, and that's a big reason it took me most of 10 years to actually watch this. It was worth the wait, director Gavin O'Connor's film more than delivering the goods. 'Miracle' covers a lot of ground from Brooks' hiring to his choosing the team, their training to the actual Olympic games. Unless you've been under a rock for years, you no doubt know how the movie will end, but O'Connor's film does a good job keeping us interested (knowledge of the finale or not), building that momentum right up until the famous semifinal matchup with the powerhouse that was the Russian National team. It's nothing flashy, nothing we haven't seen in sports flicks before, but it is very good from beginning to end.

Kurt Russell is the Man. That is all. He hasn't worked a ton in film over the last 10-plus years, but this is one solid performance. He sinks his teeth into the part of Herb Brooks, the U.S. hockey team's head coach who goes about motivating his team under some unique circumstances. He isn't interested in being a friend to his players, even a casual acquaintance. Brooks is interested in one thing and one thing only; Winning. Russell's Brooks wants a team of hockey players, not a team of hockey stars and on-ice divas who make the game all about themselves. He pushes and pushes his players, knowing what it will take to pull off the impossible. The trick becomes, has he pushed them too far? I loved the performance from Russell (especially his late 70s/early 80s apparel. Those COATS!), the biggest and most important part that brings the real-life Brooks to life. Also look for Patricia Clarkson as Brooks' wife, struggling with the time commitment, and Noah Emmerich and Kenneth Welsh as his assistant coach and team doctor.

If I had an issue with the story, it is that with the focus on Brooks and the team, we don't get to know enough of the players, their history and their backgrounds. Yes, there's 20 players and there's no human way to introduce all of them, delve into all those back stories. Still, an effort for a little more depth would have been excellent. The biggest focus is on Eddie Cahill as Jim Craig, the U.S. team's goalie struggling with some personal and family issues.  Also look for Patrick O'Brien Dempsey, Michael Mantenuto, Nathan West, Kenneth Mitchell, and Eric Peter-Kaiser as the more visible of the U.S. team members.  

My counter to that previous statement is to shoot holes in said statement. Brook's intention as a coach was to bring a team together. Truly bring a team together, the players putting their egos aside for the sake of the team and for their country, the United States. In that sense, the focus of the film is on the team effort, not the individual effort. We don't necessarily need to know a whole lot about the players. As sappy or cheesy as it sounds, this is a movie patriotism and national pride, a story that if you didn't know it was true....you'd think this was some schmaltzy Hollywood script. So in the end, it is both good and bad. The effort is solid, a team's effort to win the Olympics, not the individual players, but I definitely would have liked a little more character development among the U.S. team members. Now that said.....U-S-A, U-S-A!!!

With sports movies sometimes, the biggest weakness is usually....well, the sports. The portrayal of said sport can be a tad rough and/or forced at times. I thought the hockey sequences were great here, whether it is the brutal training the U.S. team goes through (the painful 'Again...' scene following an Olympic warm-up, watch HERE) to the actual games, especially an early game against Sweden that comes down to the wire. The best sequence is of course, the epic showdown with Russia that gave the film its title, broadcaster Al Michaels infamously yelling 'Do you believe in miracles?!?' as the clock winds down. The game is one big drain on your adrenaline, so many up and down moments as the momentum switches back and forth. The actual gold medal game is an afterthought, the focus instead on the semifinals with the Russians. A very enjoyable sports movie, full of a handful of great, memorable moments and featuring an underrated performance from star Kurt Russell.

Miracle (2004): ***/****

The Art of the Steal

Here's a trend that's been developing over the last 10-15 years in Hollywood, one I see popping up more and more in recent years. Well, basically since The Sixth Sense first appeared in 1999. Movies aren't just interested in pulling a fast one on you with a great twist. They're obsessed with doing it. That's all fine and good until it becomes so ridiculously forced that said twist almost ruins the process of getting there. Case in point, 2013's The Art of the Steal, one I'm still mulling over.

Working with a small crew that includes his brother, Nicky (Matt Dillon), longtime thief and getaway driver Crunch Calhoun (Kurt Russell) has pulled off another job at a Polish art museum, getting away with an authentic Gauguin. Well....almost. Nicky gets picked up by the police and facing a stiff sentence if he's found guilty, turns Crunch in. Crunch serves five-plus years in prison, getting out and becoming a stunt motorcycle driver, that is until he's forced to team up with Nicky and the old crew again for one very lucrative job. One of the first books by Johannes Gutenberg has been stolen in Europe and is now just sitting at a border station in Canada, just waiting to be transported into the United States. Can Crunch, Nicky and the crew pull off the job? They've only got a couple days, an art expert coming to verify the book in just a few days. The job is one thing, but can Crunch trust Nicky?

Have you heard of this movie? Yeah, me neither. I don't believe it got any theatrical release in the U.S., but I found it on Netflix and here we sit. I love a good heist movie, and the cast seemed pretty promising for a movie that got little to no release, director Jonathan Sobol also writing the screenplay. It's nothing hugely special or out of this world, but I was entertained throughout. The style borrows here and there from other better, far better known heist flicks, especially the Ocean's movies. We get on-screen graphics telling us where we are -- Quebec City, Detroit (Yeah, not as glamorous) -- and narration laying the groundwork for everything, including giving the crew cute nicknames like the Idea Man, the Forger and others. You get the idea. If you like heist movies, you'll get some enjoyment out of it. How much? That's up to you.

The basic premise is pretty straightforward, playing on the all-too-familiar "one last big job." Russell's Crunch quickly knocks that myth out, stating there's no such thing....well, sorta. Give some background, introduce the personalities and some conflict, lay out the impossible objective to rob and let the hijinks begin. Nothing too crazy there. 'Art' does a good job in that department, following the formula and usually letting the tone stay pretty light. There's some genuinely good laughs sprinkled throughout the fast-moving 90-minute feature. That comes from, not surprisingly, the cast.

You know what? Kurt Russell is really cool. It's one of those things I knew, I was aware of, but it's nice to get a reminder sometimes. His last major studio release was 2007's Death Proof (he's currently filming Fast and Furious 7) so even in a smaller-scale story like this, it's cool to see him do his cool, smooth anti-hero type. Dillon is Dillon, the treacherous me-first brother who just know is up to no good. He pickpockets a young Asian girl for goodness sake!!! As for the rest of the crew, also look for Jay Baruchel as Francie, Crunch's young protege who hasn't been involved in a heist before, Kenneth Welsh as Paddy McCarthy, the smooth Irishman who knows everybody and everything, Chris Diamantopoulos as Guy, the smooth French forger, and Katheryn Winnick as Lola, Crunch's younger girlfriend. Some fun characters, some recognizable names, all of them looking like they're having fun with the stylish caper.

Also worth mentioning is Terence Stamp as Samuel Winter, an infamous thief in his own right, now working with Interpol to earn an early release on his very, very long prison sentence. Stamp shows off his subtle comedic chops as he works with Jason Jones' Interpol Agent Bick. He has little use for the driven Bick, his underplayed digs and insults providing some of the biggest laughs in 'Art' as well as his scene with Russell's Crunch.

And yes, then there's that twist. No, that's not spot-on. TwistSSSSSSSS. Movies aren't content anymore with just one twist or even two. They've got to blow you out of the water with one out of left field twist after another until it becomes indecipherable. Who's that? What's happening? What's going on? It's a heist movie. You know, just know, there is a twist coming, but here the entire last 30 minutes is one new revelation on top of another to the point it just becomes overkill. It doesn't ruin the movie, but the non-stop revelations and twists to get to be a little much. A better movie than I was expecting overall but enough is enough at a certain point. Worth recommending though for sure. A solid, enjoyable heist/caper flick.

The Art of the Steal (2013): ** 1/2 /****

Pompeii

The age of the historical epics and period pieces unfortunately seems to be a thing of the past. Sure, there's still an occasional epic out there, but not nearly as many as there used to be in the genre's heyday, the 1950s and 1960s. Why? My guess is on that money thing. These are expensive movies. Real expensive. So now when we do see epics come along, gotta eat them up. Released this February, 2014's Pompeii struggled in theaters. What's the verdict? I for one, liked it a lot.

In 62 A.D. in Britannia, a tribe of Celtic horsemen are brutally massacred by Roman legions commanded by Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland). One of the few survivors is a young boy who sees his mother and father cut down in the battle, but he is captured by slavers days later and sold into slavery. Some 17 years later, the boy is now a grown man, Milo (Kit Harington), a gladiator known simply as 'the Celt.' His reputation grows with each brutal fight he wins to the point he's being sent to Italy to fight, leaving the Roman provinces behind him. The Celt is part of a large group of gladiators sent to Pompeii where he will fight as part of an upcoming festival to the gods. Traveling to the city, Milo helps a beautiful young Roman woman, Cassia (Emily Browning), when her carriage is stopped, but they're immediately separated. The new gladiators head into Pompeii, but a nearby volcano, Mount Vesuvius is showing signs of a coming eruption. What will happen in the gorgeous Roman vacation city? Will Milo survive the coming fights to find Cassia?

Made for anywhere between $80 and $100 million, this historical epic from director Paul W.S. Anderson received generally negative reviews this winter, making a little under $25 million in the U.S. but doing decent elsewhere, racking up about $97 million in box office. A push if anything overall financially, not a dud, not a huge success. Why the struggles? Well, there's some good and bad. The cast -- while good I thought -- doesn't feature a single huge star. Lots of recognizable faces but not necessarily anyone who's going to pull in the audiences. As well, if you've seen any number of historical epics set in ancient times from Roman to Greek to Britannia, you're going to be more than a tad familiar with the characters, story and sticky situations that develop. Is that a bad thing? That's going to depend on how much you enjoy and appreciate movies like this.

I'm a sucker for certain types of movies; westerns, war, heist and....yes, historical epics. I liked 'Pompeii' a lot. I was entertained from the get-go and loved going along for the ride. It's my go-to move in describing movies like this. It doesn't re-write the genre, doesn't do anything crazy unique or original. What is it then? It is damn entertaining, like a throwback to the heyday of the historical epics. In the vein of more recent film epics like Gladiator and 300 to TV shows like Spartacus and Rome, it is familiar. No doubt about that from the noble gladiators to the slimy, evil Romans. If you're a fan of the similarly themed 1950s/1960s epics, I think you'll enjoy this one. Don't expect anything that will blow you out of the water, but instead, a good, old-fashioned quasi-epic that's fun, entertaining and action-packed from beginning to end.

No stars, no problem here. Almost all the characters are archetypal characters, everything from the gladiator, the veteran gladiator, the evil Roman, the $ for eyes businessman, the sinister gladiator trainer, the beautiful, perfect young woman. You get the gist. A star of HBO's Game of Thrones, Harington is a very solid lead, a man of few words, an anti-hero looking for revenge. Russell Crowe in Gladiator is an obvious influence on the character, especially Milo's rivalry turned friendship with Atticus, a veteran gladiator a fight away from winning his freedom, played by a scene-stealing Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. Harington obviously gets the love interest too, Browning playing Cassia, the pretty girl who needs to be rescued. It's the love at first sight back story, two lovers just meant to be together with everything else be damned.

Who else to look for? The only real weak spot is Jack Bauer himself, Kiefer Sutherland as the evil Roman villain, a legion commander turned senator, Corvus. Speaking in some sort of English accent (your guess is as good as mine), it's that over the top, so ridiculously evil bad guy you can't help but laugh. His loyal and equally sinister right-hand man, Proculus, is played by Sasha Roiz. Also look for Jared Harris and Carrie Anne-Moss as Cassia's parents, looking for some civic improvements (silly Romans), Jessica Lucas as Cassia's friend and servant, Joe Pingue as the owner of the gladiator school and Currie Graham as Bellator, the brutal gladiator trainer.

Now for those not so historically-inclined readers, the background for the 'Pompeii' is the horrifically violent eruption of Mount Vesuvius in the year 79 A.D. An estimated 16,000 people were killed in the eruption, Vesuvius spewing stones, ash and fumes 21 miles (21 miles!!!) into the air. The eruption is saved for the last 40-minutes and features some impressive special effects work, the CGI blending pretty seamlessly (with a couple horse-riding sequences standing out negatively). It's disaster flick meets historical epic, and the results are solid across the board. There's something horrifying about watching this display of nature's power, knowing this all really happened. It's a very cool extended sequence, all sorts of natural hell unleashed at the people of Pompeii.

Getting there is a lot of fun too, including one epic gladiatorial battle in Pompeii's arena, Milo, Atticus and a few other gladiators doing battle in a reenactment of the battle that claimed Milo's parents and tribe. Another big-time nod to Gladiator? Oh, yes, completely, but it's exciting. I am curious if the movie would have done better in theaters with an R-rating (the violence could and should have been pretty graphic) but as is, it certainly gets the blood and adrenaline flowing. A movie that was a lot of fun. Probably not for everyone, and as mentioned, it doesn't rewrite the genre. Give it a shot though. A whole lot of fun.

Pompeii (2014): ***/****

Jet Pilot

Dr. Stangelove. Fail Safe. The Manchurian Candidate. The Bedford Incident. There. That's four classic films about the Cold War, and that's only four. There's countless others worth mentioning, but it would be overkill to list them all. You know what kind of film hasn't been made about the Cold War? I bet you can't guess. Okay, here goes. It's a romantic comedy! Yeah, it threw me off too, but here we are with the truly odd and often painful 1957 flick, Jet Pilot.

Stationed at a remote airstrip and base somewhere along the west coast (maybe even Alaska), Air Force colonel Jim Shannon (John Wayne) is more than a little surprised when he gets a report that a Russian jet is circling his base. It isn't making an offensive move or showing any aggression, but what could the pilot want? The jet is finally forced to land, but Shannon is in for a bigger surprise. The pilot is a woman, Anna Marladovna (Janet Leigh), and she is a refugee, not a defector as she runs from certain death back in Russia for refusing to oblige an order from a commandant. Under some not so intimidating question, Anna gives up nothing, forcing Shannon to go to his superiors. What do they want him to do? Well, nothing. Anna seems drawn to Shannon so play along with it, see if anything comes from their chemistry....and maybe more. Oh, my!

Last month via Twitter (it's not all bad), I won a new John Wayne biography from author Scott Eyman, John Wayne: The Life and Legend (highly recommended), and raced through it in about a week. A great read, a great window into one of my favorite actors and a true Hollywood legend. I loved catching up with so many movies I hadn't seen in years and also realized there's a fair number of his movies out there I've never seen. Case in point? Jet Pilot from director Josef von Sternberg and apparently quite a few other directors. Why do you ask? A "checkered production" would be a fair description of this flick with backing from the always interesting Howard Hughes. Beginning filming in 1949 and continuing until 1950, it was "filmed" for three or four more years -- depending on the source -- and was caught up in a lawsuit, eventually hitting theaters in 1957. As Eyman points out, some reviewers commented "How young are stars look in this movie!" They should. It was from a different decade.

This is one of the Wayne flicks I had no experience with, and let me tell you, that was probably a really good thing. This one is a stinker, really only worthwhile as a truly dated time capsule of a turbulent time in U.S. history. You'd never think it would be easy to minimize the possibility of a nuclear apocalypse to a romantic comedy of sorts, but 'Jet' manages to do it. The story becomes a love story between Wayne's Shannon and Leigh's Anna, the American officer introducing the Russian pilot to all the great things America has to offer. Oh, steak! Oh, champagne! I'd say for most of an hour the whole Russian defector thing is almost completely ignored as we see Shannon and Anna fall hard for each other -- oh, no, tortured love!!! -- and then eventually getting back to business. It's also laughable to think in the midst of the Cold War the American government and armed forces would allow anything even remotely like this to develop, but I'm probably nit-picking, right? Sure, let the Russian pilot and possible spy fly our newly developed jets!

What's truly odd about this is that general tone, that complete lack of urgency or fear or suspicion. This is a really bizarre movie from the get-go. What's really bizarre is that in a sea of oddness and mediocrity both John Wayne and Janet Leigh are pretty good together. They have a legitimate chemistry...it just so happens to be in a story about a defecting Russian pilot in the Cold War. Late in the story, things become a cat and mouse game back and forth, but their development as a budding relationship works surprisingly well. It's odd that we're even watching this develop, but so be it. Make the best of a bad situation and go with it. Now that said, their chemistry is good but that doesn't always translate or even make the story interesting. I still found myself fast-forwarding a lot as the 45-minute mark came around.

As for the rest of the cast, look for Paul Fix as Wayne's second-in-command, Jay C. Flippen, Richard Rober and John Bishop as the three government/military geniuses who concoct the seduction plan,
with Roland Winters as Anna's commanding officer back in mother Russia. Also look for Denver Pyle in an uncredited part as a young husband traveling with his wife. Lovely Anna lets them stay in their spacious hotel room! Why in Russia, room is so little, but here in America! Yeah, you'd be surprised how many conversations there are like this in a painfully long 112-minute movie.

It's probably best to view this 1957 Cold War flick as a novelty. There is some very cool aerial footage of jets roaring across the sky, but those planes have to land at some point, allowing that dang story to get in the way. Other than that, it's pretty rough. Be forewarned going into this one and don't be surprised. For real. It's awful, and I'll defend just about anything John Wayne was involved with. Okay, Janet Leigh vamps it up some, undressing in quite a few scenes and putting on a fashion show for the Duke in others. So there, it's not all awful. Just most of it.

Jet Pilot (1957): */****

Mr. 3000

Maybe more than any other sport, baseball loves its numbers, records and milestones. Cal Ripken's streak of games played, Hank Aaron's home run record, Cy Young's wins total, Nolan Ryan's strikeouts, Pete Rose's hits total. There are certain milestones that if you reach during your MLB career, you become a legend, an icon, and usually, a Hall of Famer. It is the driving force behind this 2004 comedy, Mr. 3000.

It's the 1995 MLB season and the Milwaukee Brewers are in the midst of a pennant race. Their star player, first baseman Stan Ross (Bernie Mac), though is focused on bigger and better, or at least more personal things. He's edging ever closer to getting his 3,000th career hit, a mark that will put him in an elite club in baseball history. When Ross gets that historic hit, he shocks everyone, retiring in the middle of the season with the Brewers poised to make a big playoff run. Some nine years pass, and Ross is edging closer and closer to being voted into the Hall of Fame, just a few votes needed to put him over the top. Not so fast though, a clerical error is found in his stats. Stan doesn't have 3,000 hits. He has 2,997 career hits, putting his Hall of Fame status in serious doubt. His only alternative? Almost a decade out of baseball, Stan signs with the Brewers late in the season -- a disappointing season at that -- with hopes of chalking up three more hits, getting him back to 3,000 and back into the Hall of Fame conversation.

I love baseball. Love just about everything about it. So baseball movies? Yeah, I'm already in line with everything from Field of Dreams to Major League, The Sandlot to Bull Durham. Even the bad movies can be good in a guilty pleasure sort of way. And that's where Mr. 3000 falls. From director Charles Stone III (he also created and starred in the Budweiser 'Whassup?' commercials), '3000' just isn't a good movie. Is it mildly entertaining? Yes. But as a quality story, nope, no way. It's an easy movie to sit back and kinda turn your brain off. As a baseball fan, it has a handful of good moments but mostly drifts along. I'll give it credit where it's due. The ending provides a twist of sorts, but it is definitely hinted at so if you're paying attention early, you should see what's coming. That said, it still works for the characters and story.

You know what I like in movies? A likable character. No, not 4 or 8 or 15. I settle for one likable character, and this movie has N-O-N-E. The Stan Ross character is a crossbreed between Barry Bonds (a lovable, cuddly player if there ever was) and Charles Barkley (who's become a fan favorite and very likable after retiring courtesy of his TV gig) so we're intentionally not supposed to like him but come on. Give us something here. Bernie Mac was a very funny comedian, but talk about an awful character. All about himself to the point of being stereotypically over the top -- he actually rips his 3,000th hit ball away from a little kid -- that even when he goes through a character "arc" you're not really rooting for him. He tries to get back together with a past love (Angela Bassett), an ESPN reporter who blatantly roots for him in the press box, but even that can't humanize him too much. His more redeeming moments come when Stan realizes how much he's done wrong, but the script requires him to quickly punt on that thought when Jay Leno wants him to come onto his show. Screw practice, let's go talk to Jay Leno!!!

So unlikable main character? Check. Let's flesh things out with more unlikable characters! Chris Noth is the slimy Brewers GM who sees a chance for some $ while Michael Rispoli plays Stan's only friend, Boca, a former teammate who now works as a bartender at Ross' bar. Why are they friends? Because....yeah, that's never illustrated. His Brewers teammates include T-Rex Pennebaker (Brian White), a preening, me-first slugging outfielder, Fukuda (Ian Anthony Dale), a Japanese pitcher learning to curse in English, Fryman (Evan Jones), the likable catcher, and Minadeo (Amaury Nolasco) and Skillet (Dondre Whitfield), the bickering middle infielders who compete over everything. Paul Sorvino is silent for 89 minutes of a 104-minute movie, not speaking until almost 90 minutes in, as the Brewers' old school manager.

Not a truly bad movie, but pretty close. It is mildly entertaining, and that's all. The baseball scenes don't scream out authenticity, and Bernie Mac doesn't exactly look like a baseball player at any point. You're not really rooting for anyone, and even the ending provides a cop-out after that semi-decent twist in the final game of the season. A pretty meh movie overall.

Mr. 3000 (2004): * 1/2 /****

Stagecoach

The western genre is all but dead, it has been for most of 30-plus years if not more. It is the genre I've always been drawn to, making it that much harder to say that it is in fact, dead. Over three decades though, the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s though, the success of the western was astronomical, both in film and later on television. What was the first truly great western though? From one of Hollywood's strongest years as a whole, here's 1939's Stagecoach.

In Tonto, Arizona in 1880, a stagecoach is preparing to hit the trail, making several stops along the way before reaching its ultimate destination, the town of Lordsburg in the New Mexico territory. The trip will be anything but easy though, rumors of Apache chief Geronimo on the warpath burning ranches and killing everyone they ride across. With a full load of passengers, including a prostitute, Dallas (Claire Trevor), being kicked out of town, as well as a drunken doctor, Doc Boone (Thomas Mitchell), in a similar situation, the stagecoach leaves the town into the wilderness. Before they can even reach their first stop, they pick up another passenger, the Ringo Kid (John Wayne), an outlaw who's escaped from prison and is looking for some revenge on certain people in Lordsburg. Can Ringo make it? Can the stagecoach make it through or will they run into an Apache war party?

In Hollywood history, it's hard to dispute a stronger year than 1939 with Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Wuthering Heights, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and today's review, Stagecoach just some of the classics released that year. From director John Ford (a man with a few decent movies to his name), this is the first true classic western. What sets this western apart? Well, for starters, it is a straightforward, brutally well-told story. It is crisp, fast-moving without being rushed, and packs a whole lot of excitement, development and action in a quick 96-minute running time. You take for granted what a movie like this can be. It won't blow you away, and the formula has been attempted countless times in the years since, but the original is still the best. From the debut of Monument Valley as the backdrop for more than a few Ford/Wayne westerns to the story and the characters, we've got a real classic on our hands.

Above all else -- including its status as a great western -- is that this Ford-directed western helped propel John Wayne, the Duke himself, into stardom. Relegated to B-westerns/serials for almost 10 years after The Big Trail bombed, Wayne does not disappoint here. In his first starring role in a so-called 'A-film' in almost a decade, he shows off that natural, easygoing charm that audiences would come to love about Wayne. He never looked like he was forcing anything, just going with it. His entrance is a classic in itself, a sequence that screams "Look at me, big things are on the horizon!" as Ford's camera zooms in on the Ringo Kid as the stagecoach approaches. Wayne would deliver better performances but the 31-year old actor is a scene-stealer here. Hollywood, say hello again to John Wayne. He isn't going anywhere for quite awhile.

Trivia time. Wayne actually wasn't the top-credited actor in Stagecoach, that honor going to Claire Trevor at the head of a very solid ensemble cast. Ford is very subtle in giving Trevor's Dallas' background, i.e. that she's a prostitute. It was 1939, and that sorta thing was frowned upon in film. I love the character and more than that, I love her chemistry with Wayne's Ringo. These are two people living almost as outcasts, drawn together in a hellish situation. Just two solid performances as is Mitchell -- who won Best Supporting Actor -- in a part that treads that fine line between overacting and just chewing the scenery some. As for the rest of the passengers look for Buck (Andy Devine), the worrisome driver,  Hatfield (John Carradine), a gambler with a reputation, traveling to look out for the very pregnant Lucy Mallory (Louise Platt) who's traveling west to meet her husband, Curley (George Bancroft), the sheriff riding shotgun for Buck, Peacock (Donald Meek), a whiskey salesman, and Gatewood (Berton Churchill), a banker running away with his own money.

Ford was a director of characters, visuals and straightforward stories (for the most part). His films aren't necessarily known for their action scenes. If anything, his bigger set pieces are often underplayed. That's the case here showcasing a shootout between the Ringo Kid and three rivals. Ford actually cuts away from the action right as the guns go off, and instead we see other characters' reactions around town to the shootout. It's an inspired, gutsy choice that is frustrating but stylistically, it works. As for the more visual aspect, an Indian war party roaring after the stagecoach across the smooth desert sand is amazing to watch, featuring some of the most impressive stunts I've ever seen. It's the both of best worlds.

Just a great movie. Monument Valley is absolutely stunning, visually setting the rhythm of the film as a tiny stagecoach travels across the wide expanses of the American west. What awaits them? In that wilderness, anything could. An uncredited musical score from Gerard Carbonara is perfectly suited to the story as well in a film that doesn't have a weakness. It influenced just about every western that came along after it, not to mention other films from countless other genres. It is a classic for a reason for any number of reasons to Ford's directing to the appearance of Monument Valley to the iconic, star-making performance from star John Wayne. All movie fans should see this one.

Stagecoach (1939): ****/****