Freebie and the Bean

Let's get down to business. And I mean business. The buddy cop genre is the greatest genre in the history of cinema. Go ahead. I dare you to identify one that is better. See? You simply can-not. There were sprinklings before here and there, but the genre took off in the 1980's. One of those early sprinklings? An oddball, off-the-wall, politically incorrect comedy from 1974's Freebie and the Bean.

Longtime partners working the Intelligence Unit in San Francisco, Bean (Alan Arkin) and Freebie (James Caan) usually get the job done, sometimes in spite of themselves with their constant bickering. Their latest target? The duo has long sought to put well-known and long successful racketeer Red Meyers (Jack Kruschen) behind bars. After most of a year investigating, they've got the evidence -- finally -- but the key witness can't be put into custody for three more days. The solution? Freebie and Bean must shadow Meyers and make sure nothing goes wrong before they can officially arrest him. There are problems of course. Many people would be in trouble should Meyers testify so a hit man from Detroit (maybe more) has been dispatched to finish him. Oh, and it's Super Bowl week. Oh, and Freebie and Bean might kill each other in the process. What could possibly go wrong?

Reading some reviews and message boards about this 1974 buddy cop flick, I saw a lot of people questioning why this is a movie just about completely forgotten over the years. I'm glad I wasn't the only one to think of that issue. I love James Caan and Alan Arkin, and I'd never even vaguely, remotely even kinda heard of it. Why is that? Well, it's not a classic, but it's pretty good. It is kooky, completely without a story, has tonal shifts left and right, is especially goofy and is incredibly politically incorrect. There are flaws, but my goodness, is it a fun ride.

Arkin and Caan. Caan and Arkin. How can you possibly go wrong? You can't here. Two of my favorite actors working together make it look effortless. As you expect from any buddy cop pairing, the duo has to bitch and moan and criticize and ridicule...even though they're the best of friends. Arkin is Bean, a Mexican officer, all business, no nonsense. Caan is Freebie, wild and all over the place and not one to turn down a free gift here and there (hence the nickname). The story drifts as needed, and you get a sense the script was a couple set pieces, an outline of a story, and just blank sports for Arkin and Caan to improvise, to fire lightning fast insults and jokes and one-liners for as long as they could. Too many classic lines to mention -- most of them foul-mouthed, racist, sexist and generally inappropriate -- but quite the Batman and Batman (no Robin here) to lead the way.

'Freebie/Bean' comes from director Richard Rush and comes as a bit of fresh air considering the time it was released. We're talking cynical cop flicks like French Connection, Bullitt, the Dirty Harry movies and plenty others. It's just a funny movie. That's all and that's it. That's not a bad thing. You sit back and enjoy it because there isn't any messages in sight or anything dark or hard-hitting. These are two cops who are friends and fight like an old married couple bombing their way through San Francisco who stop at nothing to put their case together. If half the city should be destroyed in the process....well, so be it. We had a good time. San Francisco looks great as a backdrop as well, an interesting choice considering so many cop movies were shot on-location there. Moral of the story? As much as I love those previously mentioned flicks, it's cool to see a cop movie do a complete 180.

Who else to look for? Some fun, familiar faces. Kruschen has a ton of fun as Meyers, the racketeer who can't believe how stupid the cops pursuing him really are. Loretta Swit of MASH fame plays his pretty young wife. Also look for Alex Rocco as the conviction rate-minded district attorney, Mike Kellin as the boys' lieutenant, Paul Koslo and Christopher Morley as a couple witnesses, and a scene-stealing Valerie Harper as Bean's possibly cheating wife, Consuelo.

So there's gotta be something wrong...right? It's the bizarre, often out of left field shifts in tone. It's dark and funny and politically incorrect, and then a complete direction change into a never-ending car and motorcycle chase (had...HAD to be an influence on The Blues Brothers) that relies on sight gags and Keystone Cops-esque humor. There's little warning too as things shift, especially toward the end with more than a few crazy twists, some that work, some that are shocking, and one that almost had me questioning the whole movie. Thankfully, it was a twist within a twist in a mystery surrounded by a paradox. Anyhoo, this is all complaining to complain. The movie is a ton of fun with one laugh after another. It's James Caan and Alan Arkin basically spending 2 hours causing collateral damage and bitching at each other in their downtime. If that's not a recipe for success, I don't know what is.

Freebie and the Bean (1974): ***/**** 

Million Dollar Arm

It's that time of the year again, the best sports time of the year! For the sports fan in your life, there's March Madness mixed in with the home stretch of both the NBA and NHL regular seasons before the playoffs begin. What am I forgetting? Hmm, I'm drawing a blank. Oh, right! It's baseball season! If that isn't as good a time as any for a baseball-themed movie, I don't know what is. I missed it in theaters last year, but here's 2014's Million Dollar Arm.

A longtime sports agent with a solid reputation, J.B. Bernstein (Jon Hamm) has hit a bit of a rough patch. Check that, an EPIC rough patch. The firm he started with a friend and fellow agent has lost almost all of its clients, most of them to retirement, others for various other reasons. The money is running out quickly and the threat of completely losing his business is becoming more and more likely.  He's got to come up with something unique and by pure, dumb luck, J.B. might be onto something. Watching cricket one night, the agent begins to question if he could turn a cricket player from India with no baseball experience into a major league baseball pitcher. It sounds crazy, but maybe just perfectly crazy enough to work. He finds a sponsor who gives him an impressive budget and just a year with which to make the transformation. Traveling to India with limited time, can J.B. pull it off?

Over a two or three-month span last year, I saw the trailer for 'Million' in front of every single movie I saw. EVERY movie. Inevitably, whoever I was with would usually say 'Hey, that movie looks like you.' I took it as a compliment. Sports? Yes, I approve. Baseball? Yep, my favorite sport. Underdog story based on a true story? Yes and Yes, count me in. I enjoyed this movie after a somewhat slow start. Is it anything particularly new or groundbreaking? That would be a big N-O. Still, if you like sports movies, you'll get a kick out of this one.

From director Craig Gillespie, 'Million' is in fact based on a true story, the real-life Bernstein developing his reality contest dubbed 'Million Dollar Arm.' If I have any recommendation, it's this; don't read into the story that inspired the movie. Go in with a clean slate and enjoy the screenplay as it develops. I don't want to go into too much detail, but there is a cookie-cutter feel to the underdog sports movie. It covers a lot of ground and feels a little forced at times but never goes too far overboard. It's the type of story you wouldn't believe if you didn't know it was based in reality. From California to an extended trip to India and then back to sunny California and Arizona, 'Million' is a solid, good, old-fashioned sports flick. Nothing less. Nothing more.

Now as it heads into its final season, I'll admit I've never seen an episode of AMC's Mad Men. Therefore, I don't have a huge background with Mr. Don Draper himself, Jon Hamm. I thought he was very good in The Town but that's about the extent of my knowledge. How about here as agent J.B. Bernstein? It's a good part, not a great part, the character limited by a script that sticks to the cliches when the chips are down. Hamm's Bernstein's is a single, smooth, charming ladies man who finds his single life thrown upside down when his business starts to struggle. We try to humanize him through normal, attractive, perfect fit for him even though he can't see it renter of his backyard bungalow, Brenda (Lake Bell in adorable, every girl mode). This possible love interest teaches him to feel, to be nice to people, to not always look out for himself. Yeah, it's that type of subplot. So while it isn't always Hamm's fault, it does become an issue.

So six paragraphs in, you might think this is going to be a negative review (It sure reads like one). I liked this one a lot, but not because of the Bernstein character who I found generally unlikable. If more focus would have been placed on the Indian cricket players, I think the movie becomes that much stronger. We meet Rinku (Suraj Sharma, of Life of Pi) and Dinesh (Madhur Mittal), two young Indian men with no real baseball experience who are athletically inclined enough they can throw a baseball semi-accurately around 85 mph. Transplanted to America because of that skill, it is the definition of a fish out of water story. With some help from a baseball-loving translator, Amit (Pitobash), who travels with them, they try to adjust, try to learn English and baseball and a new culture, not exactly an easy thing to pull off. In these moments, the movie is at its strongest.

A movie through the boys' eyes would have been fascinating. Instead, we get a movie about the boys through the eyes of J.B.. It is a formula that works, but the story could have been stronger with some tweaks here and there. I really liked Bill Paxton as Tom House, the USC pitching coach trying to introduce the boys to all the nuances of American baseball, and also liked Aasif Mandvi as Aash, J.B.'s friend and fellow agent. Alan Arkin isn't around for long other than to be a crotchety, curmudgeonly old man as Ray, an experienced baseball scout who's past his prime but still has the eye for that special talent. Also look for Darshan Jariwala as Vivek, J.B.'s office manager of sorts who introduces him to all the ways of doing business in Indian fashion.

'Million' does have some surprises up its sleeve in the second half, and things definitely pick up for the better as a potential tryout with MLB scouts approaches. Yeah, there are too many moments that are for the Disney-crowd, family and all that sugary sweet stuff. Still, it is a tried and true formula that when handled correctly....man, it just works. If you like sports movies, you'll like this one. Remember to stick through the credits as we see the real J.B., Rinku and Dinesh in some great pictures. I like Sharma and Mittal a lot, the two actors able to humanize their parts without resorting too much to any sports cliches. Nothing flashy but a good movie just the same.

Million Dollar Arm (2014): ***/****

Grudge Match

Raging Bull and Rocky, two of the greatest movies about boxing ever, and sports in general really. Both films have stood the test of time and both deserve the status they have earned as true classics. As for the stars, yeah, I guess Robert De Niro and Sylvester Stallone are pretty cool. So 30-plus years after those movies hit theaters, the two stars are united in an interesting quasi-follow-up, 2013's Grudge Match. What's the verdict?

In the mid 1980s, boxers Billy 'The Kid' McDonnen (De Niro) and Henry 'Razor' Sharp (Stallone) become huge fan favorites with their ever-growing rivalry. McDonnen wins the first fight, Sharp winning the rematch soon after. When a third fight is brought up, Sharp decides to retire instead, leaving the potential for a grudge match just hanging in the air. Sharp retires to work in a factory while McDonnen continues to fight, becoming a spokesman and product pitchman while opening up his own bar in Pittsburgh. Some 30 years later though, that decisive third match is a distinct possibility as Dante Slate Jr. (Kevin Hart), the son of the promoter who worked with both fighters in the 80s, offers them a handsome payday if they agree to fight once more. This isn't just a rivalry anymore though. These two guys hate each other to the point they can't even be in the same room together. Can they hold it together long enough to train for the fight?

My first response when I saw this trailer last fall was simply "No.....just no." I didn't think it looked good in the least. It looked cheesy, cliched and just trying too hard to reclaim past magic from both stars. You know what? I was right on all accounts. You know what else? I was right, and I don't care in the least. Going in with pretty low expectations basically across the board, I ended up liking this sports comedy from director Peter Segal a whole lot. It is cheesy and cliched, but it embraces those aspects rather than trying to avoid them (or worse, trying to avoid them but actually embracing them). 'Grudge' struggled in theaters last Christmas, recouping its 40-plus million budget and little else, as waves of negative reviews convinced people to stay away. Familiar -- maybe too familiar -- it is, but I liked this one as a harmless entertaining sports flick that offers some good laughs.

Come on now, it's Robert De Niro and Sylvester Stallone. With their respective roles in Raging Bull and Rocky, both actors deserve an all-time space in the Sports Movie Hall of Fame (Look it up, it exists. I swear). Now obviously the drama just isn't as big here. The lead parts aren't so dramatically heavy. People forget sometimes, but Stallone can freaking act when he wants to. De Niro has done more fun movies over recent years than heavy dramatic parts, those choices earning him some hate on any number of message boards. What's wrong with two legendary movie stars and actors having some fun? Of the two, De Niro represents himself well. It's a goofy, over the top story with goofy, over the top characters, and De Niro commits to the part. Stallone looks to be sleepwalking at times, but their scenes together have an enjoyable, funny chemistry. Their bitching and moaning at each other provides some great one-liners in the movie's best moments.

It can't all be old guys busting each other though, can it? Unfortunately not. We get some family drama thrown into the mix, some of it providing some good moments, but mostly, it's just too familiar and cliched. Much of the drama comes from Kim Basinger as Sally, Razor's girlfriend who slept with Billy years before right in the midst of their boxing rivalry. The result of that hook-up? Billy has an estranged son, B.J. (Jon Bernthal), who will now help train the old man while also introducing him to his grandson, the type of movie kid that speaks like no kid ever. Alan Arkin gets the fun, flashy supporting part as Razor's former manager and trainer, "Lightning" Conlon, now relegated to a nursing home. Hart too is pretty funny, his scenes with Arkin offering some memorable lines. Even LL Cool J makes an appearance as a gym owner and trainer. Good cast, decent parts.

Nothing too out of the ordinary here with an enjoyable, familiar formula. We get a couple sports training montages as our two 50-something out of shape fighters get back into shape, editing that in with the less interesting personal drama. The best moments come from Stallone and De Niro reigniting their rivalry with one whackier situation after another. The stop-motion video game capture scene goes especially well, Razor and Kid beating the crap out of each other. I also liked their skydiving gimmick gone horrifically wrong.

Is this especially smart humor? No, not by a long shot, but it is fun. The final fight is nothing too flashy, going for a safe ending. The end credits have some good cameos too from boxing personalities, fighters, on-air commentators and some ESPN sportscasters. An entertaining movie, one that's easy to sit back and watch for a couple hours. Nothing more, nothing less. If you're looking for something more, go watch Raging Bull and Rocky again. And how about that poster, not enhanced at all?

Grudge Match (2013): ***/****

Glengarry Glen Ross

Where do you stand on cursing/swearing in movies? Do you blush if someone drops an F-bomb? Do you laugh when profanity is used as a noun, verb, adjective, even a preposition? Well, let's say this. If you're easily offended by swearing -- and I mean a lot of swearing -- then 1992 Glengarry Glen Ross may not be your type of movie.

At a small real estate agency in Chicago, the four-man salesmen staff is about to get a little shock. They're called in one night for a special meeting, a representative from their big boss arriving with a message. That rep, Blake (Alec Baldwin), delivers a simple ultimatum. The salesmen have exactly one week to prove themselves, selling as many units as humanly possible. At the end of the week, the one in the lead will be awarded a car, the second will receive a set of steak knives, and the other two? They'll be looking for work. Doesn't get any simpler than that, does it? Already working on a day-to-day basis with questionable leads to follow and a tough sell, this group has their work cut out for them. Let the hijinks begin.

This is a movie that sat in my Netflix queue for quite awhile. The cast was ridiculously talented, the story certainly interesting, and the reviews were almost uniformly glowing. Well, I caught up with it, and I can honestly say it wasn't what I thought it was going to be. That's not a negative, just a surprise on my end. I had a picture of high-end real estate, an agency in downtown Chicago dealing with huge deals of millions of dollars and gazillionaires. What is it? A far smaller, low-end agency with a cramped, cluttered office where the salesmen use all sorts of underhanded, duplicitous means to finish off a sale. These four salesmen are truly desperate, knowing their jobs and livelihood depend on one week of being able to do their jobs. Talk about pressure.

From director James Foley, 'Ross' is based off a play from David Mamet (who also wrote the screenplay). It clocks in at 100 minutes and generally has the style and feel of a stage-based play. The story takes place over a span of maybe 12, 18 hours and is based in only two locations, the real estate office and the Chinese restaurant across the street where the salesmen go for a bite to eat and get a drink. The rhythm develops like a play, the cast getting a chance to show their stuff in extended scenes of dialogue, setting things up and then letting it all develop. This is a movie about the dialogue, no doubt about it, Mamet's script a gem. The dialogue is fast and furious, the talented cast delivering it in almost machine gun succession, rapid fire that never slows down. 'Ross' isn't a movie about the effects or the style. It's about the acting, the chemistry, the script and the dialogue. Straightforward in its objectives, it's the better for it.

How about that for a slow burn? I haven't even mentioned the cast beyond Baldwin's one-scene, scene-stealing appearance. Haha take that! Foley is working with quite the cast in terms of pure acting power. The real estate salesmen include Ricky Roma (Al Pacino), the fiery, criminally smooth operator and frontrunner for the award for best salesmen, Shelley Levene (Jack Lemmon), the oldest salesmen in the group and maybe the most desperate because of a recent cold streak in sales, George Aaronow (Alan Arkin), the tag-along of sorts, worried about the challenge but letting everyone else lead the way in opinions, and Dave Moss (Ed Harris), the most heated and the one maybe most willing to do something desperate for the job. As the circus master of this crew, Kevin Spacey bides his time as Williamson, their boss who tries to keep them in check while taking an almost constant barrage of criticism from his employees. Also look for Jonathan Pryce as a possible customer working with Roma who has a serious issue with a sale.

Each character gets his chance to shine, none of them disappointing. I was most impressed with Pacino and Lemmon, but that's like saying which pizza is the best. They're all really good, but some are just slightly better. The dialogue crackles from the get-go and never slows down. It can be uncomfortable at times, this crew just ripping each other apart for any number of reasons, from lack of sales to botching a call. Baldwin's cameo gets things going at a 100 miles per hour, demanding that these salesmen 'Always be closing.' It never really slows down. The dialogue is always going, but the camera just follows the conversational acting, letting the conversations and arguments and fights breathe and develop on their own. The movie is 100 minutes long, but it flies by.

I really liked where this one went about the halfway point. You think you know where it's going, and it pulls the rug out from under you. The ending especially caught me by surprise. Oh, and random pop culture tidbit, Lemmon's excellent performance as aging Shelley Levene was quite the inspiration for Gil Gunderson, the disheveled salesmen on The Simpsons.

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992): ***/****

Stand Up Guys

Oh, how the time flies. Think back to movies of the late 1960s and into the 1970s -- a huge turning point in film history -- and think of all the actors who became huge stars during that stretch. Well, it's been over 30 years since that period, as many as 40 depending on the film/star, and those actors are now in their 60s, 70s and even 80s. Screen icons can't age, can they? If not leading men anymore in huge blockbusters, there's certainly roles out there for actors of such high caliber, like 2013's Stand Up Guys.

Released from prison after serving a 28-year sentence, an aging man named Val (Al Pacino) is met on his parole day by old friend and partner Doc (Christopher Walken). Having spent so much time away from any normal sort of life, Val wants to make up for lost time, drinking, partying, even visiting a brothel, but Doc isn't telling him anything at first. Val of course knows what awaits him...he must answer for the crime that put him away in prison for such a long sentence, even if the crime wasn't his fault. Doc has orders from a small-time aging mobster (Mark Margolis) to kill Val, and he's only got a few hours to do it. Old friends though, Doc is no rush to dispatch his friend, thinking he can at least give him a few hours more. They find another old friend, Hirsch (Alan Arkin), now wasting away in a nursing home, the intention to live up their last few hours together.

If you're a movie fan and can't figure out the appeal here, well....how can't you? In Pacino, Walken and Arkin, you've got three living legends from one of the most interesting periods in Hollywood history. One or two of them working together in a movie would be enough, but all three? Sign me up. From director/actor Fisher Stevens, 'Guys' is a solid comedy-drama with a familiar crook/mob background. It has touches of a film noir -- the story taking place almost entirely at night and all its shadows -- with an unnamed city serving as the backdrop. It's not an action-packed shoot-out, instead a movie content to be a good story that relies heavily on the star power to carry the heaviest load. There's some pretty low-brow humor with some Viagra jokes and multiple trips to a brothel that aren't necessary, but as a whole, the movie is solid.

If you have made it to the fourth paragraph of this review, I'm guessing it's because you're a fan of either one or all of Pacino, Walken and Arkin. This isn't groundbreaking stuff, nothing you haven't seen before if you're a fan of crime or mob movies, but in their capable hands it feels worthwhile throughout. Pacino's Val is the showiest of the parts, a crook who did time rather than give up his accomplices in a previous crime. He knows his time is up, just doesn't know for sure who will do the deed. Walken as Doc is perfect, understated and gentlemanly because he's had years to prep for this unpleasant task. He's tired, world-weary and dreads what awaits. Arkin's is the smallest part as Hirsch, the former getaway driver of the trio.

There is an effortless chemistry and charm to their scenes. An important aspect of the story is in the title. Stand up guys are those who do what the job dictates regardless of the unpleasant consequences. They do it because it's the job. Men do their jobs. As the story develops we see this code of honor among crooks. We learn more about Val, Doc and Hirsch's past, about their younger years when they were a team of low-level but highly effective mob crooks and henchmen. Their scenes among the group talking about the good old days offer some of the movie's high points. It works because these guys are so talented, so good at what they do. As Val's time runs out, Doc must decide what he's going to do. Kill one of his only friends? Don't kill him and risk his own life in the process? It additionally works because it's easy to imagine these three actors making a prequel in the early 1970s, starring as themselves.

Following the trio around, we meet a handful of characters in their misadventures. Julianna Margulies plays Nina, Hirsch's daughter who works as a nurse at a hospital Val and Doc visit. Ooohhh, ER reference! Margolis is his typical intimidating self as Claphands, a ridiculously vengeful mobster with Bill Burr as one of his ineffective henchmen. Lucy Punch is memorable as Wendy, the nerdy-looking owner of the brothel they visit while Addison Timlin is Alex, a waitress at an all-night diner who has befriended Doc over the years. Vanessa Ferlito has a good if odd part as Syliva, a beaten-up and raped woman who the trio rescues and helps exact revenge.

So how then should one end a movie like this? That is where the film struggles to find its footing. It has the right idea with a perfect scene that provides the ideal ending for these characters. It's what they deserve. It's what they should do......and then Stevens has the camera pull away so we don't actually see the ending. There's no resolution, too many things left hanging up in the air. For me, this ending feels a little too smarmy, a little condescending, too self-assured. The idea is right, and the thought is there but this is an ending that needed more closure. I still liked the movie on the whole, but the ending could have been significantly better. Still worth watching. It is difficult to pass up a movie starring the likes of Pacino, Walken and Arkin.

Stand Up Guys (2013): ***/****

The In-Laws

I can think of a lot of different types of buddy movies. Westerns like Butch and Sundance, cop flicks like 48 Hours and Lethal Weapon, even straight comedies like Silver Streak and The Odd Couple. I'll watch them in basically any variety with any cast. There's just something appealing about the dynamic when handled correctly. So bandits, cops, oddball friends, how about in-laws? Not my first thought either, but 1979's The In-Laws is a gem.

Preparing for the wedding of his daughter (Penny Peyser), mild-mannered NYC dentist Sheldon Kornpett (Alan Arkin) is a little skeptical and worried to meet his future in-laws. Upon meeting them, Vince Ricardo (Peter Falk) and his wife (Arlene Golonka), Sheldon is less than impressed when Vince starts spouting off at dinner about all his experiences, even screaming at his son. He's worried about what his daughter may be getting into, but he's thrown for an even bigger loop when Vince shows up the next day at his Manhattan office. Vince needs some help recovering something from his office, but he can't go in. Trying to go along with the odd-sounding plan for the sake of his daughter, Sheldon goes along with it. What's Vince up to? As Sheldon finds out when two men start shooting at him, Vince is a C.I.A. agent caught up in a plot to recover two U.S. currency engraving plates. Uh-oh, weird in-laws just got weirder.

My only real exposure to this movie was a vague recollection of a vaguely remembered 2003 remake that I never saw. Long story short? It didn't look good. I've been in a rut on Netflix so when I stumbled across it via an actor's search (being a movie reviewer is hard work I tell you!) I jumped. This comedy from director Arthur Hiller can officially be called a slump-buster. I loved this movie. It was perfection in its subtlety and when it's funny, it's hilarious. All I'm trying to figure out now is why it doesn't have more notoriety, more popularity? And what have I come up with? I've got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It doesn't rewrite the genre -- but few comedies do -- and doesn't rely on anything dirty, sexy or violent. Oh, and there's little if any cursing. So anyways, that mystery is still to be solved. I for one, loved it.

How this 1979 comedy slipped through the cracks for me is another mystery. Alan Arkin and Peter Falk are two of my all-time favorites so teaming the two of them up is like a fastball down the middle. It is a match made in heaven. What works so well is that both actors get a chance to play the straight man to the others' screw-up goofball. You just don't see that a lot as comedies usually pigeon-hole actors into one or the other. As Falk's Vince gets Arkin's Sheldon deeper and deeper into his highly dangerous C.I.A. mission, things get better and better. They have an easy-going perfection in their chemistry. Any scene they have together is spot-on, and that's a good thing when they're in virtually every scene together. Both Falk and Arkin are given their chances to shine, and neither Hollywood pro disappoints. Just a solid pairing that carries the movie.

With a few exceptions, a majority of the laughs here come from the kookiness going on more than the performances. It's that almost laid back, subtle goofiness between Arkin and Falk that works so well in the ridiculously stupid situations they find themselves in. Vince's reveal to Sheldon about his occupation in a crowded NYC deli really gets things going, the duo talking about a federal crime loud enough that everyone around them can hear clearly. Later as they disembark a plane in Honduras (don't ask), they come under fire from snipers. Experienced under fire, Vince yells "Serpentine, Shell! Serpentine!" in regards to how he should run so the snipers can't draw a bead on him. The line is great, Arkin's follow-up even better. Another highlight comes late as Vince and Sheldon race from hired killers, Vince saying "It's incomprehensible they took my license away! I'm a great driver!"

The goofiest and funniest is saved for last when the duo ends up at the villa of a Central American dictator, General Garcia (Richard Libertini), who's clearly a card or two short of a full deck. Case in point; he's drawn a face on his hand and talks to it....all the time. There's a great pay-off to this extended sequence, but it plays like the rest of the movie. The story and ever-escalating craziness is all sorts of nuts, but Arkin and Falk keep it grounded. Also look for Nancy Dussault as Sheldon's wife, Carol, and Ed Begley Jr. as Barry Lutz, a C.I.A. agent with an interesting reveal about Vince's background. Underrated comedy, one that's definitely worth seeking out.

The In-Laws (1979): *** 1/2 /**** 

The Russians Are Coming The Russians Are Coming

From a screenplay by William Rose, 1963's It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World is one of my all-time favorite comedies with its ridiculous cast, madcap comedy and general zaniness. Three years later, Rose tried to duplicate the success with the similar formula. Unfortunately, 1966's The Russians Are Coming The Russians Are Coming doesn't match up.

Off the East Coast and near Gloucester, a Russian sub is run aground by a captain (Theodore Bikel) who wants to get a good look at America. The Russians send a landing party to shore commanded by Lt. Rozanov (Alan Arkin) to find some sort of help....secretly of course. The little island is quiet though, everyone basically minding their own business. Rozanov and his eight-man patrol first go to the house of a vacationing writer, Walt Whittaker (Carl Reiner), and his family. As they ever so secretly and quietly seek help -- a powerboat to help pull the sub off a sandbar -- rumor spreads through the island like wildfire. Anyone and everyone who can carry a weapon takes to the streets to find the Russians.

Now, I'm no dummy. I knew going into this movie it was a comedy. Having watched it, I know it is a comedy. But reading that description, nothing at all screams comedy about it, and I think that may be the biggest thing working against this Norman Jewison-directed comedy. A madcap, screwball comedy about a bunch of strangers traveling a couple hundred miles to unearth some buried money? That's funny. A madcap, screwball comedy about a tiny New England island trying to hunt down some marauding Russians? Yeah, not so much. My first reaction was for the film to do a complete 180. An action movie, a drama, a politically-charged thriller with this basis premise would be a gem, full of tension and anxiety.

That's me in my own head though. The basic premise of the story just isn't funny then. I may have chuckled here and there, but I don't remember actually laughing out loud once. The comedy and laughs weren't there for me. As posses sprout up all over the island and everyone starts to freak out, the story bounces among five or six different developing situations (for the lack of any better description). Reiner's Walt tied up to a rather large woman (Tessie O'Shea) by the Russians and trying to escape? The town drunk chasing a horse (the entire movie) so he can warn the island Paul Revere-style what's going on? Screwball is one thing. Just stupid another.

If there is any saving grace here -- however slim -- it will be the cast. Now granted, none of the performances are that good or that funny, but come on.....star power! Reiner's Walt is married to Eva Marie Saint with some decent back and forths between the veteran actors. Young Sheldon Collins plays their shrill son, Pete. Arkin is a bright spot as Rozanov, but I think it's mostly because he gets to play a straight man to all the hijinks and shenanigans. His Russian accent is pretty funny too. Brian Keith and Jonathan Winters get to ham it up as the Sheriff and his deputy, but the biggest ham is Paul Ford as the island veteran leading the hunt with his ancient sword. Also look for John Phillip Law as one of Rozanov's sailors who instantly falls in love with the Whittaker's babysitter (Andrea Dromm).

Sorry to say, but I came away vastly disappointed with this comedy. At 126 minutes, it's just too long and even tedious. Making it worse, any scene with Russian being spoken doesn't feature subtitles. I don't care if it's made-up, jokey subtitles, but put something on the screen for long dialogue scenes! The romance between Law's sailor and the babysitter is painful to watch at times too. Apologize for the somewhat shorter review than usual, but I was completely unimpressed with this comedy.

The Russians Are Coming (1966): **/****

Thin Ice

If movies have taught me anything (look at me, rationalizing watching movies), I'd say it is this. Amateur crooks? Leave it to the professionals. If you think you've got an infallible plan, you probably don't. Something will go wrong. It always does. End of moral, on with the review, 2011's Thin Ice.

A mildly successful insurance salesman, Mickey Prohaska (Greg Kinnear) is in some serious trouble, both career-wise, financially and personally. His wife has kicked him out of the house, and his business is less than thriving until one day he meets a potential customer, Gorvy Hauer (Alan Arkin), a forgetful, possibly senile old man living alone in an isolated farmhouse. Gorvy has a violin that is worth some serious money, and Mickey sees the chance to "fix" so many of his problems....if he can con the old man. As he tries to switch out the valuable violin for a dupe though, Mickey is spotted by Randy (Billy Crudup), the security system installer, and now his simple dupe of a plan has become so much more, especially when Randy, an ex-con, takes action.

I liked this movie. I didn't love it, but I liked it. There are issues, especially late, but more on that later. Setting the story in Wisconsin, with its frigid winters, is a great start. Watching the movie, you feel legitimately cold. It's a sterile, white country where the trouble goes down (Minnesota filming locations), even resembling a similar quirky, unsettling story, Fargo. Also aiding the cause is composer Jeff Danna's score, always present but never overbearing. It hangs in the air around the characters, and that's partially what I liked best. Even though Mickey is a despicable individual, it's incredibly tense watching things develop. We're waiting for his perfect plan to fall apart so the atmosphere and sense of impending doom is palpable. So what happens?

For me, it was the last 30 minutes. No spoilers here, no massive revelations, but I came away disappointed with the twist that is thrown our way as viewers. Take this for what it's worth, but I didn't see the twist coming....AT ALL. I just wasn't looking for it so maybe that's my disappointment. Maybe 'Ice' didn't need this particular twist? Well, that's my first thought. Anyhoo, the twist is there. I can't change that. Thinking back on the movie, it works in terms of storytelling. Sure, there are certain parts that hinge on a little too much coincidence for my liking. A few too many perfect little things happen that no real-life individual could have planned on. Embarrassed viewer who didn't pick up on the coming twist? No, I don't think so. It just was an unnecessary departure in the story, for me at least.

Reading up on 'Ice' before I dove into the review (Yes, I try to do some research), some of my issues made a lot more sense when I read about this film's troubled past. Filmed in 2010, 'Ice' was premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and purchased by a studio, and then that studio promptly demanded that huge changes be made. Director Jill Sprecher refused, wanting nothing to do with the flick, and then the changes in the name of pacing were made. A 114-minute long movie was cut to 93 minutes. I don't care what movie it is. If you cut 21 minutes from a running time, you're going to have issues. So again, take this for what it's worth. I liked this movie for what it was, not knowing it had been so severely cut. I'd love to see the 114-minute version and find out what it has to offer.

Enough with that background and back to the movie! The dark story and an impressive cast drew me in here -- negative reviews aside. Kinnear is one of my favorite actors around, able to be a true a-hole on screen while still rooting for him in a weird way. Go figure. Very good lead performance. Arkin is a scene-stealer as Gordy, the senile old man living with his dog on a far-off Wisconsin farm. Crudup hams it up a little much to my liking as the possibly unhinged Randy, but he certainly brings that unpredictable element into the story. Also look for David Harbour as Bob, one of Mickey's "understudies," Lea Thompson in a small part as Mickey's wife, and Bob Balaban as a violin expert interested in Gorvy's violin.

Thin Ice <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Argo

Having made a name for himself as an actor, Ben Affleck has turned to the director's chair over the last six years. His first two movies were crime thrillers, 2007's Gone Baby Gone and 2010's The Town, and both showed a knack for really solid filmmaking, both of which I liked a lot. For Affleck's third film though, he had a little change of pace with 2012's Argo.

In November 1979, the U.S. Embassy in Tehran is stormed by angry Iranians upset that a deposed Shah is being sheltered by the U.S. In the chaos of the embassy takeover, six Americans escape and manage to make it to the home of the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber) undetected. Some 70 hostages have been taken though, and a long waiting game follows. Over 70 days later, the U.S. government and the C.I.A. are still trying to figure out what to do when C.I.A. agent Tony Mendez (Affleck) comes up with a plan. Posing as a Canadian film crew scouting locations for a sci-fi film (a Star Wars rip-off), Mendez intends to get into Iran and get the six out safely. The plan is ridiculously dangerous, and the potential for failure is high. Time is running out though, and it's the best plan available.

I've always been a fan of Affleck as an actor going back to his first few roles in movies like Good Will Hunting and Armageddon. As much as I like him as an actor, I'm starting to think I like him more from behind the camera. Maybe it's being around the movie business as much as he has, but he seems to have a knack for this camera. The reviews were uniformly positive here, and the IMDB rating is at a very high 8.4 as I write this review. Is it an all-time classic that the rating suggests? No, but it's very well done and well-executed. It's refreshing to see a story that focuses on just that; the story. While it's rated 'R,' it can mostly be attributed to the language. Little in the way of violence, sex and explosions, everything is streamlined for the story. Nothing wasted here.

This is based on the real life events that took place between 1979 and 1981 with some 80 hostages under Iranian control. Affleck has said in interviews that some liberties were taken with the story, but that's the point. It is based on a true story. He never said it is a true story. What appeals to me about Affleck's work is why I like his acting. It's understated when it is at its best. Argo feels like a throwback to the great crime/political thrillers of the 1970s (interesting because it takes place after those movies were made, but you get the idea). It is not flashy or anything freakishly new. What is it? Lots of good actors, a dramatic, incredibly intense story, and tension that is so well-handled it gets to the point it was uncomfortable by the end. Groundbreaking? Nope, but there's something to be said for a no-frills thriller that knows what it is trying to accomplish.

Like in The Town, Affleck stars in his own flick, but like his story, it isn't a flashy part. His Tony Mendez is an exfiltration specialist, an expert in getting people out of places, who concocts a hair-brained scheme to get these 6 Americans out of harm's way. Tony is quiet and a thinker, but he's always working on something. Give him a mission, and he's not going to stop to accomplish his objectives. A solid leading part for Mr. Affleck. Joining him in two scene-stealing parts are John Goodman and Alan Arkin. Goodman plays a respected Hollywood makeup man while Arkin is a director a little past his prime, both men signing on to help Affleck's Tony create a fake film that will convince Iranian officials and armed forces his backstory is legit. Both parts fade into the background once Tony heads out on his mission, but the scenes among Affleck, Goodman and Arkin are gems. I loved all three performances. Also look for always reliable Bryan Cranston as Tony's CIA supervisor, Kyle Chandler as the White House Chief of Staff, Titus Welliver as a State Department official and plenty of familiar faces popping up in quick one and two scene appearances.

I liked the movie throughout as the story develops. We're given background, see the fake movie -- dubbed 'Argo' -- come together, and then Tony's mission. The actual mission getting the six Americans out of a bloody, chaotic and paranoid Tehran is by far the best thing going for Affleck's movie. Tension doesn't begin to describe these scenes as Tony's "film crew" tries to get through airport security. The six Americans include Tate Donovan, Rory Cochrane, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scoot McNairy and Kerry Bishe. Farshad Farahat does an incredible job with as a checkpoint guard investigating the backstory. The ending is Affleck showing his ability. He doesn't blare music at you or demand you feel a certain way as a viewer. He presents the action, lets it develop and allows the actors to do their thing. Another winner. Looking forward to see what's next for Affleck, as an actor or director.    

Argo (2012): ***/****

The Muppets

I grew up watching anything Jim Henson got his hands on....okay, maybe not The Dark Crystal or Labyrinth. But Sesame Street? Fraggle Rock? The Muppets? Oh, yes, most definitely. Fraggle Rock's basic weirdness excluded, I loved everything Sesame Street and The Muppets could throw my way from TV shows to feature length movies. So last summer when I saw a new Muppets movie was being made, I was psyched. Enter 2011's The Muppets.

Growing up, young Walter (voice of Peter Linz) has always been a little different, but he's always gotten along best with his brother, Gary (Jason Segel), who's planning a trip to Los Angeles with his girlfriend, Mary (Amy Adams). Gary goes along with hopes of seeing the Muppet Studios, but instead he accidentally hears some startling news. A greedy businessman, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), has bought the decrepit studio and plans to knock the place down. The only way out? Use a part of Richman's contract against him, but to do so, Walter has to reunite the long since departed Muppets. Can he find them? Naturally he starts at the top, looking for one Kermit the Frog.

It is clear from the script that he co-penned, but Segel was and is a huge fan of the Muppets dating back to The Muppet Show, The Muppet Movie, and yeah, basically anything with Muppets in it. Henson's creations have been out of the limelight for far too long if you ask me so there's a sense of nostalgia just watching this movie. The script actually plays that angle up as the old gang gets back together. Are the Muppets even famous anymore? Will anyone recognize them, much less welcome them back? Segel's script pays tribute to previous Muppet entries -- inside jokes, somewhat edgy humor for puppets, recurring gags -- but never goes overboard. Basically, if you have enjoyed watching the Muppets at any point in your life, something in this story will appeal to you.

While I feel ridiculous criticizing this movie in any sense, the positives outweigh the negatives for the most part. Why's that? Because it's the Muppets, and we get to see the old crew back together! Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, the Great Gonzo, Rolf the Dog, Animal, Swedish Chef, Sam the Eagle, Dr. Bunson Hunnydue and Beeker, and any number of other guys I'm forgetting. It's not a long movie so some characters get thrown by the wayside, but what's there for each is prime. Kermit as usual plays straight man to the antics, Miss Piggy loses her mind, and Fozzie is hilarious (as always). There's just a comfort level with seeing these characters again.

Now anyone new to the Muppet franchise should beware of wave after wave of cameo appearances. Cooper is hysterical as maniacally evil Tex Richman, insisting his henchmen laugh maniacally because he can't. Rashida Jones plays a maligned TV executive who puts the Muppets back on TV. Also look for Jack Black in a scene-stealing part as himself, Alan Arkin, Sarah Silverman, Mickey Rooney, Zach Galifianakis, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, singer Selena Gomez, Whoopi Goldberg, The Big Bang Theory's Jim Parsons, Emily Blunt, Dave Grohl as a replacement Animal, and Ken Jeong. And because Netflix/rental DVDs refuse to include special features on discs, apparently the deleted scenes feature many, many more cameos.

Brace yourself for the sacrilege. I have to criticize a Muppet movie. God bless Jason Segel and his Muppet fandom, but the hamfisted, forced story of his Gary and Adams' Mary is painful to watch. It's got to be hard being upstaged by Muppets, but basically anytime the story left focus from them to the humans....dullsville. It didn't help either that the song and dance numbers are awful. Maybe I'm spoiled with the original The Muppet Movie, but those original songs are classics. The Rainbow Connection does make an appearance here thankfully. As a topper, the new character, Walter, doesn't bring much new to the group. Still, this is a Muppet movie, and with fart shoes! Check it out HERE. The parts that do work -- Fozzie's Muppet cover band, Animal in Anger Management to control his drumming problem, the 'Muppet Man' dupe -- are spot-on. Too bad there couldn't have been more of those moments.

The Muppets <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****

Hearts of the West

Who among us at some point hasn't wanted to be a movie star? Even if it was just for a second, the glamour of the big screen looks awfully inviting. So how about a young country bumpkin getting started in the movies and finding out it isn't quite as glamorous as it looks? In steps 1975's Hearts of the West.

Hoping to become a western novel writer, young Lewis Tater (Jeff Bridges) heads west to what he believes is a writing school only to find it is a correspondence school and a con job at that. Still wanting to pursue his dream, Lewis runs afoul of the con men (Anthony James and Richard B. Shull) and ends up with some of their money. On the run, Lewis stumbles onto the set of a western being filmed in the desert and quickly finds work. He wants to be a writer above all else but starts off as a background player and stuntman, meeting Howard Pike (Andy Griffith) and a handful of other vets of the business. Somewhat naive and a little idealistic though, Lewis finds out everything isn't quite what it's made out to be.

Following your dreams and coming of age stories are pretty familiar story-lines, but that's not a bad thing. Bridges at 26 years old is probably a little old for the Lewis character, but he makes it work. A tad pretentious at times because he's so assured of his writing abilities, Bridges gives Lewis that solid mix of naive youngster and over the top, energetic where you can't help but like him. He meets people both good and bad, finding out that trusting others isn't always the easiest or best thing to do to advance yourself. Bridges is one of my favorites, and his performance here -- while not one of his most well known -- is a very strong role to lead the movie.

What works so well with director Howard Zieff's movie is the portrayal of an ever-growing business, movies. Set in the early 1930s, 'Hearts' is right in that time when studios were still trying to figure out how to make the transition from silent films to sound films, the focus here on the cheap western serials made with a quick turnaround. The good guys were very good, the bad guys very bad, and the stunt guys? Well, they just want to get paid. It is the little scenes and moments that made me laugh. Alan Arkin plays Kessler, a director who can manipulate like nobody's business, "motivating" Lewis by telling him the money they'll lose if a scene doesn't work. Bridges' ridiculously theatrical "death scene" has him twisting and turning, moaning and groaning before finally falling to the ground with a thud. A little window into one of Hollywood's most interesting eras, and a good window at that.

In an impressive supporting cast, Arkin and Griffith both stand out for all the right reasons. Arkin's Kessler is a supporting player to the story and not a necessarily important one, but Arkin makes the best of it. He isn't chewing the scenery, but it's close. He gets to ham it up a bit working with his cast, stunt men, script supervisors and film crew. Kessler goes from zero to 60 like nothing, providing some truly funny outbursts. In between The Andy Griffith Show but before Matlock, Griffith gets to show off his range, a fun character who's had years of experience in the business who also has a darker side. Bridges' Lewis clearly looks up to him, something that could come back to bite him. It's a great performance, both of them are, the strong parts that can bring a movie up a notch or two overall.

That's not all though with a very deep cast assembled for this movie-making film. Blythe Danner plays Miss Trout, a script supervisor who Lewis meets on-set. She similarly feels sympathy for him while also liking him and his genuine willingness to make something of himself. Donald Pleasence makes a quick appearance as A.J. Neitz, a movie producer with lots of pull all around Hollywood. Alex Rocco is underused as Earl, one of Arkin's assistants. Matt Clark and Burton Gilliam are two of the stunt crew who work with Lewis and Howard, putting themselves in harm's way for a small payday. Good cast from top to bottom.

Not much else to say here. Just a good movie, funny, sweet and a great look into the movies from behind the camera.

Hearts of the West <---TCM clips (1975): ***/****

Wait Until Dark

Not being an actor, I can only imagine that it's a tough gig to be good at.  But just playing someone else is one thing.  What about when you're playing someone who has a physical disability, an ailment that forces you to do something that you actually can do? Think of playing a handicapped person getting around in a wheelchair, a deaf person who can't hear, or in the case of 1967's Wait Until Dark, playing a blind woman. Beyond preparing for something that you can only prepare for so much, an actor/actress has to sell it too because if the audience doesn't buy it, the movie is sunk.

The actress playing a blind woman in this 1960s thriller is the very beautiful and very talented Audrey Hepburn who I've only seen in three other movies.  Hepburn's great performance leads a list of positives to come out of this movie that I was happy to see was based on a play.  That's what this movie experience was like, watching a play without being a part of the audience.  It's an odd little movie, full of interesting and worthwhile performances in an incredibly unique, innovative setting.

Waiting for a drug shipment -- heroin smuggled in a child's doll -- mysterious Roat (Alan Arkin) is double-crossed by his carrier and now has to find the doll the drugs are being transported in.  He tracks them down to a married man, Sam Hendrix (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.), who lives with his wife in a small New York basement apartment.  Roat blackmails two convicts recently released from prison, Mike Talman (Richard Crenna) and Carlino (Jack Weston), into helping him get the doll back.  His plan is anything but simple and involves all sorts of trickery and deception. Roat gets Sam out of the apartment for an extended time thinking the doll has to be someplace in there.  The only thing standing in his way is Sam's wife, Susy (Hepburn), a woman who just a year before was blinded in a horrific car accident.

With the exception of the first 10 minutes of the movie, the whole story takes place in Sam and Susy's quaint, little NYC apartment and the empty street just outside their window.  In other words, it's easy to see this movie coming from a stage-based play.  In addition to the cast, the apartment ends up being another character -- a key one at that -- in the story.  Where could this small doll be hiding? There's only so many places it could be tucked away in, right? As Roat's plan reveals itself, Susy begins to question if the doll is even in the apartment.  At 108 minutes, the story does slow down a bit at times, but it's never long before things get back on track.

An obvious key to whether this movie sinks or swims is Audrey Hepburn as the recently blinded Susy Hendrix.  It's easy to forget looking at her that she was a damn good actress too, and she gets a chance to show off her chops here.  Because her character could fairly recently actually see everything she cannot see now, it adds a dimension to Susy.  She still struggles to adjust to this new life and does her best through all the ups and downs, the positive and the frustration.  It all works because Hepburn brings this incredible feeling of vulnerability to the part.  Duped by these three crooks, she literally can't see what's being done to her (and I don't mean that as some sort of dig).  Susy is worried for herself and for her husband. That's all.  A home invasion on any level is one thing, but being unaware of the fact because of a con job, that's hard to wrap your head around. She convinced me in her performance as a blind woman, and I wasn't alone as she was nominated for an Oscar for her part, eventually losing to Katharine Hepburn for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

So going up against the innocent, vulnerable Susy is a trio of crooks including two actors I don't normally think of as playing villains.  The exception of the three is Alan Arkin as Roat, the cold-blooded, callous leader who doesn't really care who gets hurt or how as long as in the end he gets his hand on his drugs.  I think Arkin's going for some sort of mix between a hippie and a beatnik with his odd hair cut and constant wearing of stylish 60s shades, but whatever he's going for, it works.  He's creepy as hell.  Crenna and Weston are the exceptions, actors who typically were on the good side with a majority of their roles.  To appease that feeling, director Terence Young doesn't make them out-and-out baddies.  They're blackmailed into helping Roat so it's not like they're enjoying it. Crenna still manages an icy edge to him that hints at his character's past, and Weston is his usual sweaty, bumbling self.

I won't say the fun of the movie because seeing a blind woman duped in her own home isn't fun, but the best, most unique part of the story is seeing Roat's plan unfold.  After a chilling introduction, we see a plan with Roat, Talman and Carlino all acting as if Susy has stepped into a murder case.  There's multiple characters, several twists and turns, and a constant attempt to throw her comfort level off, all aided by her lack of sight.  Susy's smart though, and even Roat couldn't plan for that because it's only a matter of time before she starts to piece things together.  It's an exciting thriller with one of the more unique stories around, give it a try! You can watch it at Youtube starting HERE with Part 1 of 11.

Wait Until Dark <---trailer (1967): ***/****

And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself

It is a name that is instantly recognizable when heard, even if the reason isn’t well known. He was a revolutionary and dubbed by some a murderer and a coward even in his home country where he fought for the poor and downtrodden against the powerful dictator and his government. He is even infamous for “invading” the United States however briefly before retreating across the border back into Mexico. His name was Pancho Villa, and there have been few people in the last 100 years of history to stir up as much controversy as him.

Because of the controversy that hovers over his memory and reputation, Villa has not been dealt with much through movies.  When there are movies about him, they range from comically bad like Telly Savalas playing Villa in an awful Euro-western appropriately titled “Pancho Villa” or a straight action, shoot ‘em up flick like Villa Rides!  From what I’ve read about the infamous revolutionary, there’s very little that isn’t interesting about him.  An HBO Films production, 2003’s And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself (odd title, cool movie) jumps right into the historical personality, looking at both the good and the bad.

It’s 1914 and with motion pictures still in a fledgling stage, Mutual Films agrees to a contract with Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa (Antonio Banderas) who is fighting Mexican president Huerta and his army. Frank Thayer (Eion Bailey) leads the film crew that will document the revolutionary struggle, including filming real live battles.  The finished product is panned critically and is a miserable, costly failure. Frank comes up with a better idea, go back to Mexico and work with Villa on a second movie, a longer one that will explore Villa’s life that will take some liberties with the truth. But as “filming” begins, Frank begins to see that the man he’s come to respect so much isn’t everything he’s cut out to be. Amidst a bloody revolution, Thayer may pay for his errors with his life.

Just like controversial historical figures such as Che Guevarra, Adolf Hitler, and any number you care to add, you’re working on thin ice when making a feature length movie about them.  Viewers are going to have a preconceived notion about the person going into the movie.  With Villa at least, this isn’t as much of an issue. He’s been dead over a 100 years, and anyone who met him would have been a child when doing so.  For awhile in ‘Starring’ I was worried that the portrayal of Villa was too whitewashed, painting him in this adoring light that ignored all his flaws.  But as the movie moves along and we see more of Villa, we see a man who contradicts himself with his words and actions, combining the thoughtful and good with the horrific and cringe-inducing. A balanced look is always a better one, and ‘Starring’ is better for exploring the person through all the good and bad.

Besides the obvious physical resemblance, Banderas is about as perfect a choice to play Pancho Villa. No matter the role, he has an incredible physical presence on-screen. With a part like a revolutionary who leads thousands of followers with his charisma and personality, that’s a must for the actor.  Banderas sells it that he could lead a rebel army into battle, riding at the front into a wall of gunfire.  It is a role that allows him to show off his charming side while balancing it out with a side where rage and fury boils just beneath the surface waiting to explode.  You’re never sure what to expect of the man, and that makes it impossible to take your eyes off him.  The relationship that develops between Banderas’ Villa and Bailey’s Frank is our view point, our perspective as we see all of the man’s flaws and imperfections.

Title cards, prologues, and epilogues all point that the story being told is a true one.  Now as you might know, there’s no actual “The Life of General Villa” silent movie out on DVD.  Thayer’s narration states it “has been lost to posterity.” That’s the surreal part of the movie whether you believe the claim of historical accuracy or not. Thayer and his crew film during battles as bullets fly by and explosions sound in the distance. I wish this angle would have been played up more as it provides some hilariously dark humor. Citing the contract they’ve both signed, Thayer even requests Villa attack from the west in an epic charge not because of a strategic decision but because the LIGHTING from the west is better than the east. A minor complaint there because what’s there is funny without overdoing it.

The parts for Banderas and Bailey (of Band of Brothers fame) dominate the story and the screentime, but that doesn’t mean the supporting cast isn’t worth mentioning. Alan Arkin is a scene-stealer as a machine-gunning mercenary from Brooklyn fighting for Villa and $1,000 a month, Michael McKean is the director working on-location in Mexico, Kyle Chandler plays future director and then-actor Raoul Walsh (playing young Pancho in the movie), James Broadbent as the studio head pulling the strings, and Alexa Davalos in a wasted role as Thayer’s love interest.

Just like its flawed title character, the movie has its flaws sprinkled here and there.  But overall, the positives more than outweigh the negatives.  Banderas carries the movie in one of his best performances in a movie with a large scale that never overshadows the personal side in this possibly – just maybe –accurate historical epic.

And Starring Pancho Villa as Himself <--- trailer (2003): ***/****