Crossfire Trail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herbie: Fully Loaded

What's your dream car from film and television? I've got a bunch. The 1960s Batmobile, Steve McQueen's Mustang from 1968's Bullitt, and a bunch more I'm forgetting in the moment. There's one though that rises above the rest. I'd love to own Herbie the Love Bug, the Volkswagen Bug who has starred in five theatrical flicks and one TV movie. I grew up watching Herbie movies and recently caught up with the only entry I'd never seen before, 2005's Herbie: Fully Loaded.

With a college degree under her arm and a job as an assistant producer at ESPN waiting for her in a few weeks, Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan) gets a graduation present from her Dad, Ray (Michael Keaton). The Peytons are a third generation racing family with Ray working as team owner and crew chief, his son the team's lead driver. Maggie has always wanted to get into racing but a past street racing incident ended that dream. Now, she'll have to settle for this present from her Dad, a beat-up looking 1963 Volkswagen Bug named Herbie that certainly looks well past its prime. This is not any old VW Bug though, something Maggie figures out immediately. Herbie has a mind of his own and Maggie and her mechanic friend, Kevin (Justin Long), think they can rehab the car and build it back up into a worthy racing car. They could be in for some trouble when cocky Nascar champ Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon) gets on their bad side and he wants nothing more than to take Herbie apart.

I love Herbie. I loved the original The Love Bug growing up, and I still love it now. I really like the second sequel Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, and.....yes, I can sit through the generally pretty bad Herbie Rides Again and Herbie Goes Bananas. I never intentionally avoided this 2005 quasi-reboot, but I never actively sought it out. From director Angela Robinson, 'Loaded' isn't great and it isn't awful.  The story is a bit of a rework of The Love Bug (how Herbie gets into racing) and Monte Carlo (Herbie in love) with an occasional tweak here and there. It made a ton of money -- $140-plus million -- in theaters and is innocent enough fun. If it isn't necessarily good, it does the Herbie character and franchise right.

Remember back in 2005 when Lindsay Lohan was a sure-fire star? She seemed destined to be a legit huge star following 2004's massively successful Mean Girls before some personal problems ranging from addiction to plastic surgery and assorted other things did their best to derail her career. You can't call her a great actress, but she is a good actress, natural and likable here. The rumor mill says that Disney Studios digitally reduced Lohan's breasts on-screen so that's pretty crazy if you think about it. Now all that said...the story does seem to be an excuse to doll Lohan up and put her in all sorts of tight, low-cut and mini-skirt options. Not a complaint, just an observation.

There is a decent cast on hand here so that definitely helps. Along with Michael Keaton as Maggie's Dad, there's Breckin Meyers as her race car driving brother and Cheryl Hines as one of the few remaining sponsors for the Peyton racing team. Justin Long gets romance duty, the shaggy haired mechanic working with Maggie who maybe...just maybe may end up with her. Tough part, huh? Backing up the geared-up Dillon as our evil villain, Trip, there's Jimmi Simpson as his goofy assistant, Crash, and Thomas Lennon (who also helped write the story and screenplay) as his manager/brother. Also look for Scoot McNairy briefly as a member of the pit crew. Some familiar parts from an after school special, but there's some talent on display.

Enough with all that garbage though. What about Herbie? Through the wonders of computer-generated images, Herbie is a little more anthropomorphic as we meet him. The former racing champion, Herbie the VW Bug has fallen on hard times and is rescued from the junk heap by Maggie. Can he reacquire his magic? The iconic visual is there, the white Bug with the red and blue stripe up his middle with the soft-cover top and the instantly recognizable '53' painted on his hood and side. His headlights are his eyes, his front hood his mouth, that sort of thing. We do get some crazy CGI moments that are a tad bit on the goofy side, but that's part of the Disney charm (albeit with better graphics). There is a fun scene late where Herbie gets "analyzed" by Nascar champions and fan favorites Jeff Gordon and Jimmie Johnson so stick with it through that. Also look for Tony Stewart, and Dale Jarrett.

Now I do have one kinda major complaint? If you ask me at least. The opening credits show a montage of Herbie racing clips from the previous movies. Yes, he's fallen on hard times and basically abandoned as a parts car. As he makes his triumphant return, NO ONE remembers him. NO ONE. How forgetful can people be? Yes, I know I'm overanalyzing a movie that's intended to be entertaining and fun with some cool racing scenes. But come on now, how can no one recognize this car?!? It's a VW Bug who can hold his own with Nascar cars and souped-up street racers. WHY DOES NO ONE QUESTION THIS? WHY DOES NO ONE REMEMBER THIS LITTLE CAR? Okay, breathe...breathe, I got that out of my system. Herbie fans should like it. I certainly did in a dumbed down revisit sort of way.

Herbie: Fully Loaded (2005): ** 1/2 /****

Next

So when did it all hit the fan for Nicolas Cage? I'm thinking it was somewhere around 2006 with the all-time classic remake The Wicker Man. He went from an actor who could play quirky roles to a quirky actor who just made (mostly) bad movies. There's been some good ones mixed in but not too many. Here's one of those quasi-duds, 2007's Next.

Working as a mildly successful performer in Las Vegas under the stage name Frank Cadillac, Cris Johnson (Cage) goes about his job and life as quietly as possible. Why exactly? Cris has a special power, one he's trying to keep under wraps. Cris can see two minutes into his own future, knowing exactly what awaits him around every corner and turn. His small-time gambling tendencies have caught the attention of the FBI, including Agent Callie Ferris (Julianne Moore), who wants to use Cris to help stop a terrorist attack. A nuclear bomb is believed to be transported into the U.S. and hopefully Cris can find out where and when it will be used. On the run for a run-in with the FBI in a casino, Cris is trying to figure it all, trying to piece it all together. It may all be connected to a mysterious woman (Jessica Biel) he can see far further into the future than his usual two-minute limit. Can he do it in time with millions of lives at stake?

When this science fiction-ish thriller was released in 2007, my brother-in-law saw the movie and said he liked it. How did he think I'd feel about it? Well, to put it lightly, I wouldn't like it....AT ALL. That recommendation -- or lack of -- helped me steer clear of 'Next' but I guess seven years or so was a long enough wait. This thriller from director Lee Tamahori is loosely based on a short story, The Golden Man, by Philip K. Dick. Is it good? Well, I'm curious to read Dick's short story because as I feel like I write far too often....a whole lot of potential that never really adds up. It's not a long movie, wrapping up nicely in a little under 90 minutes if you take away the closing credits. The biggest flaws come from an overuse of the gimmick, Cris' ability to see into the future. The idea is cool but it adds up the most crippling flaw of all in the finale.

It's Sixth Sense Syndrome again. Movies aren't content anymore to just have a regular old twist ending. It has to be a twist ending that completely comes out of left field with no warning. It doesn't have to make sense. It doesn't have to fit within the rules of what we've been told to this point. If you're going to have a character that can see into the future in a tight time window, so be it. Run with it. Don't adjust on the fly, and if I've got this twisting, steaming pile of an ending remotely figured out, that's exactly what happens here. A cop-out ending, and that is about the worst thing you can do as a writer/producer/director. Grow a pair and stick with an ending. The point here seems to be to completely confuse the viewer and manipulate them into thinking one thing only to have the carpet pulled out from under you. Now that's a way to create favor with your audience! Just an awful ending.

What I brought up earlier in the introduction is that Nicolas Cage has started to play a caricature of himself over recent years. Quirky overall, stilted acting, even more stilted line deliveries, violent, arm-throwing reactions. Maybe the oddest thing about Next? Cage is the least of the movie's concerns. His voiceover narration is a little overdone at times, and his hair looks pretty hair implant(y) but it's an interesting character. I would have loved some more background other than a few passing lines about his growing up, but the Cris character is certainly interesting from the get-go. Now that said, the script does provide Cage countless opportunities to run. Run away, run to someone, run down a mountain. There's just something truly hilarious about Cage running, trying to sprint at least, because he could be the slowest running actor in Hollywood history. He's pumping and pushing...and looks like he's running in quicksand.

The rest of the cast doesn't fare so well. Julianne Moore feels out of place and forced, her FBI agent whiny and worn down. Jessica Biel tries her best with a poorly written character but there just isn't any interest there. Her mystery woman supposedly holds the key to it all, but it amounts to nothing more than a damsel in distress though. Well, that's not completely fair. There's also her in various stages of undress, under a bed sheet, sporting a post-shower towel. That kind of PG-13 rated "nudity." Also look for Thomas Kretschmann as Mr. Smith, the uniquely named and very dull bad guy, Tory Kittles as Moore's FBI agent assistant, Jose Zuniga as a Vegas security chief, and screen/TV legend Peter Falk making an appearance as a friend of Cris. Except he's on-screen for about 85 seconds and then shuffles off. What's the point?

It is a movie that is missing something. We get little to no background for anything from Cris' history or even a remote explanation of his power to the complete lack of reasoning behind this upcoming terrorist attack. MacGuffins are one thing as Alfred Hitchcock proved time and time again, but you've got to draw a line somewhere, don't you? At no point does 'Next' find a rhythm or pacing, and it feels rushed from start to poorly executed finish. Meh, not good, just not good with wasted potential. Steer clear.

Next (2007): * 1/2 /****

Locke

Though he has worked regularly since 2001, Tom Hardy really seemed to hit his stride in 2011, starring in a string of movies that include Inception, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Warrior, This Means War, The Dark Knight Rises and Lawless. Next May, Hardy will even star in a Mad Max reboot. An actor and a movie star, a rare breed. Let's watch him do that dramatic thing, a movie equivalent of a one-man show, 2013's Locke.

It's quitting time at a construction site in Birmingham, England, and construction foreman and site manager Ivan Locke (Hardy) has a difficult night ahead of him. The next morning construction is scheduled to begin on one of the largest skyscrapers in the country, Locke having ramrodded the process the entire way. He has received a phone call though that could drastically change his job, his family and his life as a whole. Now as he drives from Birmingham to London to hopefully resolve the situation, everything Locke knows is now thrown for a loop. It's not a long ride in terms of distance, but for Locke? This is one ride that could take its toll on him.

Okay, let's get this out of the way. I liked this movie, liked it a lot from beginning to end. All that said, it is definitely a film that deserves some warning. 'Locke' is described as a drama (most appropriate) and a thriller (less appropriate) depending on the review you're reading. I'm going to do my best to offer no real spoilers because the development of the story is best served when you discover it as Locke does. But enough with that. What is this movie? This is a movie about a man driving on the expressway talking on his synced-up phone. That is it. That is all. He doesn't talk face-to-face with a single person. He doesn't get in a traffic accident/incident. For 84 minutes, Tom Hardy talks on the phone with a variety of people with a variety of issues. Just know that going in, and don't say you weren't forewarned.

Tom Hardy is one talented mother...well, you know what. I've written more than a few reviews of movies based on plays that remotely feel like those plays they're based on. This is about as close to a one-man play as we're going to get in a modern feature film. This is Hardy's movie from beginning to end -- a fast-moving, fast-paced 85 minutes -- as he makes the drive from Birmingham to London. There's the potential for it to derail quickly, but Hardy keeps it going at all times. You see the inner struggles, the personal demons tearing him apart as he processes a decision that he wasn't quite ready to make. The voice inflection changes as we hear calm and cool, calculated and thoughtful, upsetting and frustrated, and it can change from one to the other with a snap of his finger. At no point does it ever feel forced, the rhythm and pacing flowing smoothly from one phone call conversation to another. Wow. Just wow for Mr. Hardy, already one of my favorites and here cementing that status.

Hardy's movie, no doubt about it. He's the only person you actually see, but we do hear the conversations he's having. Listen for Olivia Colman, Ruth Wilson, Andrew Scott, Ben Daniels, Tom Holland and Bill Milner as the key voices at the other end of the line on the phone. Again, no spoilers, but it is definitely interesting to see the variety of responses and answers this small group of individuals responds to quite a trying situation. Nice voice work all around.

Replacing the stage is Hardy's Locke's car, our setting for almost the entire movie. We see Locke leave the work site and enter the car and from there, this is one car-bound movie. Director/screenplay writer Steven Knight keeps it visually interesting at all times. Told entirely at night, 'Locke' succeeds in the darkness. It's a movie that would not work in the daylight. The lights and traffic and lens flares add a nice visual dimension to the story. The camera is almost always moving, focusing on Hardy straight-on, from the side, as a peripheral almost. It may sound stupid to go into this much detail, but it is a smart, smooth style that isn't overpowering. It is a style that is content to be a quiet part of the story. Don't expect a crazy twist ending. Instead, 'Locke' has an ending that simply put, is human. It's real. 

Definitely not an easy movie to like. It's not your everyday thriller or drama. Something better, something entertaining and a film that deserves some buzz.

Locke (2013): *** 1/2 /****

Viva Max

From the time I watched Disney's Davy Crockett episodes, I was hooked to the story of the battle of the Alamo. I read all I could about one of Texas history's most infamous events. I watched every movie I could from John Wayne's The Alamo to 1955's The Last Command and everything in between. But 20-some years, one movie managed to steer clear of my grasp...until now that is. It took me years, but I finally tracked down 1969's Viva Max.

Along the U.S./Mexico border, a company of Mexican infantry from the Rio Nuevo garrison crosses the Rio Grande river, throwing the border patrol for a loop. Their commander, Lt. General Maximilian Rodrigues de Santos (Peter Ustinov), has told his men very little about what they're actually doing, instead keeping his plans close to his vest. What exactly is he up to? In 1960s Texas over 130 years since the actual battle, General Max intends to retake the Alamo mission, now an instantly recognizable landmark sought out by millions of tourists each year. What are his motives? Well, that's for Max to reveal at his choosing. Before Max and his small army are done, the San Antonio police (including Sheriff Harry Morgan), the National Guard (including General Jonathan Winters) and the Army (including General Keenan Wynn) are all going to get involved. How can they solve this ridiculous situation peaceably?

I visited San Antonio for the first time with my Dad when I was 10 years old where I bought one of my favorite books, Frank Thompson's Alamo Movies. I've done my best to track down and catch up with all of the listed movies, but this 1969 flick managed to avoid me. The catch? This movie from director Jerry Paris is a comedy, a screwball, physical comedy at that. Yes, you read it right. A movie about a horrific, bloody massacre is a comedy. A comedy!!! That was my biggest worry heading into a flick I've long wanted to see. It wasn't that it was going to be in poor taste. I assumed on that much. But how badly in poor taste was it going to be? I hold the Alamo story above almost all else and even have a distant relative/ancestor who fought and died there in 1836. Heroic efforts on both sides ending in costly casualties. Should you even remotely touch that in the comedy department?

Just know going in that you probably will be offended at some point during this film because of that subject matter. Now all that said, I enjoyed this 1969 comedy a whole lot. Yeah, it is dumb, even stupid at times. Some efforts at physical, goofy humor fall short but as a whole? It's funny as the more subtle gags and lines work because of a talented cast stepping to the plate. This ain't rocket science but 'Max' is funny. As an Alamo buff, one thing stands out above all else. San Antonio and the Alamo allowed 'Max' to film on the mission grounds in downtown San Antonio. To film A LOT. All the footage works as a behind the scenes look at the Alamo a lot. What's left of the mission is almost miniscule compared to what the Alamo looked like in 1836 (check it out HERE), but it works as a backdrop where a Hollywood backlot wouldn't have. Issues with the humor/story aside, the visual works in effortless fashion.

Playing our title character, Ustinov throws himself into the part as Max, a Mexican general who inspires....well, no faith in his men, and that becomes his motivation. I won't give it away completely, but his motives for retaking the Alamo are far from historical reasons, revenge reasons or basically anything you'd think. His motives? Far more personal. Ustinov -- heavily tanned -- has a lot of fun with the part with his Max, a generally quiet guy who's a bit of a dandy, a bit of a doof and pretty oblivious to just about everything around him. He gets some especially funny scenes with a beautiful young woman (Pamela Tiffin) who has an odd request of the Mexican general as she's captured inside the Alamo. His right-hand man, Sergeant Valdez (scene-stealing John Astin), tries to keep his men in line and his general at the front...something that proves harder than you'd think. A very funny performance for Ustinov.

The whole cast doesn't disappoint. We're not talking subtle, smart laughs, but usually big goofy laughs and moments. Morgan, Winters and Wynn split time in the clueless command spots, Winters especially getting some laughs as the politically correct, generally inept National Guard general. I loved Astin's part, the underplayed performance as Valdez, Max's loyal, capable sergeant. Also look for Alice Ghostley as a paranoid prisoner convinced Max and his men are Chinese Communists, Kenneth Mars as her ultra-patriotic nephew with a para-military group, and Ann Morgan Guilbert (Paris' co-star and on-screen wife in The Dick Van Dyke Show) and Bill McCutcheon as a married couple who Max's infantry comes across. Also look for Gino Conforti and Larry Hankin as two of the more visible/vocal troops in Max's makeshift army.

I probably shouldn't have liked this movie, but I did. It cracked me up in all its badness. An early on-screen message says 'No one mentioned in this movie is real except for Davy Crockett, Jim Bowie, William Travis, John Wayne and Richard Widmark.' John Wayne's Alamo becomes a running gag at times, him and Widmark's name becoming passwords and countersigns as the "battle" develops. It's those smaller, quieter and smarter moments that work, especially Max's version of Travis' line in the sand moment. Still, I liked it throughout, a mindless but very entertaining way to spend 90-plus minutes. Worth tracking down if you can.

Viva Max (1969): ***/****

The Shepherd of the Hills

With 1939's Stagecoach, John Wayne put himself on the map, shaking off almost a decade of B-westerns and serials that seemed to be at the time, his future. So what to do next? You've gotta find that next successful part. Wayne struggled for a stretch. He was in some pretty good movies but not necessarily great roles for him. One of those in-between flicks? That's 1941's The Shepherd of the Hills.

In a tight-knit mountain community in the Ozarks, families on their farms and their businesses go about their lives as normal. Well, almost normal. High up in the mountains, the Matthews family, including matriarch, Aunt Mollie (Beulah Bondi), and hen-pecked Uncle Matt (James Barton), has quite the reputation over the years, full of hate and anger as they sell their moonshine. A young woman, Sally Lane (Betty Field), living with her father has always been on good terms with the Matthews, especially their nephew, Matt (Wayne), but the delicate balance with the community and the moonshining Matthews could change when a stranger (Harry Carey) arrives in town. The man, Daniel Howitt, wants to buy a piece of land that has the legend of being cursed. Who doesn't want him to buy that land? That would be young Matt Matthews with his own reasons for revenge.

Based on a bestselling novel from author Harold Bell Wright of the same name, 'Shepherd' was aired on Turner Classic Movies in....April as part of a John Wayne tribute. Yeah, it took me a little while to get around to it, but here we are just the same. Reading into comparisons between the film and the novel, it sounds like the only thing in common is the title and setting itself. Director Henry Hathaway's film is content to march to its own tune. Is that a good thing? Eh, we'll get to that (read: No, not especially). What is positive? This is a beautiful film, just drop dead gorgeous. 'Shepherd' was filmed on location in Big Bear Valley, California filling in quite nicely for the Ozarks. Filmed in Technicolor, it is a doozy of a visual film, the colorful, natural landscapes absolutely filling the screen. What a movie to watch, appreciate and enjoy.

Now jumping off from the stunning visual look....well, it doesn't. In an effort to bring the mountain life into 3-D real life, I felt like 'Shepherd' simply tries too hard to make the story, setting and characters authentic. You want to get that backwoods, homespun feel across, but as several other movies have shown, it's tough. Think of Tobacco Road or God's Little Acre, movies that end up making stereotypes of its characters and settings. Yeah, that's pretty much the case here. All the people living in this mountain community are too folksy. They believe in voodoo, crazy grudges and are just too 'Gee golly' for their own good. Stretched out over a 98-minute movie, it all gets to be a little much for my liking. Just present the story and characters and see what happens. When their backwoods folksiness is shoved down our throats, the end result is highly disappointing.

So that John Wayne fella? In an ensemble cast, Wayne ends up being more of a supporting player. His Young Matt Matthews is a key character who simply isn't in the movie much. His reasons for revenge provide the jumping off point that takes quite awhile to get going. Instead, the story focuses on countless different characters, Carey's Daniel at the front of that list as he affects the lives of so many. Carey (Harry Carey Jr.'s father) delivers a solid performance, pleasant and easygoing, trying to buy land in this mountain valley where no one else will. Field is pretty good too as the innocent Sally, trying to introduce Daniel to the community. Bondi is pretty evil as Mollie and she's good at it. Also look for Ward Bond, Marc Lawrence, John Qualen and Tom Fadden in supporting parts.

This is one of the few John Wayne movies I hadn't seen a single second of. From the early 1940s, it's one of his flicks that isn't particularly good or particularly bad. Not especially memorable, 'Shepherd' is okay at best, rough at others and with some wasted potential in others. You especially see the potential in Wayne, still figuring himself as an actor but clearly on the right track. As a movie on the whole, it struggles to find a rhythm, a tone, a pace. A disappointing end result, probably still worthwhile for John Wayne fans to see an early post-Stagecoach entry that doesn't receive much buzz.

The Shepherd of the Hills (1941): **/****

Muppets Most Wanted

I grew up watching The Muppets, loved them and always have loved them. The Muppet Movie was a childhood favorite and still is, and their TV show that ran for five seasons remains a gem. So naturally I was pretty disappointed when I came away incredibly disappointed with the 2011 franchise reboot, The Muppets. I gave it 2.5 stars but I came away less than pleased. I'm quick to forgive though and here we are with 2014's Muppets Most Wanted.

Having put themselves back on the map.....well, sort of, the Muppets must decide what to do now with their rediscovered fame. Kermit the Frog wants to take it slow, letting the group find their rhythm before jumping back into the limelight. The rest of the Muppets? Miss Piggy, Fozzie the Bear, Gonzo, Rowlf the Dog and the whole crew want to embrace the spotlight. Kermit goes along with it somewhat unwillingly, the Muppets hiring a manager, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais), who unfortunately has some other plans. Badguy is partners with Constantine, the world's most dangerous frog and recently escaped from a Siberian gulag. Their evil, crazy, ridiculous plan? Constantine kidnaps Kermit -- a spot-on lookalike -- and sends him back to the gulag while he takes over the Muppets. Can the gang figure out what's going on or is Kermit doomed to waste away in Siberia?

It wasn't just that 2011's The Muppets wasn't good. It had its moments, and let's be honest. As long as the actual Muppets characters are around, a movie has to be halfway decent, right? Whatever the reasons -- and I'm still processing those reasons -- I liked this version far more. The reviews were about the same, and this follow-up actually made far less money (about $75 million) so go figure. I can't explain it everyone else. For me, I liked the cameos more. The story was goofy but funny. And no disrespect to Jason Segel and Amy Adams and Walter (who's still around), but I never found myself truly interested in their story. Here, I went along for the ride a little bit more. Sure, there are still some flaws that I don't know if any new Muppets movie can fix/solve but those flaws are minimized.

What did director/co-writer James Bobin and writer Nicholas Stoller get right this time around? For starters, more of a focus on the actual Muppets, those created by their founder and brilliant mind Jim Henson. We see Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, Rowlf, Animal and the whole crew. The voices behind the familiar faces are different, but it's a seamless transition. Walter returns but he's just one of the gang now, not a major focus and that's a good thing. It's fun watching these characters you grew up watching. Their running bits, their sight gags, their subtle one-liners, it's all there. Could there be more focus on our favorite Muppets? Sure, but what's there is getting back to basics.  

If there's an issue, it's the over-reliance on the cameos, the surprise appearances from the Hollywood masses. The key characters include Gervais, nicely cast as the evil sidekick to Constantine, Tina Fey as Nadya, the musically-minded commander of the Siberian gulag, and Modern Family's Ty Burrell as an Interpol agent tracking down Constantine, Sam the Eagle making a memorable appearance as his C.I.A. agent counterpart. They're all solid, all bringing the laughs...but that's just a start. Also look out for -- and take a deep breath --  Lady Gaga, Tony Bennett, Hugh Bonneville, Jemaine Clement, P. Diddy, Rob Corddry, Celine Dion, Zach Galifianakis, Josh Groban, Salma Hayek, Tom Hiddleston, Toby Jones, Frank Langella, Ray Liotta, James McAvoy, Usher, Stanley Tucci, Danny Trejo, Christoph Waltz and probably a bunch others I'm forgetting. Most are a quick scene, a blink and you'll miss it appearance.

And there's the bigger issue. The movie becomes more about the goofiness, kookiness and I hate to say it, the gimmick. It doesn't feel like a movie, just a series of running gags. With this much talent assembled, some of them are going to work. The Muppets' complete acceptance of Constantine as Kermit is pretty hilarious. Animal's immediate awareness of what's going on is perfect. The musical numbers are excellent and far better than the original, especially 'We're Doing a Sequel' and 'I'm Number Two.' It is a movie missing that special something, those magic Muppet moments. It's really good but just not a classic.

Muppets Most Wanted (2014): ***/****

Buffalo Soldiers

One of the most interesting stories to come out of the settling of the American west is that of the Buffalo Soldiers, two cavalry and two infantry regiments that served as an integral part of the Indian Wars. The regiments of African-American soldiers don't always get their due in American history. Where 1989's Glory told the story of the 54th Massachusetts in the Civil War, here we are with a story about the 10th Cavalry, 1997's TV movie Buffalo Soldiers.

It's 1880 in the Arizona territory with the 10th Cavalry, a regiment of black soldiers, stationed at Fort Clark. Among the cavalry regiment is H Troop with First Sergeant Washington Wyatt (Danny Glover) in command after the company commander is killed. Longtime veterans who have served in the American southwest for years, H Troop is full of capable soldiers who have battled Sioux to Comanches to now, the Apaches. Signs point to two warring Apache tribes joining up to wreak havoc across the territory, killing, pillaging and burning everything in their path. Tasked with preventing the link-up, Wyatt, H Troop and the 10th as a whole find themselves in a stickier situation when a new officer, General Pike (Tom Bower), arrives at Fort Clark, readily admitting he questions the abilities of these Buffalo soldiers. 

Way back in the 1990s, the cable channel TNT wasn't just about regurgitating major network TV shows and Hollywood blockbusters 24-7. One of the best parts of the network was their creation of a variety of made-for-TV movies, many of them focusing on the American west and biblical quasi-epics. I grew up watching them so it's cool now most of 15-20 years later to catch up with them. Check out many of them HERE. The scale is limited, but the quality from the acting and cast to the action is story is almost there...just don't expect $100 million gargantuan epics. This historically based western from director Charles Haid certainly qualifies, telling a relatively little-known story about the American west.

If you've seen 1989's Glory, a classic about the formation of the first all-black regiment in the Civil War, you have an idea of what you're getting into here. Even though the U.S. government backed the formation of black regiments -- both cavalry and infantry -- they weren't always supported whether it be from the government that formed them, the high-ranking army officers who commanded them, or the settlers and townspeople that depended on their protection. We see that in the new commanding officer, the doubting General Pike, his right-hand, prejudiced/racist Major Carr (Timothy Busfield), but also the other side, the supportive side in the 10th's commander, Colonel Grierson (Bob Gunton), and one of his company commanders, Captain Calhoun (Matt Ross). The conversations can be tough at times -- a multitude of uses of the 'N-word' -- but the reality of the history is there all over.

Our focus mostly is on Glover's Sergeant Washington Wyatt, a former slave from Mississippi who joined the army, has been there for years and climbed through the ranks. Now as a first sergeant in the 10th, he's respected by his men and for the most part, his superiors. Glover does a fine job with his performance, an incredibly capable soldier who is nonetheless limited by perceptions, regulations and in some cases, ignorance from those in command. We see those struggles, Wyatt instead trying to focus on doing his job and getting his men through as many scrapes as they can untouched. There's a cool dynamic with Pike's scout, John Horse (Carl Lumbly), a half-Seminole, half-black man who's also an expert scout. John questions what drives Wyatt, what pushes him to do what he does, and maybe most importantly, to tolerate what he does from those around him, including his superiors. The heart of the movie, and an excellent performance from Glover.

The rest of the Buffalo soldiers include a focus on Corporal Christy (Mykelti Williamson), Wyatt's close friend who always seems to be getting himself into trouble, and Sergeant Joyu Ruth (Glynn Turman), a grizzled veteran and another friend of Wyatt's. Also look for Lamont Bentley, Michael Warren, David Jean Thomas, Gabriel Casseus, and Clifton Powell as H Troop soldiers. I would have liked some more background on all these men, from Wyatt through the company, but some of the movie's strongest moments are those when we see the bond of friendship among the troop. Riding in formation on the trail, sitting around a campfire with a cup of coffee, doing upkeep on the fort, those are the moments that ring most true.  

The visual is there -- a cavalry company outlined against the setting sun on the horizon -- and the action is excellent, if not there in abundance. It can vicious and startling, but that's how it was in the fighting between the cavalry and the Apaches. It is only in the final act that things fall apart a touch. In hopes of doing what is right and just, Wyatt and H Troop do something that while noble could potentially cost the lives of countless others down the trail someplace. The story becomes a little too much in looking at the history with idolizing eyes, especially the final scene. It's a good movie, a pretty good TV movie, but brace yourself a little for the finale.

Buffalo Soldiers (1997): ** 1/2 /****

Force of Arms

Yuck, here we are again. War movies that aren't content to just be war movies. What else gets added to the formula? A love story, two tortured souls brought together because, God bless it, the universe just wants it to happen! Those crazy kids, they just belong together even if the war will do its best to keep them apart. Today's entry is 1951's Force of Arms.

It's 1943 and the fighting in Italy is intensifying all along the front. After weeks and months on the line, an infantry platoon commanded by Sgt. Joe Peterson (William Holden) is tasked with one more objective. Though it costs heavy casualties, the platoon retakes an important position from the Germans. The entire unit is awarded five days of leave far removed from the muddy, cold front lines, Peterson meets a WAC, Lt. Eleanor MacKay (Nancy Olson), who he starts off on a rocky path almost immediately. Still, as they argue and test each other back and forth, both Joe and Eleanor can't deny their attraction to each other. The clock is ticking though as the soldier and the WAC must decide where to go next before Joe returns to the front line fighting. Can they come to terms with how they feel about each other in time?

Gag me, I hate when I have to write plot descriptions like this. Don't get me wrong. If there's a good romance war story out there, I'll give it a fair shot. Also, I don't really count Casablanca. I'm talking war stories, men on the front lines when the story takes a detour for some loving away from the front. Director Michael Curtiz's flick has a ton of potential because the portions focusing on the fighting, on Peterson taking a leadership role, of the platoon both in action and resting, that is 'Force' at its strongest. Too much time is spent on the budding relationship between Holden and Olson in the process. 'Force' is filmed in black and white with some cool location shooting, California filling in surprisingly well for Italy. It has a gritty, worn look, but dang, enough with the love story.

Holden is one of my favorites, and Olson has more than held her own in Sunset Blvd., Battle Cry and several other flicks. They have some decent chemistry together, but this script does them absolutely no favors. They meet in a military cemetery in the dead of the night and at no point does Holden's Peterson ever think "Hmm, I wonder what she's doing here? Maybe someone she knew...died?" From there, we get to know two folks working through some stuff -- Peterson the war wearing him down day to day, Eleanor trying to overcome a lost love -- with death hanging in the air. They wonder aloud what love really is, question if they truly can love, take dreamy walks on the Italian countryside, and share tons of scandalous hugs where they rub faces. A love story is one thing. One that moves this sluggishly with not enough of a payoff? Yeah, not good.

At times, 'Force' reminded me of 1959's Never so Few, a WWII story that is at its strongest when it focuses on the war, on the soldiers, on the combat. That's 'Force' in a nutshell. The story starts at its strongest as Peterson's platoon is tasked with retaking a German-held position on a rocky hill. This isn't large scale warfare but a small unit of soldiers going toe to toe against another small unit of soldiers. The violence isn't graphic, but it's startling and quick just the same. That's most of the action/combat scenes, including the platoon moving into position under heavy German guns and later navigating an Italian town with winding streets and German shells and mortars raining down on them. As quick as these segments are over, the script jumps right back to the love story. Oh, joy.

Beyond Holden in the soldier department, look for Frank Lovejoy as Major Bradford, the unit's commanding officer and an old friend of Peterson's from back home. Commanding officer and one of his trusted officers but also friends with a past. In Peterson's platoon, look for Gene Evans as McFee, worried what his wife is up to back home, Dick Wesson as Kleiner, a capable soldier and a capable smartass, Paul Picerni as Sheridan, the smooth Italian (similar to the part he played in To Hell and Back), Ross Ford as Hooker, the southern farmer, Ron Hagerthy as Minto, Peterson's runner, and a young Don Gordon in one of his first speaking parts as Sgt. Webber. I like the group dynamic, their friendships, their arguments. It feels natural, and I just wish there was more of it.

A mixed bag unfortunately. When it's good, it's pretty good. When it's bad, love is pretty rough to watch.

Force of Arms (1951): **/****