Hell in Korea

When I think of anti-war films, I tend to zoom right in on the 1960's, right as the Vietnam War jumped into full gear and moviegoing audiences amped up their cynicism. Well, sorta. The theme of today's review intro? The Brits, ahead of the game in the dark, gloomy, cynical anti-war film. I'll obviously mention some others later, but for now, here's 1956's Hell in Korea.

Commanded by inexperienced Lieutenant Butler (George Baker), a 15-man patrol leaves its base and heads out on a reconnaissance patrol. The patrol is split up down the middle, half professional soldiers and the other half National Service men called up when the fighting in Korea started. Their objective is simple; march out to a seemingly isolated village and find out if it is garrisoned or being used at all by North Korean and Chinese forces. Short answer? It ain't, but on the way back to base, the patrol is cut off by a much larger Chinese force. Butler tries to pull off a delaying action, but more Chinese troops quickly arrive on the scene. Butler's patrol has only one alternative...cut back through the abandoned village and fort up above it in a mountainside temple cut perched next to a cliff before they're cut to pieces. If they can make it...

There's something to be said for movies like this. By the late 1950's, studios in Hollywood and London alike were starting to focus more on BIG movies, EPIC movies with a huge scale and a bigger cast. Then there's movies like this. Filmed in black and white, 'Korea' focuses on one patrol, its mission, and its fallout when things go wrong. There is no bigger picture of the war. The focus is on one patrol. It was filmed in a barren location (I can't find where) and feels removed from any civilized part of the world. Cut-off from their own forces, the patrol is on their own. It can be stories like this that work so well because for all the huge battles and large-scale clashes, there were far more stories like this when it comes to a realistic war.

Two movies came to mind while watching this 1956 war drama, both like-minded stories and outlooks, as I thought about what to write. Wouldn't you know it? Both are British, 1961's The Long and the Short and the Tall (liked it) and 1959's Yesterday's Enemy (loved it). These aren't movies interested in glorifying war or showing it for all its heroism and bravery. It was about survival, plain and simple. That's where director Julian Amyes' film works best. The men on the patrol come from a variety of backgrounds, some don't like each other to the point it borders on hate, and they aren't looking for medals or notoriety. They want to survive and get home, war be damned. There's honesty in that sentiment. There's nothing heroic about getting your head blown off on a desolate Korean hillside. The stark black and white photography certainly adds something to that bleak, no-hope filled anti-war sentiment.

What originally caught my eye though wasn't the message or anti-war feelings. It was the cast! Featuring a Lost Patrol/Sahara/Bataan-like ensemble, the cast here is the patrol. We don't meet anyone back at HQ, no one on the enemy, NO ONE else. The cast is the patrol. That's it, and that's all. Though none get key, lead parts, it's cool to see Michael Caine (in his screen debut), Robert Shaw and Stephen Boyd in early roles. As the inexperienced but intelligent Lt. Butler, Baker is very solid in the best performance, getting help from Harry Andrews and Stanley Baker as the embattled veterans on the patrol, Andrews the tough as hell sergeant, Baker the Chinese-hating corporal. Also look for familiar faces in Michael Medwin, Ronald Lewis, Victor Maddern, Percy Herbert, Harry Landis and Robert Brown as members of the patrol.

As simple, straightforward and effective as 'Korea' can be at times, there are moments that feel like misfires. There's some key moments in firefights where the camera moves away from where the action should be. Characters being killed off is almost an afterthought, brushed away as quick as the camera can move. Things feel a bit rushed at just 80 minutes, much of the downtime between battles spent with the patrol bitching and moaning about the state they find themselves in. Some of it builds the tension, helps us get to know the men at least a little bit, but it also gets repetitive when it should be getting interesting as the bullets are supposed to start flying.

It is is a good, interesting movie, but not a great one. I loved the temple set, up on a hilltop seemingly in another world. I liked Malcom Arnold's score, somewhat reminiscent of his most famous score, The Bridge on the River Kwai. So while it isn't a great movie with some big flaws, this is still a little-known, mostly forgotten war film that is definitely worth catching up with. Track it down if you can. I happened to stumble across it on Turner Classic Movies recently.

Hell in Korea (1956): ** 1/2 /****

Beyond the Poseidon Adventure

I've never hid my feelings about sequels and remakes. Sure, they can be lazy and big, old cash-cows, but if there's a need to make more movies or an interesting plotline or character(s), then I'm all for it. Same for remakes. If the original sucked or had untapped potential, then fire away. But the other efforts? The purely for the big payday efforts...yeah, here we are today. I watched 1979's Beyond the Poseidon Adventure because I could, because I'm an idiot and...yeah, here's the review.

It's New Year's Eve and Captain Mike Turner (Michael Caine) is on the Mediterranean Sea on his tugboat, the Jenny, with his first mate, partner and friend, crusty seaman, Wilbur (Karl Malden), and a spunky young woman, Celeste (Sally Field), they picked up at their last port. Turner is in some serious financial trouble and will likely see his boat repossessed very soon. But out at sea, they stumble across the floating wreckage of the S.S. Poseidon as a helicopter flies away overhead. Turner's eyes light up. He claims the salvage rights for the ship and taking a huge risk tries to get onto the capsized cruise ship. Turner isn't alone though. Another ship boards, a Dr. Stefan Svevo (Telly Savalas) explaining his ship heard a distress signal and he intends to help any potential survivors. The ship could sink or explode at any moment, but Turner and Co. head into the wreckage, hoping to find some sort of treasure, money, diamonds...if they can survive.

What the hell? I mean, come on. Really? It took Master of Disaster Irwin Allen (directing and producing here) seven years to get this sequel made after the mega-success of 1972's The Poseidon Adventure. I liked the original Poseidon even if I didn't love it. It's hard not to appreciate it for all that it accomplished, influencing whole genres and hundreds of movies since. You know what it didn't call for? A sequel. As in AT ALL. This is an opportunity to make money, pure, plain and simple. Worst than that, it isn't even guilty pleasure good. The cast is interesting as they usually are with disaster movies, but mostly, it is just B-A-D.

It is literally the same movie with one minor change. We've got idiots heading into the sinking ship that is continually rocked with explosions. Sure, the reasons are greed-based (just about everyone can get on-board with that) but really? REALLY?!? And let's think about this for a minute. Does anyone actually believe that Telly Savalas is telling the truth? It's Telly Freaking Savalas. There's simply no way that he is what he says he is. The problem becomes that when the twist is revealed, it is absolutely ridiculous, ending in a gunfight in a cargo hold. So yeah, that happens but the twisting and turning story stretches the limits even for an unnecessary sequel. If it helps your peace of mind (and it should), things don't get better as the running time approaches two hours. It gets worse.

So at this point, the saving grace has to be the star power of the cast. The cast is pretty solid in name recognition, and the formula is the same as most disaster movies. Introduce all our Hollywood stars and see who makes it out relatively unscathed. This was an interesting part of Michael Caine's career, one he's admitted he was in it for the money. There's gems like The Swarm and more into the 1980s, Jaws IV: The Revenge. He was rough in 'Swarm,' but he's actually pretty decent here. He commits to the part/script -- however bad -- and goes for it. Along with Field, Malden and Savalas, there's also Peter Boyle, Jack Warden, Shirley Jones, Shirley Knight, Paul Picerni, Slim Pickens, Mark Harmon, Veronica Hamel, and Angela Cartwright rounding out our assorted ensemble of survivors. Give them some sort of personal background, throw them together and let things fall apart from there. It does so in pretty spectacular fashion.

Things get pretty out of control, truly boring and bad in the second half. The twists are ridiculous, and scene-to-scene, it just feels like everyone is trying too hard. Sally Field is at her disgustingly adorable cutest, always ready with a nervous one-liner in the face of impending doom. Slim Pickens hams it up like his paycheck depended on it and other stuff happens with other actors. Meh, just really bad pretty much from the get-go. Not even guilty pleasure good. Just lousy.

Beyond the Poseidon Adventure (1979): */****

The Swarm

I'm not always the quickest learner so I'll take the blame for this one. I guess I should have learned quicker. While there are exceptions, there just weren't many good disaster movies in the 1970s and then into the 1980s. So for every Airport, Towering Inferno and Poseidon Adventure, there are movies like 1978's The Swarm. Yep, another nail in the coffin of a genre struggling to hold on for dear life.

At an isolated army installation in the American Southwest, a heavily armed patrol slowly navigates the eerily empty facility. What the hell happened here? Deep underground at the installation, the investigating patrol finds several dead bodies and a few lucky survivors, including a mysterious doctor, Brad Crane (Michael Caine), who says he's an expert on the world of insects. A much larger army force, commanded by crotchety General Slater (Richard Widmark), arrives soon after, and they're too stunned at what they find and what Crane claims is behind the mysterious attack. The responsibility goes to....an immense swarm of African killer bees. Bees!!!! Making the situation worse, there's no cure for the bees' surprisingly venomous sting and seemingly no one is immune. It looks like nothing can stop the not-so-fast moving bees, and they're heading for Houston.

Sometimes you DO just know. When this 1978 disaster flick from director Irwin Allen -- Master of Disaster flicks -- popped up on Turner Classic Movies' schedule, I had to set it to record. I HAD to. Movies with casts like this don't pop up too often so I had to at least give it a try. Worst case, it's just entertaining in a bad, guilty pleasure fashion, right? Well, that's what you would think. This wasn't even good in a 'So bad it's good' way. It just isn't entertaining. Apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks so. 'Swarm' is on all sorts of worst movies ever made lists and bombed in epic fashion in theaters back in 1978. If that's not a recipe for success, I don't know what is!

Maybe the most frightening thing to take away from this bee-disaster flick is that there's a director's cut available out there clocking in at 156 minutes. The TCM version I saw was an already painfully long 116 minutes. God knows what else could be expanded on in an additional 40 minutes because I was losing interest in the shortened version at the 60-minute mark. For goodness sake, 'Swarm' utilizes a love triangle featuring Olivia de Havilland, Ben Johnson and Fred MacMurray (in his last role) as a subplot! Yes, because that's what we need, three Hollywood legends in a senior citizen love triangle in a disaster flick where a swarm of killer bees are the villains. Seems reasonable, don't it? I can't say I'd be too interested in seeking out that longer version of a dud like this.

Star Michael Caine has said this is the worst movie he ever made, and it's hard to disagree. As the insect/bug specialist, Caine looks to be immensely bored throughout. If there's a slightly redeeming quality in 'Swarm,' it's that the cast is epically impressive. Now are any of them given much of anything to do? That would be a big N-O, but still, look at all those Hollywood stars! Along with Caine and perpetually angry Widmark, look for Katharine Ross, Henry Fonda and Richard Chamberlain as some of the scientists tasked with halting the advance of the bees.  Also look for Lee Grant, Jose Ferrer, Patty Duke, Bradford Dillman, Slim Pickens, and Cameron Mitchell in other supporting parts, some more painfully forced than others.

Things unfortunately develop in more spoof-fashion than straight disaster flick. How many slow motion bee attack scenes can we witness before it just becomes laughable? Because the movie is about bees, we get one hilarious scene after another about our very talented cast discussing what the bees' intentions are, if they're seeking revenge, if there is a major bee plan to take over the world. It's all done so straight that it becomes spoof-like, and that's never a good thing. The problem is there just isn't that one reason to sit back and watch this one, and that's considering the star power on hand. The cast is given little to nothing to do, the killer bees are a laughable "villain," and the entertainment value just isn't there. Give this one a wide berth.

The Swarm (1978): */****

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Does the name Matthew Vaughn ring a bell? Well, it's not necessarily a household name...yet. A director, producer and writer extraordinaire, Vaughn has been behind such movies as Layer Cake, Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class, The Debt, and even the upcoming Fantastic Four reboot. His most recent flick, 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service, is pulling in the dough. Who knows? It might not be too long before Vaughn is definitely a household name.

Part of a secret spy organization working in England with a history dating back to the early 20th century, the Kingsmen, gentleman spy Harry Hart (Colin Firth), codename: Galahad, is on a mission in the Middle East, when a fellow young agent is killed saving his life. Back in England, Harry meets the agent's young son and some 17 years later saves him from a nasty encounter with the police. Why the encounter so many years later? Harry recruits young Gary 'Eggsy' Unwin (Taron Egerton) to become the newest agent, the newest Kingsman. Having grown up on the streets, Eggsy is intelligent, tough and quick-thinking, but he hasn't always lived up to his potential. Now, Harry needs him to live up to it if he hopes to beat the other candidates. Trouble is on the horizon in the form of Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson), an internet billionaire with a horrific plan to alter Earth's future. The key to it all, that could be feisty, stubborn Eggsy.

Let's give Mr. Vaughn credit where it's due. This is a guy who knows what kind of movie he wants to make, sets out to do it, and screw anyone who gets in his way. No, I'm not saying he's some sort of movie studio bully. It's just that Vaughn makes movies unlike just about any other movie currently in theaters. Helter-skelter, schizophrenic, stylish, smart and equal parts stupid, this is just a ridiculously fun and entertaining movie. It most assuredly is NOT for everyone. The violence is cartoonishly over the top and stylized, the humor a little low-brow at times, but my goodness, what a fun movie.

The British spy movie has a long and rich history, starting obviously with the James Bond/007 franchise. It's the rare movie that is able to put a new spin on the spy genre, but 'Kingsman' does it with violent glee and fun. This is a smart movie, poking fun at the genre without venturing into spoof territory (thankfully). The script from Vaughn and Jane Goldman is self-conscious, some great dialogue scenes between Firth's Harry and Jackson's Valentine discussing the backgrounds of the gentleman spy and the maniacal villain trying to take over the world. Fans of the genre will get a kick out those moments, the quieter, smarter and lower key moments that balance out the general craziness of the rest of the movie.

Reviews were generally pretty mixed about star Taron Egerton, but I came away impressed with the young British actor. He definitely holds his own in the dramatic scenes with quite the cast surrounding him of dramatic star power. When it comes to the action scenes, Egerton shows off his physical prowess, blending in seamlessly. It doesn't hurt that he's got that cocky smirk ready with a snap to disarm a scene with ease. How about some star power though? Constantly wearing the layered look and showing off a flat-brim hat and rocking a lisp, Samuel L. Jackson is clearly having a ball as Valentine, the villain with a plan to save the world by some horrifying means. This isn't a nutso villain. His plan is certainly...interesting, but he's also squeamish around blood, a bit of a goof and loves a good McDonald's cheeseburger. Also look for Sofia Boutella as Gazelle, Valentine's foot-less hench-woman who uses bladed prosthetic legs as deadly weapons. 

The casting of three British actors was what originally caught my eye and kept me interested as a release date drew closer. Enter Colin Firth, Michael Caine and Mark Strong. One of the most talented actors currently working in film and the prototypical British gentleman (on screen at least, he may be a wild man in his personal life), Firth absolutely nails the movie. Let's call it Liam Neeson Mode, a highly respected actor taking on a more fun role. He plays the straight man to all the shenanigans, but man, is he having fun. The same for Strong as Merlin, a fellow Kinsgman and a drill sergeant of sorts, barking out orders with a bit of a Scottish brogue as his potential agents navigate training. Oh, and that Michael Caine guy. Have you heard of him? It's a smaller part, but an essential one. How can you go wrong with that trio? I submit that you CANNOT. Also look for Mark Hamill and Jack Davenport in supporting parts.

The history of the Kingsman would be an interesting prequel in itself, a group of agents and spies with code names from the legend of King Arthur, all criss-crossing the world to stop all sorts of diabolical plots. A highly recommended movie with some ridiculously stylized violence, some great one-liners, style in general to burn, and a 'Screw you' type of attitude. It's the type of movie that doesn't care if you like it. It's just interested in being a ton of fun.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014): ***/****

Interstellar

There aren't a lot of huge, big name directors making movies in Hollywood right now. You know, those directors that if they're behind a film makes it a must-watch film. I put Christopher Nolan high up on that list. The director of the most recent Batman trilogy, Nolan is a big old talent so I was more than curious when I first saw the trailer for his Batman follow-up, 2014's Interstellar. Where does it come down?

It's sometime in the not too distant future and Earth is in trouble as a crop blight is causing the planet to slowly but surely run out of food. Society has changed in countless ways with those people still alive forced to become farmers in hopes of continuing to provide food, among them a former NASA pilot, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) and his family. Something needs to be done if humanity has any hope of surviving long-term, and Cooper and his daughter may unknowingly hold the key to it all. The former pilot begins to work with NASA on quite the alternate solution. A wormhole has been discovered around Saturn that can transport a spaceship and its crew into far-off galaxies that otherwise would have been impossible to reach. Could there be an alternate galaxy that offers a planet that can sustain human life? Can it be reached? Knowing that the trip will take years to complete, will Cooper go along? The depths and mysteries of the universe await through the wormhole.

In the same way I loved the Batman movies, Inception, The Prestige, I loved Interstellar. This most recent Nolan film has flaws -- no doubt about it -- but there's a sense of what movies could and should be. Even those who are critical of Nolan should be able to admit that this talented director tries something different. He aspires to direct something more, something bigger and something you can't look away from. The story is obviously pretty big (can't do much bigger than the end of Earth) with stunning visuals, solid casting, a memorable score from composer Hans Zimmer, and overall, just something different that I thought worked so smoothly and ridiculously well together. It's a long movie at 169 minutes and could have been trimmed here and there but this is an excellent movie. Highly recommend this one.

Say what you want about Nolan as a storyteller, but I think he's at his best as a big picture sort of guy. Unique ideas, scope and scale, the bigger the better. Where better to bring that to life than the science fiction genre? Nolan tweaks the world we know, adding a few years but a world that seems pretty inevitable for our planet. The plight that ravaged crops worldwide is never addressed head-on. It happened. Let's try and fix it. Humanity's time on Earth is running out with the end fast approaching. With a few quick scenes, some dialogue here and there, we're introduced to this world. What does our future hold? That's the beauty of Nolan's vision. We see future technologies, including robot assistants (voiced by Bill Irwin and Josh Stewart) with unique movements. We see a world far less populated where the accepted ways of living have changed. That's what Nolan does so well. He creates a world with broad strokes laying out the groundwork. He aspires to do something different, something better.

Before I delve into some technical "analysis" (or at least as much as I can imagine), let's deal with some casting. McConaughey makes the most of his first film with Nolan, his Cooper a kind of wild-eyed dreamer with an inventive streak and intellect that makes him seemed destined for bigger and better. I wish McConaughey didn't mumble so much, but the performance itself is very strong, especially his relationship with his 10-year old daughter, Murph (Mackenzie Foy). There's a human side that works really well here, a single father who makes an impossibly difficult decision that could take years away from his time with his daughter and son (Timothee Chamalet) but could potentially preserve mankind's existence. That question pervades much of the second half of Nolan's film. With so much on the line, do you think selfishly or do you think for the bigger good?

There's plenty more in the old casting department. Anne Hathaway plays Brand, a scientist who travels with Cooper into the Saturn wormhole, another intellectual trying to wrap her head around their situation, about making decisions that could cost years and millions of lives. Michael Caine plays her brilliant scientist father with Wes Bentley and David Gyasi playing the other two members of the Saturn wormhole. Now who else to look for? Here's some semi-SPOILERS for you. SPOILERS I don't want to explain much about the rest of the cast in terms of characterization, as in who and what the roles are. That's the fun of where this story goes with some unexpected appearances and characters twists. Those names include Ellen Burstyn, John Lithgow, David Oyelowo, William Devane, Topher Grace, and with some big old-fashioned star power, Jessica Chastain, Matt Damon and Casey Affleck. Chastain and Damon especially leave the best lasting impressions. END OF semi-SPOILERS.

It's hard not to watch Interstellar and not see influences from previous sci-fi movies, most notably Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey but also including Contact (also starring McConaughey), Planet of the Apes and Armageddon among many others I'm probably forgetting. With the openness of our galaxy and beyond, Nolan is like a kid in the candy store. Much like last year's Gravity, the spacial visual is a stunning backdrop as we see the spaceship Endurance heading into deep space, unexplored space to find something, anything. We're introduced to two quasi-Earth like planets -- one as frightening as the other -- in a galaxy centered around an immense black hole dubbed Gargantua. You get a sense of the immensity of space, of the vastness of what surrounds us and the time it would and does take to get there and back. The screenplay has some fun in the department, time in one dimension moving far slower than someone close by. What's an hour for one character in real-time is several years for another. It's a unique, thought-provoking technique that's used well throughout Nolan's film.

I'm writing this review almost a week after seeing it in theaters. I definitely needed some time to process it, to really think things out. What was my conclusion? There are some plotholes, some issues in storytelling that I thought could have been tightened. As many other far better writers than me have written -- check out Chris' review HERE over at Nothing is Written -- Nolan has a knack for long scenes of exposition that explain everything that's going on. For me, I appreciated these scenes because I wasn't always sure what was actually going on. So yeah, there are issues but none of them did me in to the point where I couldn't take anymore. I loved the idea and thought behind the film, I loved the execution from the spectacle to the visual to the musical score to the cast to a mind-bending story and a moving ending.

Highly recommended. Definitely worth seeing in theaters if you get a chance. It feels like a movie where it will lose some of its impact on a TV.

Interstellar (2014): ****/****   

Gambit

I feel like I've probably seen too many heist movies. Why you ask? Because I'm pretty sure I could rob a bank or an armored car or an impenetrable art gallery and get away with it. That premise of course, is ridiculous. I would most likely get shot down immediately. But what have heist movies taught me? That no matter how much you plan, right down to the smallest detail, something, SOMETHING, will go wrong. From 1966, Gambit has a lot of fun with that simple genre premise.

An experienced thief who has managed to stay under the radar (those pesky police), Harry Dean (Michael Caine) has come up with a brilliantly unique plan that will net him quite the profit. He's going to rob the apartment of the supposed richest man in the world, Shahbandar (Herbert Lom), in Dammuz, a Middle Eastern city. His plan? He recruits Nicole Chang (Shirley MacLaine), a dance hall girl trapped in Hong Kong without money or passport. Nicole bears a striking resemblance to Shahbandar's wife who died some 20 years ago. Harry assumes that if the richest man in the world even sees Nicole, he'll be dumbstruck. So, soooo, while Shahbandar is distracted with Nicole -- posing as Harry's wife -- Harry intends to get into his heavily guarded, fortified with security apartment. He's got it all planned down to the miniscule details....and nothing seems like it can go as planned.

Not gonna lie, about 25 minutes into this comedy heist film from director Ronald Neame, I was ridiculously close to bailing. Why you ask? SPOILERS STOP READING FOR FIRST 30 MINUTE SPOILERS Well, the entire first half four of the story is a what-if. We don't know it at the time, but just the same, that's what it is. What we see is how Harry envisions his plan coming together. Every little thing comes together perfectly, no flubs or screw-ups, just a plan developing like a well-oiled machine. I did get a kick out of it that MacLaine's Nicole says absolutely NOTHING over the opener, Harry's plan ideally having her silent. I don't know why, but that premise cracked me up. Still, while it's clever, I also felt it was quite a gimmick, like a wasted half hour I wouldn't be getting back anytime soon. Thankfully in this case, I was wrong. Yes, it's a gimmick, but because of what came after it, that darn gimmick worked well.

Considering the stars involved, I was surprised I'd never heard of this heist comedy. It is funny, never going into Spoof or Stupid Territory, keeping the laughs low-key and pretty natural without too much forced. 'Gambit' is hard to peg, but it's enjoyable throughout its 109-minute running time. The biggest reason is the gimmick's payoff. The what-if first 25 minutes is dull because, well, everything goes well. What's the fun in seeing everything work out? It's all part of the set-up. We're then transported back to where Harry began, laying out his plan for the robbery. The last 90 minutes is excellent because we've already seen what Harry thinks (even expects) to happen. Seeing it go in almost the exact opposite way provides some great moments, the seemingly smooth Cockney thief unraveling with one miscue after another. MacLaine's Nicole -- now allowed to speak -- is sweet, charming and intelligent, correcting Harry ad nauseum. In those quiet, underplayed moments with genuine laughs, that's where 'Gambit' is at its absolute best.

All style choices aside, this flick's success rode on the shoulders of stars Shirley MacLaine and Michael Caine. An established star, MacLaine shows off her impeccable comedic timing with each passing scene. It's hard not to like her and more importantly, her character, Nicole, an Asian-American looking for an out of Hong Kong. It's odd to think of this, but this film was Caine's first American film after the British success of Zulu, The Ipcress File, Alfie and The Wrong Box. The part was an excellent introduction of sorts for American audiences, a smooth Brit who isn't so smooth under pressure. On their own, these are two really fun, entertaining characters, but together? There's a reason MacLaine and Caine are two of the best to ever grace the silver screen. Their chemistry is pitch-perfect, MacLaine's calm meets chipper demeanor vs. Caine's ultra-smooth, ultra-confident thief playing well off each other. Just sit back and watch two pros do their thing.

Beyond the star duo, the cast is pretty limited here. Lom rounds out the lead trio as Shahbandar, the target of Harry's brilliantly put together robbery. Not quite a villain, not quite a good guy, he's in between as he tries to figure out exactly what Harry and Nicole are up to. Who else to look for? Roger C. Carmel as Ram, the hotel attendant Harry is counting on, John Abbott as Emile, Harry's partner in crime, Arnold Moss as Abdul, Shahbandar's loyal assistant, and Richard Angarola as Salim, the police chief.

Lesson No. 2 from the Heist genre: There's always a twist. Does it always work? No. The ending here falls in between. It works, but it's not as smart as it probably thinks it is. The twist certainly does come out of left field and for the most part it all clicks together. Still, the fun is getting to the finale. If the bookends aren't the strongest aspects overall, so be it, because the middle portion is quite easy to recommend. Definitely worth checking out. Composer Maurice Jarre has some fun with his musical score, touching on a variety of different genres with his cues.

Gambit (1966): ***/****

Now You See Me

Here we sit again. I love a good twist in a movie. It's fun for any number of reasons. Will the twist work? Will it fall short? Maybe the best thing going though is can you get ahead of the twist? Can you figure it out before the reveal? It goes both ways. Now movies are trying to dupe us. The end result? Movies like 2013's Now You See Me, obsessed with making the audience look stupid.

Las Vegas audiences have seen just about everything, but they've seen nothing like the show put on by four street performers, magicians and con men dubbed The Four Horsemen, headlined by J. Daniel Atlas (Jesse Eisenberg). During a show in front of a packed house, the Horsemen seek the help of an audience member and actually manage to somehow rob a bank in France of $3 million francs. Is it deception? A sleight of hand? Or is something magically mysterious going on? An FBI agent, Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), is called in to head the case and figure out exactly what's going on. He's given the help of an inexperienced Interpol agent (Melanie Laurent) but is dealt a tough hand almost immediately. The Horsemen welcome the challenge. If the FBI and police are going to prosecute them, they're all but admitting that magic is in fact, real. The Horsemen say they've got two more shows and it will all come together. What are they up to?

Released in theaters late this spring, 'Now' was a surprise success with audiences, earning over $320 million worldwide. It was so successful a sequel has already been confirmed. I can't wait! Yeah! Reviews were generally pretty mixed, and I was skeptical going into my first viewing. The previews looked a little too goofy for my liking. At the same time, the cast listing looked absolutely ridiculous. We're talking lots of very talented individuals here working together. As is so often the case though with big, impressive casts, there's too much going on. Still, the cast is nuts. Unfortunately a very talented cast is wasted in this heist thriller from director Louis Leterrier. I really do my best not to give spoilers away so I'll try here, but it's going to be difficult.

Magic is inherently....well....mysterious, right? How do magicians pull off those crazy tricks? Is there an element of the supernatural in their acts? That's the challenge here. In the movie's first scene, Eisenberg's Atlas addresses the point of the movie. While you're trying to figure out his trick, he's pulling a fast one on you in the opposite direction. And there's the movie. While we're trying to figure out how the Four Horsemen pull off their jobs, the actual job/heist is being pulled somewhere else. 'Now' is admitting it is trying to trick us, and that's where things blow up. It is so interested in tricking us that any degree of reality, believability, or coherent semblance of anything is completely thrown out the window. Oh, they didn't really rob the Parisian bank? Oh, but they kinda did? Oh, all of their plans involved meticulous detail that no real life plan could possibly hinge on?

The catch is that the twist isn't really as clever as it thinks it is. Oddly enough, it's both really obvious and really out of left field. If you pay attention early when a character discusses some personal history, you can start to put the pieces together. That's as far as it goes. When the reveal comes, it defies description. It is so mind-blowingly stupid that it pained me to go back and thought how it all fit together. In order for it to work, whole scenes, whole sequences that we've already seen are now basically null and void. Again, no spoilers because I want you to experience the badness of this movie. Let it be known though. It is real bad.

Okay, now for the cast. Along with Eisenberg (who isn't as obnoxious as usual), the Four Horsemen include Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher and Dave Franco. As their notoriety rises, we actually see little of them for long stretches. Ruffalo and Laurent are decent together, but we get the pleasure of seeing the what if angle of their relationship. Along with that duo in the law enforcement wing, we get Michael Kelly and Common, neither given much to do except look foolish as the Horsemen one-up and dupe them again. But wait, there's more! Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman both have key supporting roles. The parts are so thinly written that we never really learn much about anyone in terms of background, motivation or actual personality traits. Cool characters/actors in name only.

I also didn't care for the score from composer Brian Tyler, a kinda 1970s crime thriller throwback that's too obvious as it blares away with each passing scene. I had moderate at best expectations for this movie, but it was frustratingly bad. At the expense of any good story, 'Now' goes for the huge twist that depends on shock value more than making sense in terms of the movie. I can't wait to not see the follow-up. Oh, I also like the assumption that if you're a con man street performer, you're also an expert in hand-to-hand combat. I especially liked Franco's street performer doing battle with Ruffalo by whipping playing cards at him, Ruffalo comically yelling back. Unintentionally funny, a light moment in a sea of badness.

Now You See Me (2013): */****

Jaws: The Revenge

We're on shark overload here so we might as well finish strong. Well, as strong as a third sequel in a progressively awful series allows. The Jaws series starts off on an epically strong film, follows with a pretty decent sequel, and then wraps up with two of the worst movies around. Putting a capper on the series, here's 1987's Jaws: The Revenge.

It's been years since her family has had to deal with shark attacks, and Ellen Brody (Lorraine Gary) is able to move on now. She's a widow -- Chief Brody died from a heart attack -- but living on Amity Island still. Her life is thrown up in the air when her son, a deputy on Amity, is killed by a great white shark. Ellen is convinced that it is a shark seeking revenge from her family's past involvement (read = killing) of sharks. Looking to get away some from her own demons, she travels with her oldest son, Michael (Lance Guest), and his wife and daughter to their home in the Bahamas. Everyone tries to convince her that her worries are absurd, but she can't shake the fear. Resting and relaxing though, Ellen is again shaken to the core when.....the shark shows up in the Bahamas!

Okay, let's clear this up now. This third Jaws sequel and fourth movie in the series is really bad. It currently possesses a 2.7 rating on IMDB and deservedly so. Now that said, I think it was miles ahead of Jaws 3-D, easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen on so many levels. To its credit, 'Revenge' basically pretends that 3-D never actually happened, and that's fine by me. What's bad is really bad. Whenever the shark is shown, you can actually see stitches in the shark, its bottomless mouth, the underwater crane actually transporting the shark. Still, it was filmed in the Bahamas (and that always looks nice), and the familiar Jaws theme is still cool. It's not good, but it is also isn't as God awful bad as some reviews made it out to be.

Maybe in some sort of existential sense, the premise here is pretty cool. Through three movies, the Brody family has dispatched their fair share of great white sharks. Ridiculous science assumptions aside, wouldn't it be kinda cool if a shark actually possessed the ability to grasp revenge? No? Okay, maybe it's just me. Sharks are killing and swimming machines so what if they were able to hunt someone specifically? Eh, the more I think about it the stupider it gets. The execution makes it worse. Ellen, Michael and Co. travel to the Bahamas and within three days a shark swims the entire trip down there from Amity Island. Yes, it follows them. A shark can somehow sense where they're going thousands of miles away and FOLLOWS them. Yeah, that's just not good.

Let's move onto the acting, ranging from really bad/wooden to meh to out of place. Reviews point to Gary's marriage with a studio exec as a main reason she reprises her role as Ellen Brody. It's eerily similar to the part Roy Scheider played in Jaws 2, but not as good. The part consists of her worriedly looking at the ocean with a vacant stare. Guest isn't much better, but he's a tad more animated at least (Karen Young playing his wife, they do have sex a lot, and Judith Barsi as their precocious daughter). In the bizarre 'Was he blackmailed into this movie?' casting, Michael Caine plays Hoagie, an island pilot who takes a shine to visiting Ellen. He's surprisingly good, but that's because he's Michael Caine more than anything else. Caine infamously once said "I never saw it, by all accounts it's terrible, but I have seen the house it built, and it's terrific." Also look for Mario Van Peebles as Jake, a Bahama marine researcher working with Michael, a truly cliched, stereotypical part that grates at all times.

A bomb in reviews and at the box office, the studio made an even stupider decision, inserting a new ending into the finale. SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS You can watch the original theatrical ending HERE, lousy but classic cinema compared to what the new ending is. The new finale actually has a shark jump clear out of the water, roar (because sharks can apparently roar), gets harpooned by the boat and spontaneously explodes. Footage from the original Jaws is even inserted (nice touch, huh?). One character is brutally bitten/attacked by the shark but manages to somehow survive. Yes, it's ridiculous. It certainly closes the series on a high note. Try as I might though, I can't give it as bad a rating as Jaws 3-D. I just can't. It's awful, but not on that level.

Jaws: The Revenge (1987): * 1/2 /****

Deadfall

I've written about it before, and it will most likely come up again at some point. You're watching a movie, everything's going smoothly. You're liking it a lot, maybe even loving it, and then something happens. It's as quick as flipping a switch, and all that positive momentum goes right out the window. Some movies can save themselves in the end. What about 1968's Deadfall? Read on and see.

Resting and recuperating a rest clinic for alcoholism (or is he?), Henry Clarke (Michael Caine) is approached one day by a young visitor, the beautiful Fe Moreau (Giovanna Ralli), with a proposal. Her husband, Richard (Eric Portman), a significantly older man than his young wife, knows Henry's secret, that he's a master thief and he's got a job in mind for the unlikely trio. Clarke does his detective work and agrees to go along with the plan. First, though Richard wants to test Clarke's ability, but that is the least of the master thief's worries. As he gets to know the couple, Henry falls hard for the beautiful Fe, and the feeling is mutual. As the job nears, he also finds out that Richard hasn't been telling him everything he needs to know.

This film from director and screenplay writer Bryan Forbes is an interesting one. It has received pretty lukewarm reviews, and some are significantly more harsh. An actor for years, Forbes made the jump to the director's chair without a glitch. In Deadfall, he creates quite the interesting movie to watch for good and bad. Visually, it is a stunner, shot on location in Spain. Forbes rarely uses a straight-on camera angle, instead opting for off-kilter, slightly ajar shots. Many reviews point to the director trying to adapt a European New Wave look with his unconventional shooting style, and I tend to agree. You can watch it and appreciate for any number of things from the unique angles and style to the stunning Spanish locations serving as a backdrop to the story.

Ah, the story, and here we are with the problems that ultimately bring the movie down a notch (or more depending on your opinion). For a 1968 audience, it does deal with some fairly controversial topics. We learn about Richard's past in World War II and also how he came to marry the beautiful Fe. It takes Caine's Clarke only a meeting or two to figure out that the older husband is in fact, gay. So what's he up to? What is his background in World War II? That's the problem with the story. It has a lot of ideas but no real focus. It kinda sorta knows where it wants to get, but not really how to get there. Instead, Forbes' screenplay (based off a novel by Desmond Cory) bounces back and forth among a whole lot of different things from adultery, incest, Nazism, betrayals and much more. A story that doesn't spell every single little thing out isn't a deal breaker -- in some cases it can be a huge positive -- but 'Deadfall' is too vague for its own good.

The most unfortunate thing is that for the first half of this 120-minute movie, I did love this movie. That Euro New Wave style works perfectly in a tension-packed heist movie that is mysterious, intense and keeps you guessing. Richard insists Henry prove himself in one heist, robbing a high-walled villa in Tangiers under heavy guard. It is a remarkable sequence, artsy and stylish like the best heist sequences can be when handled right. The extended sequence -- running about 15 minutes -- is done with virtually no dialogue, just composer John Barry's score playing over the developing heist. The best addition? The owner of the villa is at a concert -- listen HERE -- so the music we're hearing at the concert (Barry making a cameo, Renata Tarrago playing a Spanish guitar) is edited into the heist. It develops like a stage play, a tour de force sequence that I loved.

What's the problem? The heist is completed by the hour-mark. The second hour? Not so enjoyable. It devolves into a love triangle as Clarke fights for Fe, Fe wrestles with what to do, and Richard decides how to handle his new rival. Throw in Richard's young lover, Tony (Carlos Pierre), and we've got ourselves quite the mess. A tension-packed heist flick turned into a love triangle where our three participants philosophically analyze what love is? Gag me. It gets to be too pretentious for its own good at times. The ending especially comes out of nowhere and seems forced.

It's unfortunate -- yes, I'm using that again -- because Caine, Portman and Ralli all do pretty good jobs bringing the characters to life. Maybe I'm just that much in love with the first hour that I'm equally frustrated with the second half. It's a mixed bag, but what I loved, I really loved -- especially the heist sequence -- and what I didn't like came up short in a lot of ways. Also look for Nanette Newman as the Girl, a pretty young woman who keeps popping up, Leonard Rossiter as Fillmore, a source of info for Clarke, and David Buck as Salinas, a possible target for Clarke.

Deadfall (1968): ***/****

The Whistle Blower

Espionage flicks typically go one of two ways. One, the James Bond route; lots of action, explosions, beautiful women, gunfights, that sort of thing. Two, the more realistic way, films like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Argo. They both have their positives to take away, and sometimes it just depends what you're in the mood for. Where does 1987's The Whistle Blower fall? Oh so serious.

A veteran of the British Navy who served as a pilot during the Korean War, Frank Jones (Michael Caine) has moved on with his life and now has a mildly successful sales company. More and more, Frank finds himself talking his idealistic young son, Bob (Nigel Havers), down off the ledge about the nature of his job. Bob is a Russian linguist working for British intelligence, but he's become disillusioned about how the nature of the espionage is handled. Frank tries to convince him that with a struggling economy, any job is a good job, especially for a language specialist in Russian. Frank is stunned then when he receives the news that his son died in an accident, falling off the roof of his apartment building. Everyone from the police to the coroner believes it was an accident, but having talked to his son, Frank knows his son was investigating some deep, dark things. Was it an accident or part of a cover-up of something far more sinister?

Thank you, Netflix, for this one. I found it while looking through Caine's filmography/listing, and after months of procrastinating and avoiding it, I gave it a shot this week. There's no question what type of espionage flick this one is. It is the most serious of serious. No deadpan humor, no sexy secret agents, no guns a' blazing with explosions and fireballs. This is a gentlemanly espionage....well, mostly. From director Simon Langton, 'Whistle' manages to be both highly unsettling and low key in its delivery. You don't hear that often, do you? It can be a tad on the slow side, a little dull at times, but for the most part, I liked this one.

No surprises here, but Michael Caine will be my first, second and third reasons for watching this movie. Even when a movie is lousy, Caine is eternally watchable. When a movie is halfway decent, like 'Whistle' is, his performance can help bring it up a notch or two. Reflecting the solemn and serious tone of the story, it is a mostly understated, underplayed part for the screen veteran. He loves his son while also being frustrated by him. When Bob dies under suspicious circumstances, Frank is the only one who believes there could be more to the story. The portions of the story that follow are the movie at its best; an angry, confused and curious father searching for answers about his offspring. He even gets a few chances at some rabid outbursts, and let me tell you, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a Caine outburst.

On top of Caine's performance, I liked the subtle nature of the story. At 104 minutes, it is never in a rush to get anywhere. Early on, it's not even in a rush to lay everything out. It's like as an audience we're dropped into a story that already had a prologue. Names, situations, backgrounds, reputations, they're all thrown at us, and we're forced to figure it out on the fly as it comes at us. Much of it surrounds British intelligence's effort to monitor Russian messages electronically. One agent Dodgson (Bill Wallis) has been pitting the Brits/Americans vs. the Russians, and those crafty Brits intend on figuring out what's going on. Their investigation leads to a traitor (John Gielgud) who's lived in England for over 20 years. As he continues to look for answers concerning his son, Frank finds out what his son was involved with, but also how far those intelligence agencies will go to produce effective results.

Like 2011's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, 'Whistle' delves into the inner workings of the intelligence agencies. It isn't just them looking out for the country's well-being, but seeing how far they can push it to test the limits of their power.  It's a pretty frightening thought. Is one life expendable if it could lead to a huge payoff intelligence-wise? James Fox has an unsettling part as Lord, a British higher-up who calmly lays out a brutally sadistic plan, Barry Foster plays Charlie Greig, an old Army buddy of Frank's now working in Intelligence, and Gordon Jackson plays Bruce, the agent in the field putting plans into effect. Also watch for Felicity Dean as Cynthia, Bob's new girlfriend, a soon-to-be divorced woman with a kid, and Kenneth Colley as Pickett, a leftist crusading journalist desperately searching for a deeply hidden story.

I wish I had liked this movie more. For all the positives, it is slow, and it lacks a certain energy. Understated is one thing, but the story is so underplayed that I never really felt any sense of worry. The ending is disappointing although the final scene is moving, featuring some very cool on-location shooting at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, London.

The Whistle Blower (1987): ** 1/2 /****

Harry and Walter Go to New York

Some films are doomed from the start. They just are. Production problems, casting decisions, pacing/tone issues, any and all can derail a movie. There's a whole wing of Hollywood movies that are known as Epic Failures. Some overcame it, others didn't. Massively over-budget, 1976's Harry and Walter Go To New York is one that didn't despite an impressive cast.

It's 1908 and a pair of vaudeville actors, Harry (James Caan) and Walter (Elliott Gould), are struggling to make any money at all at their shows, eventually resorting to pickpocketing where they are not surprisingly caught quickly. At the same time, infamous millionaire safecracker Adam Worth (Michael Caine) is caught during a robbery and sent to prison. Working as Worth's slave-servants, Harry and Walter manage to escape and with the blueprints for the infamous bank robber's next job. Unfortunately the well-to-do Worth isn't far behind, and now it's a race against the clock to see who can pull off the job first; the bumbling performers turned con men or the experienced, expert robber?

For whatever reason, this is a movie that received generally poor reviews. On the other hand, I liked it a lot. As Roger Ebert mentions in his review, 'Harry and Walter' is clearly made in the vein of The Sting. There isn't much ink about the movie or its troubled production, but I'm guessing the massive budget problems had to do with the lavish period sets and costumes. It's turn of the century Massachusetts and New York, and everything from the ultra-detailed sets to the immaculate time-appropriate suits to the light-hearted, goofy score from David Shire works well together, especially Laszlo Kovacs' Earth-toned, dulled down color cinematography. It is a period piece, and this 1976 flick gets the period details done the right way.

I'm thinking the biggest reason for the generally negative reviews is the type of humor. Where The Sting was well-written and funny in its ability to underplay the situation, 'Harry and Walter' is not so subtle. High comedy this is not, director Mark Rydell's period-heist movie relying far more on physical humor, and bumbling humor at that. I typically don't go for that type of humor, but it worked for me here. Much of that credit goes to Caan and Gould as the buddy relationship that produces much of the laughs. I've always been a Caan fan, but this is a showier part for him, not the usual tough guy role. Case in point: he sings and dances. Caan's Harry is the confident know-it-all, Gould's Walter the quiet, nervous knows it won't work partner. They play off each other effortlessly.

If James Caan and Elliott Gould weren't enough though (and shame on you if that's the case), the supporting cast shouldn't disappoint. How often do you see Michael Caine get third billing in a movie? His Adam Worth is a scene-stealer, not quite a villain but certainly approaching that territory. Diane Keaton plays Lissa Chestnut, a crusading newspaper woman who joins the bank robbing effort and has everyone fall for her. Charles Durning is the worried bank owner trying to save his $. Also look for Lesley Ann Warren, Michael Conrad, Burt Young, Val Avery, Carol Kane, Jack Gilford, Dennis Dugan and Ted Cassidy rounding out a very deep cast.

A period piece merged with a heist flick certainly had my curiosity on high alert. The actual heist isn't anything special as Harry and Walter's "expert team" attempt to get into Durning's perfect safe. In order to create a diversion, Harry and Walter end up hijacking a stage show with their own hijinx and shenanigans. The act finally wears thin a little, but it's not enough to detract from a movie I enjoyed a lot. The cast is too talented so even if you don't go along with the physical comedy/humor, you should still get some enjoyment out of it. If nothing else, look for the prison from The Shawshank Redemption as a familiar location. Well worth checking out.

Harry and Walter Go To New York <---trailer (1976): ***/****  

The Dark Knight Rises

Considering the quality of both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, was there pressure for director Christopher Nolan to deliver an epic close-out film for his Batman trilogy? Reviews were somewhat mixed as Nolan's final Batman movie hit theaters last weekend, and the tragic shootings in Colorado will almost certainly hang over the film (to a point at least). If there was ever a case of ignoring reviews (other people's that is, I assume you'd take mine as the God honest truth), this is it. Not a surprise, but 2012's The Dark Knight Rises is a great film, one that gives the trilogy the send-off it deserves.

It has been eight years since Batman (Christian Bale) has taken the fall for Harvey Dent's murderous rampage, and Gotham City is better than ever. Crime has almost completely disappeared, and the city has experienced a rebirth of sorts. Hiding away at Wayne Manor, Batman/Bruce Wayne is wasting away, a recluse who hasn't appeared publicly for years. But when things seem just right -- even perfect -- for Gotham, a new terror arises, a madman in the form of mysterious and masked Bane (Tom Hardy), a criminal who vows to rock the foundation, destroying the city to rubble. Having questioned if everything/anything he ever did as Batman accomplished anything, Bruce must now decide what's best for Gotham. Let the city save itself? Or is the only thing stopping Bane the return of Batman?

First off, I have to say how impressed I was both with this final movie, but the trilogy on the whole. I rewatched the first two movies over the last week-plus before checking out 'Rises' and can very much recommend doing the same if you can. There's a continuity, a comfort level that permeates through an extended viewing of sorts. What can I say that I haven't in the other Batman reviews? Christopher Nolan is an immense talent, and I hope he continues to direct movies of this superb quality. The best description I can come up with to describe my enjoyment is hopefully simple to understand. You watch these movies -- 'Rises' especially -- and you just have that feeling you're watching what a movie should be. Not what it could be. SHOULD. Immensely entertaining, well-acted and well-written, an epic scale but also a connection on the personal level, spot-on soundtrack/musical score. Batman Begins started the ball rolling, The Dark Knight perfected the formula, and The Dark Knight Rises continues to use that formula.

What struck me most watching this newest arrival was the quality of drama here with kudos to a script from Nolan and Jonathan Nolan. I almost took it for granted, but over three movies, you honestly come to like/hate these characters, but if nothing else you get to know them. As pure drama, this is the best of the three films. It is by far the most personal of the three. Bale delivers his finest performance as the tortured Bruce Wayne, questioning what his actions accomplished while hiding away at Wayne Manor. This is an individual with inner demons that threaten to tear him apart. Buzz started circulating in the weeks prior to its release that Batman would die in this final installment (no finale spoilers here), and the darkness of the story reflects that. Batman has become the true tragic hero; an individual who genuinely wanted to do right but through his own fault, society, greed, and so many other things is forced to change, adapt and improvise. A credit to Bale for doing such a fine job with a character that could have easily been phoned in.

Using that as a jumping off point, Bale isn't on-screen for seemingly long stretches of the 164-minute movie. While Batman is the obvious key and focal point, this is also a story about the people of Gotham City. Michael Caine returns as Alfred, Bruce's butler, and hits every single note he can in a pitch-perfect performance. Three key scenes are the heart of the movie -- two with Bruce and Alfred, one with Alfred on his own -- and they are heartbreaking to watch. Didn't think you'd hear that in a Batman review, did you? Caine is so good I hope he gets some Oscar consideration for Best Supporting Actor. Gary Oldman rises to the occasion late as Commissioner Gordon, also questioning the actions he's taken and Morgan Freeman is solid as always as Wayne Enterprises engineering genius Lucius Fox. One other smaller new addition is Matthew Modine as one of Gordon's fellow high-ranking police officers.

Then there's the rest of the cast, Nolan seemingly trying to put together Inception 2: The Reckoning. Tom Hardy has some epic shoes to fill, following Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, and he's quite capable of that. It's not fair to compare the part to the Joker, but there is similarities. Hardy's Bane is all business, all chaos, all anarchy. He's a bear of a man, like a caged but highly intelligent animal. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a scene-stealer as John Blake, a Gotham police officer who grows increasingly frustrated with the limitations of his badge. Marion Cotillard plays Miriam Tate, a rich philanthropist trying to work with Wayne Enterprises to create a powerful sustainable energy force. Anne Hathaway holds her own as well, putting in a memorable turn as Selina Kyle, a master thief dubbed 'the Cat' but never actually dubbed Catwoman. SEMI SPOILERS ABOUT CASTING In the surprise department, look for Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy briefly reprising their roles from the previous Batman entries. END OF SPOILERS A great cast though from top to bottom. 

Some reviews pointed to the rather twisty-turny early portions of the story as a detriment to the end result, and I go both ways here. Through the first hour, we're not always sure of what's going on or even where the story is heading. Characters and some background are introduced and dealt with, but it's all laying the groundwork. When the knock-out punch does come, all I can say...brace yourself. The final 45-60 minutes threw me for a loop, but in a good way. It is everything epic you would hope a final showdown to be; in this case, Bane turning Gotham City into a city cut off from the rest of the world and threatening to destroy it all, killing 12 million people in the process. If you struggle with the early pacing, stick with it. The pay-off in the end is incredibly worth it in so many ways.

As I mentioned, this is a movie that has it all. The finale packs the biggest action punch, but an earlier motorcycle chase through the city following a Bane robbery is also highly memorable, as is Bane's takeover of the city with an abundance of explosives taking out bridges and even a quasi-NFL game. The dialogue is spot-on too, especially the scenes with Bale and Caine. On pure drama, it's hard to beat Bane's backstory (quick though it is), but also how Batman deals with solving the identical problem the mysteriously masked villain had to figure out. And then there's the ending. Should it come as a surprise that it is basically the perfect way to close out the trilogy? Hans Zimmer's musical score is solid throughout, but it's at its best in the final montage as everything is wrapped up. Two different twists make the ending a little surprising, but mostly? It's an appropriate dramatic and emotional ending for all involved.

Well, here we are. I'm sorry to see this trilogy go. As far as superhero movies go (and I struggle limiting these to just superhero movies), they've set the bar as high as they can. All other future efforts will be compared to these films, and I can't think of a better compliment to a director, cast and crew for turning out such a quality finished product. A classic on par with The Dark Knight, if not a slightly, tiny bit better.

The Dark Knight Rises <---trailer (2012): ****/****

The Dark Knight

Why are people so excited for this weekend's The Dark Knight Rises? Because Batman Begins was good, and 2008's The Dark Knight was great, setting the bar about as high as a movie can possibly go. The rare sequel that improves on the original, it is everything you would hope for in a superhero movie and much, much more. Just a little more timely reviewing today, and I hope to see 'Rises' Sunday so expect a review soon.

Helping clean up Gotham City and all its crime, the very mention of the name 'Batman' sends shivers up the spines of Gotham's criminal underworld. But for all Batman (Christian Bale) has done, he's never fought a criminal quite like this one, the Joker (Heath Ledger), a deranged murderer who wears faded, unkempt make-up and favors knives. The Joker has offered his services to the all the different heads of the criminal underworld, offering to kill the Batman and make their lives infinitely easier. The Caped Crusader might finally have some help though in Gotham's hierarchy as crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) vows to help Batman however he can. With a nut like the Joker around, nothing happens as expected.  

It's hard -- and probably not very fair -- to compare this second Batman movie from director Christopher Nolan to its predecessor. 'Begins' is an above average, highly enjoyable movie on its own, but it is merely one that opens the door for all that Nolan had planned with this sequel. 'Begins' introduces the Batman lore, the characters, the situations, laying the groundwork. 'Knight' takes the jumping off point and sprints with it. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's score is again booming and epic and just right. Almost the entire film was filmed in Chicago, and the movie looks AMAZING. Talk about a director utilizing his locations, Nolan knocks that one out of the park. It's the little things that start things rolling, and the movie never looks back.

But what really sets Nolan's movies apart from even the high quality superhero movies -- The Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America -- is the inherent darkness involved with the characters and story. There is no camp quality to the proceedings, no tongue in cheek humor. This is a cutthroat world where anyone and everyone is potentially dead in a flash. The word that comes to mind watching this movie was 'brutal.' More on this later, but much of that comes from the performance of Heath Ledger. His Joker is a villain described by Michael Caine's Alfred as someone "who wants to watch the world burn." There is no rhyme or reason to the Joker's brutality. He encourages murder (and handles a couple of his own), mayhem and chaos and doesn't care who gets caught up in the maelstrom that ensues. As a fan of a darker, graphic novel look at a "comic book" world, that darkness and brutality appeals to me in movies. Nolan commits to that deep-seeded darkness and never lets up.

Now onto Heath Ledger as the Joker. This movie was in the news prior to its release (more in the news at least) because Ledger died six months before the film's release. Before it had even been seen, buzz was generated about Ledger's amazingly memorable performance as the Joker, and when audiences finally saw this movie in the summer of 2008, they weren't disappointed. In a performance that won him a Best Supporting Actor Oscar, Ledger delivers a performance that is terrifying, supremely dark, oddly charming and unlike any other villainous role ever. It's his voice, his speech, his peculiar mannerisms, his maniacal laughing, the distinctly iconic look with the faded, dreary make-up and purple suit, all these specific things that make this such a memorable and ultimately tragic performance.

Because Ledger's part was rightly given so much attention upon release, the rest of the cast doesn't always get the recognition they deserve. Other than developing that overly deep "I'm BATMAN!" voice since 'Begins,' Bale tweaks the character for the positive. He begins to question what he's taken upon his shoulder. He begins to doubt if he can actually win in the end, especially with a counter like the Joker. Eckhart too is a scene-stealer as Harvey Dent, the crusading district attorney who takes a no-nonsense approach to everything about his job. An idealist who wants the best, he's also a frustrated realist kept in check to a point by the system. Caine again is perfect as Alfred, Morgan Freeman returns as Wayne Enterprises resident genius Lucius Fox, and Gary Oldman gets much more to do as Lt. Gordon. Even Cillian Murphy makes a one-scene appearance as the Scarecrow. Additions include Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes (an improvement over Katie Holmes), Eric Roberts as Maroni, a powerful Gotham mobster, and Nestor Carbonell as the mayor of Gotham.

Like any classic, something has to set a movie apart from the average. The Chicago locations help that cause, especially an epic action sequence on La Salle Street and Lower Wacker Drive as Batman -- on a Bat-cycle of sorts -- does battle with the Joker who at different points has an automatic machine gun, bazooka and out of control semi trucks as weapons. There are the smaller but equally memorable moments, especially the Joker's infamous "pencil disappearing trick." The finale is the best though as the Joker's chaotic plan is revealed in all its cynical, brutal qualities. The final scene propels this 2008 movie into the trilogy wrap-up, Oldman's Lt. (now Commissioner as we all know him) Gordon delivering a monologue that is perfect in its simple, straightforward, forthrightness. Is that even a word? Eh. The movie is great, one all other superhero movies must measure themselves against. As for me, I'm counting down the hours until The Dark Knight Rises.

The Dark Knight <---trailer (2008): ****/****

Batman Begins

Here at Just Hit Play, I try to be timely if nothing else. So with the huge-mega-ultra-gigantic-Titanic-epic summer blockbuster (<----intended seriously, not sarcasm) The Dark Knight Rises due in theaters this Friday, we're doing a little movie recapping, starting with 2005's Batman Begins, director Christopher Nolan's first venture into the Batman series. This weekend's film will no doubt be a huge success, but that's only because Nolan set the bar so high with his first two entries, and this first one? Still a goodie.

Years since his parents were murdered in a robbery, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is still searching for answers; some kind of resolution for his feelings of guilt, fear and desire for vengeance. After traveling the world and even training with a mysterious warrior, Ducard (Liam Neeson), at an isolated monastery in the Himalayas. Returning to impoverished, crime-torn Gotham City, Bruce creates a crime-fighting identity -- Batman -- to help combat the city's problems, using everything from Wayne Enterprises (his deceased father's company) to aid the cause. His impact is immediate, but other more sinister personalities await, including Dr. Crane (Cillian Murphy) who intends to cripple Gotham like nothing the city's seen before.

The superhero franchise reboot is nothing new recently. Over the last 15 years, Superman, Spiderman and Batman have gotten reboots with a long list of other superheroes getting their own chance at a franchise -- some more successful than others. What sets 'Begin' (and The Dark Knight) apart is a straightforward authentic feel. There is no tongue in cheek, campy angle to the superhero proceedings. That's not a bad thing in the least. Nolan takes what Batman fans know -- Alfred the butler, the Batmobile, the Bat cave, Detective Gordon -- and keeps it on the straight and narrow. The score from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard is epic without being overdoing it -- listen to the main theme HERE -- and the scale of the story has that epic quality without losing focus on the personal aspect; the characters. Simple you would think, but it's always surprising how many movies forget about that aspect.

What has made these movies so popular though -- for me at least -- is they are dark, dark and DARK. Like I mentioned, many people know Batman through the campy 1960s TV show or even the 1990s franchise ventures which we won't address right now....maybe ever. Unfortunately, the Batman comics are cynical and did I mention, dark? The TV shows and movies never took advantage of that aspect until here. Gotham City has been polluted by crime, poverty and corruption throughout the government (Tom Wilkinson is great in a small part as mobster Carmine Falcone), the city literally being torn apart. In general, Nolan (who also co-wrote the script) doesn't seem interested in any obvious laughs or tongue-in-cheek quality. Bad guys and good guys in a city in squalor. This would obviously get ratcheted up a notch in The Dark Knight, but 'Begins' certainly gets the ball rolling.

Having worked in film and TV since the late 1980s, Christian Bale had been at least a somewhat recognizable name for years. Not surprisingly, this put on the A-list of movie stars. Playing instantly recognizable superheroes tends to do that, huh? I like Bale as an actor, but he makes Bruce Wayne/Batman a likable character from the start. A superhero is one thing, but a tortured superhero? That's money in the bank. He has no super powers -- just a mansion and secret cave full of badass gadgets -- and must rely on his own skills as a fighter when trouble arises. Because of his past though, Bruce blames himself for his parents' death and feels he must do something to right that wrong. Without the humor of Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man, Bale does a great job at putting a new, entertaining spin on a character that just about everyone knows.

Now on the other hand, if you're not a Bale fan, this cast almost certainly has something else to offer you. If there is a better casting job than Michael Caine as Alfred, Bruce's butler at Wayne Manor, I can't think of him. Caine is a professional, and even with his supporting part manages to dominate his scenes, making it look easy in the process. Same goes for Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Wayne Enterprise's resident technological genius. Gary Oldman is limited by screentime as Jim Gordon, one of Gotham's few clean cops, but not surprisingly makes it worthwhile. Neeson as Ducard is a gem in the casting department, Murphy sinister and creepy as Dr. Crane/Scarecrow, and Ken Watanabe as mysterious ninja Ra's Al Ghul is only around for a little. Rutger Hauer plays Earle, the CEO of Wayne Enterprises in Bruce's absence, Katie Holmes is Rachel, Bruce's long-time but secret love and an assistant D.A., and Linus Roache plays Thomas Wayne, Bruce's brilliant, philanthropic father in a few quick flashback scenes.

It is a Batman movie though so there is some just assumed badass-ness (real word?) because of the character. The action scenes are brutal and don't feel forced, quick cut without being an indecipherable blur. Fans of Batman will no doubt get a kick out of seeing the reveal of the Bat Signal, of the Batmobile zipping through Gotham, all those little things that help make a good character great. 'Begins' sets the bar pretty high, but not quite high enough. As good as it is, it merely set the stage for The Dark Knight, an instant classic. Just the same, it's a great place to start. And don't forget about that last scene before the credits, featuring a perfect lead-in to the sequel. Superhero origin stories can be tricky, but this one knocks it out of the park.

Batman Begins <---trailer (2005): *** 1/2 /****

The Last Valley

A longtime member of my 'Saved DVDs' option at Netflix, 1971's The Last Valley was finally made available this week, and I was delivered a pleasant surprise as the opening credits rolled, besides the strong casting. The film is directed by James Clavell, someone I think of as an author more than a director. The director of only six films in his career, Clavell is at the head of a different but still impressive historical epic.

It is the middle of the Thirty Years War in the early 1600s and a war that started off about religion in Germany has expanded to other European powers. Walking across a famine-ridden country, a former teacher, Vogel (Omar Sharif) stumbles across a beautiful valley up in the hills seemingly immune from the touches of war. The villagers living in the valley are away for the time, but behind Vogel comes a small company of mercenaries led by the Captain (Michael Caine). Vogel convinces them to winter in the village/valley, the mercenaries forming the uneasiest of alliances with the village leader, Gruber (Nigel Davenport), and the people. Vogel finds himself working as a mediator, both sides not happy with the other as this little valley is thrust into the war for the first time.

In the era of historical epics, this is a late entry to the genre. Clavell wrote, produced and directed this historical epic that I can only describe as...different, in a good way. It doesn't really have a similar movie you can even remotely compare it to. It deals with religion and faith, the lunacy of war, the lunacy of religion, corruption, blind faith, and generally boasts a cynicism that would have been prevalent at the time in the minds of the audience. Without getting pretentious, 'Valley' tries to ask what is the point of fighting? What's the point of a religion that forces its believers to fight and die simply because someone tells them to do so? In all its darkness and cynicism, I liked this movie because of those different features. It doesn't settle for the status quo and impressing with scale. This movie has that impressive scale with a worthwhile message to boot.

If you're going to do a historical epic, do it right in the casting department. Two of the best names around for an epic -- Caine and Sharif -- don't disappoint in their performances. Caine especially delivers an underrated, moving performance as the Captain, a long-time mercenary who's grown weary of the futility of battle, war, and organized religion. He continues to fight, meeting confrontations head on rather than taking the easy way out and running away. His counter is Sharif as Vogel, an intellectual, a former teacher who wants to talk things out, negotiate rather than fight it out. The duo plays well off each other as their situation becomes harder to handle. Neither truly knows what, but both men are looking for something while trying to put their past behind them. At what cost will it come though?

The ensemble cast that backs the duo up does not boast much name recognition, but the characters from Clavell's script come to life with the cast, a wide variety of eclectic characters. Florinda Bolkan plays Erica, a woman in the village who moves in with the Captain, her personal/religious beliefs ready to cause a stir among these God-fearing folks. Davenport as Gruber is perfect, a simmering pot of violence and manipulation just waiting to strike. Per Oscarsson plays Father Sebastian, the village's Christian priest, a religious fanatic who must have things his way. Arthur O'Connell seems like an odd choice to play Hoffman, one of the elder villagers, with his daughter, Inge (Madeleine Hinde), drawing the eye of the mercenaries and Vogel.  I especially liked the dynamic among Captain's mercenaries, including the treacherous Hansen (Michael Gothard) and brutal right-hand man Graf (Ian Hogg) among a handful of other characters who would have benefited from more screen-time/development.

The story with a message and a solid cast is aided by two things; location shooting in Austria and the musical score from John Barry. It ends up sounding like an action- gothic horror score with hints of James Bond music. Oddly/bizarrely enough, it works really well. Go figure. Listen to 3 different parts HERE. 'Valley' shot on location in Austria for this mountain valley, and the end result is stunning. Watching the story unfold, it's easy to see why everyone involved is willing to work and fight for their homes, an idyllic green valley with sweeping fields and tree-covered hillsides. Clavell uses a wide camera lens to show the beauty of the Trins, Tol location and doesn't disappoint. Digging a little deeper, I question if there was symbolism going on here. Sharif's Vogel finds the village through a fog-covered forest surrounded by burned out, plague-infested villages. Is this village in the midst, seemingly untouched, some sort of heaven? Maybe not, but it's a cool thought to keep in mind as you watch this gothic historical epic.

My one complaint is that the sweeping story tends to drift a little too much at 125 minutes. It's never slow, but with so many characters and situations, the at-times episodic storytelling drags the pace down. 'Valley' seems to know where it's going though, and the ending -- in all its ambiguous doom and gloom -- works especially well. Its message is simple. War is stupid. Religion is stupid. Fighting for religion blindly? Inexcusable. Think for yourself and decide what's right, not what someone else tells you. Watch the whole movie HERE with Part 1 of 10.

The Last Valley <---trailer (1971): ***/****