A Man Escaped

When I discovered a few years back the French New Wave movies of the 1950s and 1960s, I dove in headfirst. My first impression back in school -- Breathless -- was less than impressive, but one movie after another impressed me, especially the work of Jean-Pierre Melville and Jacques Becker, especially Becker's 1960 classic Le Trou. I couldn't help but think of that film while watching an earlier French film, 1956's A Man Escaped.

In the midst of World War II, a French resistance fighter, Fontaine (Francois Leterrier), is captured by German soldiers after blowing up an important bridge. He is transported to a prison packed with resistance and guerrilla fighters run by the Gestapo. Death hangs in the air, the prisoners almost to a man waiting to find out their sentence and when they will be executed. Fontaine knows his date is coming and decides to do something about it. In a heavily guarded prison with high walls surrounding the place, can Fontaine manage an escape? He has no supplies and little in the way of tools, but locked away in his own cell, all he's got is time to hatch a plan. With the Germans waiting though, maybe it isn't too much time.

There are prison escape movies, and then there's this movie. From director Robert Bresson, 'Escaped' sets the groundwork in one way or another for basically any movie made since even remotely focusing on a prison escape. It's influences are easy to see from 1960's Le Trou to Escape from Alcatraz starring Clint Eastwood and countless other examples. Bresson films on the smallest of scales, right at the ground level on an ultra-personal level. There's only a few sets -- Fontaine's cell, the wash room, a hallway -- and only a few detours, one being Fontaine's desperate escape attempt in the opening scene that goes unseen on the streets of Paris. Filmed in black and white with dialogue held to a minimum, this is a minimalist escape story at its best. Throw in uses of Mozart for parts of the soundtrack, and you've got a winner.

I try to avoid using 'minimalist' as a description because I feel like I misuse it at times, and basically, it can sound kind of movie reviewer pretentious. But in 'Escaped,' it's a dead-on description. There is one pointed objective here. E-S-C-A-P-E. There's nothing else. We learn little about Fontaine, and what we do learn is enough. His options are simple; escape or die. Doesn't get much more nerve-wracking than that, does it? Even the WWII setting just gets the ball rolling. It could be looked at as an existential, artsy look at one man's desperate attempts at survival. This could be any country, any era, any time period as long as you've got an imprisoned man desperately seeking freedom. No wasted subplots or extraneous background. This is a meat and potatoes kind of story.

Now having said that, this admittedly won't be everyone's cup of tea. Just 99 minutes, the dialogue is truly kept to a minimum. Long scenes in Fontaine's cell have him quietly working as his escape; quietly chipping and hacking at the door frame, knowing that at any second a guard could discover his plans. Other scenes have Fontaine walking through the prison halls, cleaning himself, all the while Leterrier providing narration as to his thoughts, mindset, objectives and how his plans are progressing. Bresson's shooting style is of a fly on the wall in an almost documentary-like feel. Little editing, little to no actual spoken dialogue, and a feeling of reality and confinement. I came away somewhat disappointed with the ending, but looking back on it, I shouldn't have. The whole movie is minimalist. Why was I expecting something different in the finale?

In one of the first examples of method acting, Leterrier is in basically every single scene, but like the minimalist story, his performance is underplayed and generally authentic. Somehow he stays calm throughout his attempt so even a little emotion would have been cool to see. He's not obsessed with escape -- visibly at least, his emotions are in check -- but it becomes an end all, be all objective. Leterrier does a great job with the straightforward and at times profound narration, using his eyes the rest of the time to get his message across. Charles Le Clainche (his only film role) has the best supporting part as Jost, a German soldier jailed for desertion who is thrown in Fontaine's cell with him. Other prisoners he comes across include Maurice Beerblock as Blanchet, Roland Monod as a priest, serving as the conscience of the prisoners, Jacques Ertaud as Orsini, Fontaine's cellmate across the hall, and Roger Treherne as Terry, an older prisoner with some freedoms.

I feel like I'm not doing a great job of selling this movie, but it most definitely deserves a watch. It is a movie that I can't see being made in any other time or place. This was a movie meant to be made in France in the 1950s as film and cinema was changing in a big way. Maybe not a movie you truly enjoy, but one you have to experience.

A Man Escaped <---trailer (1956): ***/****

Duplicity

How far can charm take a movie? A story, an actor, a soundtrack, they can all have charm, but to what point? Usually it's a jumping off point to at least liking a movie, and hopefully somewhere in the process, you like something more. Thanks to a misleading trailer, I watched 2009's Duplicity, thinking I was getting a light espionage mystery relying on the charm and star power of two bankable stars. Even charm -- or lack of -- could save this one.

Two former intelligence agents, Ray (Clive Owen) from MI6 and Claire (Julia Roberts) from the CIA, have a bit of a history together...a checkered one at that. Several years ago in Dubai, Claire drugged Ray and took some valuable information he had hidden away. Now they're meeting up again but under different circumstances and different emotions. For one, they've fallen for each other, well, sort of, if they can trust each other. Wanting to retire to a life of luxury, they've decided to go into corporate espionage, working from the inside as two warring corporations (run by rivals Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson) do battle over a new product that could revolutionize the market with billions of dollars at stake.

For starters, the trailer for this flick definitely made it look like a light, even romantic comedy a la Spy vs. Spy with Owen and Roberts going toe to toe. Yeah, about that...not quite. It's not like that at all, and it's not even close. Instead, director Tony Gilroy (of the Bourne movies, Michael Clayton) has crafted a twisting, weaving and generally pretty dark story about a corporate espionage where everything is not what it seems. I'm not claiming the movie isn't any good because the trailer was misleading. I'm claiming the movie isn't any good because it's dull and drifting with characters who aren't even close to sympathetic territory and a story that wraps itself up in its own cleverness.

Not surprisingly, the message boards are divided as to the quality of the movie. Some claim it's stupid and boring because the story isn't linear. Then there's the posters who blindly defend it because it's smart. Can both sides be wrong and right at the same time? I resent it when holier-than-thou moviegoers claim someone doesn't like a movie because they "didn't get it." It's also mindblowingly dumb to claim a movie is dumb because you simply didn't understand it. The odd thing about Duplicity is that nothing really works, and both sides are in fact very right. The story is flashback heavy, bringing us up to date (as much as possible) with how the characters got into this spot. Then, there's the current story, Ray and Claire working from the inside. None of it is particularly interesting, and it doesn't change much over the course of a slow-moving 125 minutes.

As far as bankable stars go, it's hard to top Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Their parts in Duplicity are lacking in so many ways, and neither looks that interested in the story or their characters. Like the story, they look bored with the proceedings. And charm? Chemistry? Yeah, I'm still looking for that. The two stars never click, their scenes lacking any real passion. Their relationship gets repetitive almost immediately, two intelligence agents who struggle with trust issues because their job requires it of them. Roberts questions Owen, Owen flips, Roberts reveals she's joking and trying to pull a fast one on them. Repeat to your desire three or four more times, the joke falling short over and over. As for Giamatti and Wilkinson, it's about what you'd expect. They're playing themselves in extended cameos, neither given a chance to do anything.

More than a few times during the slowly developing story I was close to bailing, but I stuck with it and was at least partially rewarded with the ending. It features a twist that works in terms of the story and characters, but also is surprisingly entertaining and unique. It is far from a happy twist either, adding a dark element to the already pretty dark proceedings. Not enough to recommend the movie, but enough to say 'stick with it' if you're struggling mightily to make it through like I did.

Duplicity <---trailer (2009): */****

The Wrath of God

Why do some movies just reach out and grab you? You know the movie. The one most of your friends have never heard of and give you that 'What the hell are you talking about?' look. It's that hidden gem of a movie that you stumbled across at Netflix, the one you started watching at 2 in the morning when you couldn't sleep. Because you found it, and it seems to have been forgotten among a sea of movies, it's almost your movie. I've got a handful of them, one of my favorites being 1972's The Wrath of God.  

It's the 1920s in an unidentified Central American country, and three men have been brought together to pull off a suicidal, basically impossible mission. First is Emmet Keogh (Ken Hutchison), an IRA gunman on the run. Second, there's Jennings (Victor Buono), a portly, double-dealing and conniving businessman who can never turn away at a chance at some easy cash. And third, there's Father Van Horne (Robert Mitchum), a defrocked priest now working as a con man with some tricks up his sleeve. They have a simple choice in front of them; stand in front of a firing squad or work together to kill Tomas de la Plata (Frank Langella), a maniacal revolutionary who rules his region with a tyrannical fist. Can the unlikely, unholy trio pull the job off and get out alive?

A little known western from 1972 with a solid cast, a somewhat goofy tone that has some fans thinking it's a spoof (I for one, do not), and action, drama and humor. What to take away from it? According to anything written about the movie from director Ralph Nelson, it was beset with problems from the start. Co-star Hutchison severely cut his hand, almost died and was forced to miss several weeks of filming. That's kind of a problem when Hutchison is in almost every scene. Starring in her last movie, Rita Hayworth was struggling with Alzheimer's and couldn't remember her lines. Now this may just be me, but you know what? Somehow and some way, it all works for the better. Yes, it's an odd, weird, even goofy mess of a movie, but it's damn entertaining.

'Wrath' has lots of little things going for it, the things that help make a good movie great. From composer Lalo Schifrin comes a crazy, off the wall, jazzy and Mexican themed score that sounds like an offbeat spaghetti western score (listen to samples HERE). Nelson filmed on location in Mexico using some familiar, memorable spots that you'll have seen in Vera Cruz, Big Jake, The Wild Bunch, and The War Wagon. The finale at the de la Plata hacienda is especially cool, using the same location as the finale to 1954's Vera Cruz. The best thing going though is the script. The movie is based off a Jack Higgins novel (written as James Graham), and while I like the novel, it doesn't have the dark humor the movie does. The whole movie is basically one great one-liner after another, but it never feels forced. Read IMDB's Memorable Quotes HERE for a sample. Credit to Mitchum, Buono and Hutchison especially for committing to the lines because it could have felt cheesy from the get-go in lesser hands.  

Mitchum was the only big, recognizable star in the cast, but that ends up working as a positive for the film. He was often criticized for being too calm, too lackadaisical, for being downright bored in his parts. This is a showy, scene-stealing part, and Mitchum runs away with it. Having some fun with previous "religious" parts like Night of the Hunter and Five Card Stud, he plays Father Oliver Van Horne, a somewhat disheveled, former priest (backstory explained late) now working as a conman and hired gun. He carries a large case loaded with an automatic machine gun and hiding over $50,000. Mitchum clearly looks like he's having some fun here. Hutchison and Buono too stand out, Hutchison as the fiery IRA gunman who gets a love interest, Chela (model Paula Prentiss in one of her 3 career roles), a mute Indian girl, and Buono as the portly, boozing dealer who always looks out for himself first and foremost. The trio has this really easy-going, likable chemistry that carries the movie, a nice positive when they're in almost every scene together.

The other three main parts are basically extended cameos. Playing the maniacal laughing, insane Tomas de la Plata, Langella hams it up like nobody's business. He hates priests after seeing sketchy, immoral priests in his village growing up so when Mitchum's Van Horne shows up, he basically loses his mind. Langella has some great exchanges with Mitchum too, overplaying vs. underplaying. In her last film, Hayworth is clearly struggling with her part, but it's still cool to see her working with the cast. Also hamming it up is John Colicos as Colonel Santilla, the conniving officer trying to get his rival de la Plata knocked off in any way possible. His spelling out the suicide mission to his self-named 'Unholy Trinity' is a priceless scene. Gregory Sierra is solid too as Jurado, de la Plata's one-eyed henchman. Fans of The Wild Bunch should check out the cast too, where you'll see Jorge Russek, Chano Urueta, Aurora Clavel, and Enrique Lucero, all of them playing supporting parts much like in Peckinpah's film.

A quasi-revolutionary western that isn't interested in breaking any ground sure ain't a bad thing. In many of his movies, Nelson was just interested in making entertaining, well-made and exciting movies. 'Wrath' is 3-for-3 there. It's fun from beginning to end, the last 30 minutes especially standing out as Van Horne, Keogh and Jennings make their move in taking out de la Plata. A bloody shootout in a village square leads into a bloodier shootout at the de la Plata hacienda, Van Horne wrapping it up nicely with a great closing line. Is the movie great? By no means, but I love it just the same. It's different, it's funny, and whether it's laughs or action, it should keep you entertained. Now about finding a DVD copy of it.....yeah, that's another story.

The Wrath of God (1972): *** 1/2 /****

The Italian Job (2003)

In an age of sequels, prequels and remakes, all I'm usually looking for is a new tweak. It doesn't have to be a major thing, just a difference. So how about a remake of the 1969 cult favorite The Italian Job? First, Americanize it of sorts, put together a cool cast, stylish heist, and ta-da! We've got 2003's The Italian Job!

Having pulled off an intricate robbery in Venice, Charlie Croker (Mark Wahlberg), John Bridger (Donald Sutherland) and their heist team manage to escape with $35 million of gold bars. But as they escape in the Alps, one of the team, Steve (Edward Norton), turns on the group and steals the gold for himself. Bridger is shot and killed and the rest are left for dead as Steve escapes with all the gold. A year later, Charlie has managed to track down Steve who's gone into hiding. He's got the heist team back together, and they're looking for some revenge. What better way than to steal their gold back? They'll need help though so Charlie recruits Stella Bridger (Charlize Theron), John's daughter and an expert safecracker.

Basically this is a remake in name only. Oh, and a team of crooks does in fact steal things while using Mini-Coopers as part of the getaway. Other than that though, it's a whole other heist movie that stands on its own. Director F. Gary Gray has modernized the story, jumping the story from a European setting to Philadelphia and Los Angeles instead. There is something simple, straightforward and appealing about this remake. Low-key isn't the right description, but 'Italian' doesn't try to rewrite or reinvent the genre. It knows where it wants to get, and it knows how it's going to get there. Is it so wrong that it is just a solid, entertaining and fun heist movie? I say that like 'Just' is a bad thing.

That comfort level in knowing where the movie hopes to end up is most evident in the actual heists. The opening robbery of a heavily guarded home in Venice is an ideal scene-setter, capping off with a high-speed boat chase through the Venetian canals. It gets the movie going at a breakneck speed immediately, and Sutherland's appearance is a very cool addition. The finale heist is again, pretty straightforward, but just as exciting. Norton's Steve is onto Charlie's plan and tries to sneak the gold out, but with three Mini-Coopers, explosives, Russian gangsters, armored truck guards, heavily armed motorcycle guards and a patrolling helicopter 'Italian' has some tricks up its sleeve right until the end.

More than the heist aspect of 'Italian,' the thing that most appeals to me about this movie is the casting. Both the good guys, the bad guys and the yet to be determined to the end, it is a likable, appealing cast. Wahlberg especially is one of my favorites, an actor who's carved a niche out for himself, playing a variation on the tough guy everyman. If it sounds like a dig or something negative, I don't mean it, but he's incredibly likable on-screen, especially as the confident high-class thief leading his team. It's also good to see Theron do just a fun movie, not a big, message movie. She fits in well with the crew, and it's the type of part that's right in her wheelhouse. And can you go wrong with a quick appearance by Donald Sutherland? Too bad it's not a larger part. Charlie's team also includes Handsome Rob (Jason Statham), the driver and all-around ladies man, Lyle (Seth Green), the tech guy and hacker who claims Napster was his own creation, Left Ear (rapper Mos Def), specialist in explosives, and Wrench (Franky G), the mechanic who rigs the cars for added weight.

Oh, yeah, Edward Norton is awesome whether he plays a good guy or bad guy. Playing the paranoid thief with $ for eyes, he doesn't disappoint. Also look for Olek Krupa as Mashkov, a Ukrainian gangster who has an interest in how the robbery develops, but no spoilers here. Not a ton to analyze about this ready-made, entertaining heist rehash, but I think that's the point. It's got action, laughs and a good dynamic among the team, especially Green impersonating Statham. Watch it HERE, it's dead-on. Just sit back and enjoy Mark Wahlberg, Charlize Theron and Jason Statham try to pull off a crazy heist. Fun from the start.

The Italian Job <---trailer (2003): ***/****

Forty Guns

As many westerns as I've watched over the years, I'm drawing a complete blank as to how to describe 1957's Forty Guns. It is truly odd, weird, bizarre, unintentionally funny at times, surprisingly dark and cynical at others, and in spots, really, really entertaining. And at 79 minutes, it packs more into its short running time than movies that are much, much longer. What an odd mess of a movie.

A federal peace officer with a well-known reputation, Griff Bonnell (Barry Sullivan) rides into Cochise County, Arizona with his two brothers, experienced gunhand, Wes (Gene Barry), and inexperienced but motivated Chico (Robert Dix). Griff is holding an arrest warrant on a cowboy accused of robbing a mail stagecoach, and then he finds out the man is working for Jessica Drummond (Barbara Stanwyck), a cattle queen in the area who has money, power and the guns -- some 40 gunslingers -- to back her up. The arrest warrant is just the start of problems as Jessica's younger brother, Brockie (John Ericson), doesn't like Griff's arrival and intends to do something about it.

Nothing too out of the ordinary for a western, is it? I didn't think so reading the plot description over at Netflix. From director Sam Fuller (who also wrote and produced), 'Forty' is just a mess of a movie. The positives are great, showing that at some point there was a chance this could have been a good to great western. The negatives though are epic, bordering on movie-killers. Some of the positives? It is a beautiful black and white movie, the camera work impressive, featuring long tracking shots, plenty of interesting angles, and basically a feeling of seeing something different. It is also surprisingly brutal and in its message. As far as westerns went in the 1950s, this is far ahead of its time, especially considering the cynicism that developed in 1960s westerns.

Besides Stanwyck in the lead, I didn't recognize much of the cast by name alone, but that ends up being a good thing. The Bonnells -- a thinly veiled take on the Earp brothers -- are great leads, especially Sullivan and Barry. Griff is the sure-handed lawman, so confident in his ability that he hasn't had to fire his gun in almost 10 years. Wes is his right-hand man, always backing him up like a guardian angel hovering over the situation. Chico wants to be like his brothers having seen the "glory" and "romance" of being a gunslinger. Stanwyck too is a bright spot, playing a strong female character, something that is lacking in so many westerns. She's no damsel in distress for sure, even doing her own stunt as she's dragged by her horse. Both the Bonnells and the Drummond characters are strong characters, able to carry a movie on their own. Instead of that, we get a jam-packed, even rushed 79 minute movie.

For all the positives, there's just too much going on for 'Forty' to be truly effective. Another 30 minutes would have been perfect to flesh things out. Barry's Wes is wasted in what was potentially a very cool character, "wooing" gunsmith's daughter, Louvenia (Eve Brent), and disappearing for long stretches of a short movie. Dean Jagger appears as necessary as corrupt and bought Sheriff Ned Logan, a possibly interesting backstory kept in the shadows. Oh, and did I mention that Stanwyck and Sullivan have a tortured love affair, two strong-willed individuals falling for each other for all the wrong reasons? Yeah, that's sort of a major plot, but like anything and everything else.....yeah, you guessed it. Rushed.

Rushed is one thing because it at least implies some sort of wasted potential. It was there, just never taken advantage of. On the other hand, there's just some badness. Ericson's terribly hammy performance as Brockie is so ridiculous it comes across as laughable. Some not so subtle sexual references -- a gun "going off in a woman's face" or "caring for one's gun with care and daily attention" -- are so heavy-handed they're hilarious in their badness.

A lot of these issues I had were almost thrown by the wayside in the finale, Sullivan's Griff delivering a truly surprising, brutal surprise, especially considering this was made in 1957. It's a mess of a movie overall -- both really good and epically bad -- but there's just enough....jjjjjjjjjjust....to recommend this one.

Forty Guns <---Youtube clip (1957): ** 1/2 /****

28 Weeks Later

Name a sequel that improves or is just plan better than the original. The obvious ones that always come to mind for me are The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather 2. Yes, both originals are classics in their own right, but the sequels improve on what made their predecessors better. In February I reviewed 2002's 28 Days Later, an entertaining if flawed zombie-like movie. Add another sequel to the list because I enjoyed 2007's 28 Weeks Later a tad bit more.

It has been 28 weeks since the Rage virus hit England, throwing the whole country into chaos as infected humans became rabid killing machines. The virus seems to have died out, and with help from American military and NATO forces, England is being re-inhabited slowly but surely. Among the population is Don (Robert Carlyle) who survived the virus, his two kids, Tammy (Imogen Potts) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), out of country at the times. But as life starts to get back to normal -- relatively -- the American forces, including scientist/medical officer Scarlet (Rose Byrne), are trying to figure out if the Rage virus is in fact...destroyed. Secrets await just when it seems like all the problems are in the past.

Now that shouldn't come as a surprise, should it? I hope not. A 99-minute movie about a father reuniting with his kids isn't exactly a zombie movie fans dream scenario. Yes, the Rage virus is back....but how this time around? Building off its 2002 predecessor, 'Weeks' is that worthy sequel that takes another step forward instead of standing still. Original director Danny Boyle takes a producer's role, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo taking the director's reins here. While 'Weeks' has its fair share of gore/violence, it isn't just a B-movie schlock fest. It has an art-house feel, a minimalist take on an almost post-apocalyptic world. The score from composer John Murphy is unbelievably appropriate, a moody, electronic sound to it. The look is even better, a washed out world punctuated by vivid blood red shots.

Both 'Days' and 'Weeks' had moments that resonated with me, surprisingly moving and truly creepy scenes that sent shivers up my back. 'Weeks' opens the gate running with one of the all-time great stunners of an opening. It starts when the Rage virus first hit, Don and his wife, Alice (Catherine McCormack), hiding in a countryside cottage with four other survivors, none of them quite sure what's going on to the world. They rescue a hysterical boy screaming to be let in and moments later the cottage is under attack by countless infected victims. One of the few acceptable uses of shaky-cam comes from this scene, a frenetic, chaotic, visceral scene where it's easy to see survival mode kick into high gear. Murphy's theme -- listen HERE -- combined with Carlyle's acting, some incredible camera work including several memorable tracking shots, and a genuine chill factor make this opening 10 minutes one of the best movie intros ever. Watch part of the opener HERE. Spoilers obviously.

The whole movie is full of moments like these, but like 'Days' there are moments in between that drag. Thankfully, there's less of those and from the start, 'Weeks' kept my attention longer and more attentively. Again, it's the set pieces that stand out from the rest. An isolated world unlike we've seen -- an empty, vacant London -- with a small group of survivors desperately trying to make it one more day. Jeremy Renner plays Doyle, a Delta force sniper, and steals the movie with a few key scenes as the virus unleashes itself, a team of snipers given a shocking order to open fire. The finale especially (maybe the last 30 minutes) are exhausting to watch, the Rage virus getting loose and infecting countless victims in the blink of an eye. There's some surprises, some thrills, and a chilling final shot. It leaves the door open for more sequels, and won't be a visual that you'll easily forget.

Like 'Days' (sorry, I'm going to stop doing that eventually), 'Weeks' relies on an ensemble cast full of character actors and possibly future stars to carry the load. The movie is better that way because with big, HUGE names, the movie on a personal level wouldn't be as appealing. Renner is the unquestioned star as sniper Doyle, the charismatic hero who shares some surprisingly funny scenes with Lost alum Harold Perrineau as Flynn, a Delta chopper pilot. Carlyle too is particularly memorable, a father who made a decision that weighs on him each minute of the day. Byrne shows she's another rising star in Hollywood in her part as Scarlet, the conscientious doctor. Also look for the always cool Idris Elba as Stone, an American officer leading the containment effort.

Very much enjoyed this one. Cool cast, cooler premise, some particularly memorable set pieces -- especially that opener -- and I'm looking forward to hopefully another sequel, 28 Months Later, at some point in the future.

28 Weeks Later <---trailer (2007): ***/****

The Green Slime

As much as possible, I try to be fair when it comes to reviews. At the same time, so-called and/or believed classics get judged more harshly and more critically because they strive to be better than the norm. Then there's the definite bombs, movies that are awful and revel in their badness. That's why in the end, I feel comfortable giving 1968's The Green Slime a positive rating. Yes, it's bad -- even awful -- but it is amazingly bad.

When an asteroid is spotted careening toward Earth, astronaut and all-around badass Commander Jack Rankin (Robert Horton) is called upon to save mankind. He's quickly transported to a U.S. space station, Gamma 3, commanded by his old nemesis, Vince Elliott (Richard Jaeckel), who's now engaged to Rankin's old flame, Lisa (Luciana Paluzzi), the station doctor. But that's for later! Rankin, Elliott and a team knock out the asteroid in time, but transport a foreign green substance -- yes, the green slime -- back to Gamma 3. The substance grows at an astronomical rate, and nothing seems to stop it. The bodies mount up, and Rankin, Elliott and Co. must figure something out quickly.

Read that plot synopsis and tell me that's not going to be the greatest movie you've ever seen. I defy you to. Supported by MGM and made in Japan, 'Slime' has that cheesy, half-baked look of a movie that cost about $7.38 to make. Any "outdoor" scene is clearly a miniature. When astronauts "fly" I swear you can see the strings holding them up. The set-up shots of Gamma 3 or the asteroid are laughable, and that's what makes this movie great. Making this movie, it had to be known that it would be a steaming pile of mediocrity. Thankfully, the cast, crew and screenwriters (bless their hearts) seem to commit to the badness. It looks cheesy, it is cheesy, and it embraces that cheeseball quality that makes awful movies especially memorable.

It really has it all. You know you're in for a treat when the 1960s rock theme -- listen HERE to the Green Slime theme -- starts blaring over the credits. It is truly an amazing song that hasn't been topped in the 40-lus years since its initial release. As for the story, it's nothing new in the schlock department, combining monsters, stock characters and situations like nobody's business. If you thought the plot sounded oddly familiar, it should. The first 30 minutes are basically Armageddon, and the last hour is The Blob meets The Thing From Another World. That is a deadly trifecta of amazing if you're rolling it all into one movie.

The Green Slime monsters are a sight to behold upon reveal. Originally starting off as slime, they transform by absorbing energy into slow-moving but aggressive killing machines. I'm trying to come up with a fair comparison as to their look, and this is the best I got. Imagine R2-D2 from Star Wars, roll him in with a crazy, one-eyed Oscar the Grouch, and give him a bunch of appendages like an octopus. There you've got your Green Slime monsters. Their appearance makes it seem like a majority of the budget was spent creating them. When the monsters begin to reproduce quickly, the fun....I mean PURE TERROR escalates to alarming levels. The simple solution? Blow them up, well, after running away from them and trying to corner them for 60 minutes or so.

The acting -- used lightly -- is about what you'd expect from a B-movie like this. A TV star, Horton is the wooden Commander Rankin, desperately trying to show emotion....oh, and saving the world. His hair would have made Steve McGarrett from Hawaii Five-O jealous, a perfectly maintained hairstyle no matter how hard he fights the monsters. Poor Richard Jaeckel, he could be a solid actor in the right part, and he's one of my favorites, but this is one of his worst ever parts. Paluzzi too is there as eye candy because in space you wear shiny mini-skirts and look like you're in pained at all times. And of course, what would a bad B-movie be without a ridiculously forced love triangle that lacks any real chemistry? Not an official movie! Also look for Bud Widom as General Thompson, the worried officer back on Earth, Ted Gunther as Dr. Halverson, more interested in the discovery than the danger, and David Yorston and Robert Dunham as subordinate officers on Gamma 3.

Still with me? Congratulations for making it this far. Basically, my message is this. The Green Slime is without question the best movie ever made. Every other film ever made pales in comparison to it. How couldn't it make other movies look bad? It's called The Green Slime! Best watched with a few beers and some friends. Do a shot every time someone gives a thumbs up. It's a can't miss movie, a true classic.

The Green Slime <---trailer (1967): ***/****

The Double Man

The movie world of secret agents, espionage and government conspiracies is a tricky one. Thanks to wave after wave of movies set in that world, as a viewer, we've seen everything. With that genre more than most, a movie has to tread that ever so thin line between hard-edged, goofy and plain old spoof. That's 1967's The Double Man, an espionage movie that tries to be hard-edged but ends up falling far short.

Working as a high-up CIA analyst, Dan Slater (Yul Brynner) receives some startling news. His son has been killed in a skiing accident in the Swiss Alps. Dropping everything, Slater heads to Switzerland to investigate, not quite believing that his son -- an accomplished skier -- would die in the way described. He finds that the police have basically shrugged it off, claiming accident, but even a quick look shows Slater that something else was going on. He tries to find one of the witnesses, Gina (Britt Ekland), who saw his son moments before his death, but Slater has no idea what's in store for him.

Airing on Turner Classic Movies recently as part of a Brynner tribute night, I recorded 'Double' mostly because I'd never heard a thing about it. Some 40-plus years later, this is an almost completely forgotten 1960s spy thriller. It's easy to see why....it just isn't very good. The twist is that Russian agents (Anton Diffring, George Mikell <----both looking odd without their German uniforms, and Brandon Brady) have exact body doubles ready for Slater and several other high-up CIA agents. Intelligence security in the U.S. will be a joke after this infiltration. Could it happen? Not the point. In execution, it comes across as a big joke, bordering on the spoof aspect.

So we're off to a good start. The premise -- while at least remotely possible -- is flawed because there's never a sense of urgency. It's revealed in the opening scene about the Russians' plan to infiltrate American intelligence, but then it takes over an hour for the attempts at the switches to actually come about. In the meantime, Slater skis around Switzerland, pursuing Ekland's Gina for questions, drinking, flirting with Moira Lister, and dodging the inept agents following him. Nothing screams out 'SPOOF!' but it nonetheless has that feel. Lloyd Nolan as Edwards, Slater's supervisor, screams all his lines and then disappears at the halfway point. Also worthy of some pokes and prods is a bizarre jazzy, big band score to the spy thriller. What aids a chase across the Swiss Alps? Not a club band of horns and trombones in a score reminiscent of a bad 1970s TV cop show.

Any positives to take away from this one? Yes, and not surprisingly, it's star Yul Brynner. It's not a great performance -- maybe not even a really good one -- but Brynner always was watchable on-screen. It is a more subdued part than I would think with a secret agent father seemingly not too pissed about his son's death. Curious? Yes, but I wanted some rage...something else. Still, it's Yul Brynner, I like him, and he's playing a secret agent. Thumbs up. Just 25 years old and still somewhat new to movies, Ekland is....well....she's gorgeous. Her character is eye candy and really nothing else. It is a serviceable part, one necessary to keep the story going. On the positive, Ekland was perfectly cast as eye candy even if a possible relationship with Slater seems forced. The Russian agents are all right, Diffring and Mikell both familiar faces as Nazis/Germans in countless 1960s WWII movies. Clive Revill is good as Wheatley, the on-location agent who comes under Slater's wrath.

Spy/espionage thrillers are right in my wheelhouse. I'll give them all a try. This one is just too dull to be even remotely interesting. Long, extended shots of people skiing or chasing each other across Switzerland does in fact look good (it's a beautiful country), but in terms of entertainment it falls short. The finale over the last 30 minutes or so makes up for it to a point, but the ending tries too hard. A twist gets thrown our way in this Franklin J. Schaffner directed thriller -- which I think I kept up with -- that allows/forces us to make our own conclusions. On the whole, it falls short despite Brynner's efforts, Ekland's looks and an exciting finale.

The Double Man <---TCM clips (1967): **/****

The Descendants

With a relatively small filmography to his name, director Alexander Payne has nonetheless carved a nice little niche out for himself in Hollywood. With movies like Election, About Schmidt, Sideways, he has specialized in small, personal and even intimate dramatic stories focused on character and relationships above all else. Not a bad thing, right? Especially when you think about all the explosion and nudity driven movies out there. What then about Payne's latest film, 2011's The Descendants?

A highly successful lawyer living in Hawaii, Matt King (George Clooney) is facing a difficult real estate decision that could bring his family millions of dollars as they sell off 25,000 acres of oceanfront land that's been in the family for over 100 years. That's just the start though. For most of a month, Matt has been trying to hold his family together after a boating accident put his wife into a coma. Now on life support, a decision on what to do with her living will looms. Matt is on the brink though, dealing with his daughters, troubled teen Alexandra (Shailene Woodley) and younger Scottie (Amara Miller), while trying to juggle it all. A family frayed before the accident, more tension awaits.

While I liked this movie, I won't say I loved it, not by a long shot. What jumped out at me was that this was a prime example of the Best Picture nominations being watered down at the Academy Awards. Instead of five worthy films, 10 now get nominations. Was 'Descendants' really worth a nomination for one of the best films of 2011? It's good, but certainly not great. Yes, the drama feels real, the relationships among family and friends authentic without resorting to theatrics, the Hawaiian setting an interesting choice as a backdrop, but what else? I felt like I've seen this movie before and several times before. I came away disappointed, but I can still recommend it. I think. I might change my mind in a paragraph or so.

The same issue I had with the movie itself as an Oscar nominee is what I have with Clooney earning a Best Actor nomination. Clooney takes a bad rap at times for basically playing himself in all his movies, and to a point, I agree. This is a solid, worthwhile acting job, no doubt about that, but it feels like it's been done before. He's believable, likable, even sympathetic, but as an actor -- drama or comedy -- I've seen him do so much better. A real bright spot -- and fellow Oscar nominee -- is Woodley as his daughter, Alexandra, shipped away to an island boarding school of sports. She has news that could cripple her father, the family situation they're in bringing father and daughter closer than they ever were before. Miller too as Scottie (appropriately struggling with her mom's health situation) is a positive.

The rest of the cast is more hit or miss, part of that problem being chalked up to the script. Mary Birdsong and Rob Huebel are shrewish, shrill and mysterious as family friends who know Matt because they were friends with his wife first. Robert Forster is Matt's father-in-law, holding a grudge against Matt for not treating his daughter like she deserved. Like so many other friends and family though, he doesn't know everything, looking at his daughter in rose-tinted glasses. Nick Krause tries too hard to be a similarly troubled teen as Sid, Alexandra's friend, clueless, revealing, and very smart all at the same time. Beau Bridges has a small part as Hugh, Matt's cousin, while Matthew Lillard and Judy Greer play a married couple who steps into the King's family situation. Either trying too hard or not enough to make the characters unique and/or interesting, Forster and Greer end up standing out from the rest.

I don't know what to say. I was just disappointed in the end. At just under two hours, it feels much longer. The story bounces around far too much for my liking, focusing on scenes that could have been in the background while glossing over scenes that felt more important to me. That could be me though....there's a reason I'm writing movie reviews and not movie scripts. It's a uniformly good movie, but it isn't the great or even semi-great movie that it was made out to be. It feels like a rehash of other movies, never adding anything new to the equation. And that heavily Hawaiian-themed soundtrack gets old quickly. Quirky much? Real quick quirky too. Sorry to say I can't give this one a better rating.

The Descendants <----trailer (2011): **/****