Don Jon

Is there a bigger rising star out there right now than Joseph Gordon-Levitt? The child star of 3rd Rock from the Sun has turned himself into a legitimate dramatic and comedic actor since then with countless roles like The Lookout, The Dark Knight Rises, 500 Days of Summer, Inception and Looper. Well, he's stepping behind the camera now, starring in while also writing and directing 2013's Don Jon.

A mid-20 something who works as a bartender (that we never see), Jon Martello (Gordon-Levitt) has a pretty good life in his eyes. He cares about his body, his friends, his family, his apartment, his muscle car, his church, his ladies and most importantly, his porn. While he has quite the active social life with a seemingly endless string of one-night stands, Jon actually prefers watching porn more than the actual act of sex with a woman, typically seeking out porn after hooking up with a girl. That trend may change though, whether he wants to or not, when he meets Barbara (Scarlett Johansson) one night at a club. They click immediately, start dating and eventually become exclusive...until Barbara walks in on Jon watching porn. To keep her, he promises to stop watching it, but that promise may be tougher than he was counting on.

I'm not sure what I was expecting heading into this movie. I saw the trailer. I was intrigued from the cast to the pretty racy story and a lot in between. Director/writer/star Gordon-Levitt received almost uniformly positive reviews for his film, and I did know what it was about. I swear. So what happened? I really didn't like it. It's funny, but not funny in the way you'd think it would be. Who knows? Maybe it was supposed to be funny in a painfully awkward way, but I was groaning and groaning early and often.

Let's start with the style. It's start with the narration, Gordon-Levitt's Jon reciting how cool his life is. How he cares for his muscle car, cleans his apartment obsessively, goes to church every Sunday and then has dinner with his family, on and on. We see him walk down the same hallway, across a street and up the stairs to church and ultimately....masturbate while watching porn. Gordon-Levitt even removed some more graphic porn to avoid an X-rating for his final cut. I don't know what it was. It's a boys club type story. Jon's narration is aggressively forthright, brutally in your face and highly, graphically sexual. Definitely not a movie for the faint of heart or anyone who blushes easily. The repetitive style seems to reflect Jon's repetitive lifestyle, but that doesn't make it interesting. If anything, it made me feel bad for Jon (but that's a personal judgment). A 90-minute movie plays like one recurring message, a message that is tedious already and doesn't get any better.

Did you watch MTV's Jersey Shore during its infamous run? I'm not proud to admit it, but I did. It was like a trainwreck episode in and episode out. Can you see where I'm going with this? Gordon-Levitt's Jon could have been plucked right out of the show without missing a beat. Above all else, above any other criticisms I had, I just didn't like the main character. He's such a cliched stereotype of a club-hopping, one-night stand seeking tool with his muscle shirts and heavily-gelled hair that it's hard to sympathize with him in the slightest. He preens, struts, smirks and mumbles his way through life. There are moments that provide some laughs, his weekly confessions at church totaling up the times he had sex with a girl and times he masturbated while watching porn especially. You laugh, but it's almost uncomfortable. Confession cures all though, right? Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a very talented actor, but I couldn't stand this character.

Scarlett Johansson is my big crush out there so her part here was a big selling point. Her part is excellent if frightening in its craziness as more and more is revealed. Shallow dude moment, but she looks good....craziness aside. Julianne Moore has an interesting part as Esther, a woman Jon meets at a night class he's taking. Moore is okay in the part, but I'm not sure if it is the right casting choice. Tony Danza and Glenne Headley are high points as Jon's parents, his Dad getting in constant screaming matches, his Mom nagging him about finding the right girl and settling down. Brie Larson is good too as Jon's younger sister. Also look for Rob Brown and Jeremy Luke as Jon's best friends.

In a 90-minute movie, the first hour was rough to get through while the last half hour was far more tolerable. It doesn't play like an instructional guide to how to be a Club Tool, actually exploring some human emotions. Personally, it was a case of too little too late. The ending does provide a saving grace of sorts, but the first hour left such a bad taste in my mouth that it was hard for the story to recover. A valiant effort from Gordon-Levitt but one that falls short in the end.

Don Jon (2013): * 1/2/ ****

The Family

If movies have taught me anything about the Mafia, one thing rises above all else. Don't turn on the Family. They will get you for it and make you pay for it. What about those who do and get away with it? Well, kinda get away it. Let's get going with 2013's The Family.

It's the middle of the night in Normandy and the Blake family has arrived, their furniture, clothes and possessions waiting for them in a quiet, corner house. They move in glumly, unpacking and getting ready to set up their new lives. There's a problem though. This isn't really the Blake family. This is the Manzoni family, including patriarch Giovanni (Robert De Niro), a former Mafia family from New York City now in the Witness Protection program. Giovanni and his wife, Maggie (Michelle Pfeiffer), and their kids, Belle (Dianna Agron) and Warren (John D'Leo), keep getting in trouble though, forcing them to move from town to town all over Europe with the FBI's help and surveillance. They keep reverting to their old ways, forcing the FBI to keep moving them. Their idyllic lives (of sorts) could be in trouble though. Giovanni testified against his former mob boss (Stan Carp) after a failed hit, and wasting away in jail, he's enlisted the help of a hitman to find the Manzonis and kill them.

There sure are a lot of movies out there, huh? Great lead-in, right? I mean it though. This dark Mafia comedy was released in theaters last summer without much in the way of fanfare or positive reviews, but it did okay in theaters, earning over $68 million. It's one of many movies I was aware of, knew what it was about and had some interest in seeing. But getting to the theaters proves to be kinda difficult at times so here we sit courtesy of Netflix. The complaints in negative reviews were pretty much across the board from too violent to too schizophrenic to too goofy. I'm not saying this was a classic movie by any means, but I was entertained throughout, a talented cast and an interesting premise rising above some of its flaws. I find myself saying it more and more as I defend movies, but is it so wrong to just be entertained by a movie?

For starters, 'Family' is very stylish and very dark. It wastes no time revealing its darkness, the lead hit man, Rocco (Jon Freda), blowing away a whole family in the opening scene, an innocent family at that as he suspects they're the Manzonis. That's the whole tone of the movie, the moments where that schizo nature works well. The line "You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy" kept coming up for me. You can move this Mafia family to France, but they're still a tough, hard-edged, take no prisoners family. Giovanni still resorts to strong arm tactics to get what he needs (including drastic measures to get clear water, not brown water from the faucet), Maggie doesn't appreciate the American hate and takes out a grocery store, Belle fights off the "charms" of the locals and young Warren sets up a crime ring within days. It's these moments that are the most fun. Even better? Giovanni's mental asides as we see what he'd like to do to those who come up against him for any number of reasons.

I didn't understand the hate some reviews had, mostly because of the cast. The last couple years have been up and down for De Niro with some of his roles, but he shows off here that he as good a dramatic actor as he is, he's also a really funny actor. He doesn't try too hard. He just is funny, getting the laugh from playing a ridiculously brutal straight man. His facial expressions are priceless, his deadpan deliveries even better. He's got an excellent chemistry with Pfeiffer as his wife, a similarly dark, funny part. Her highlight? Her confession to the village priest is so startling (we don't hear it) that the priest wants nothing to do with her. The kids have their moments too, virginal Belle turning back advances from some less than smooth village boys, turning her attention to a dreamy college student/teacher while Warren gets beat up badly the first day at school and goes to work setting up his own little crime ring. As bizarre and dark and goofy as this group is, I liked them all.

There's more though, starting with Tommy Lee Jones as Agent Robert Stansfield, the FBI agent placed in charge of the Manzonis as they move from one place to another in Witness Protection. Jimmy Palumbo and Domenick Lombardozzi have some fun too as the two surveillance agents assigned as security over the Manzonis in their cozy French house.

It all builds to an inevitable showdown, the Mafia finally tracking them down in their new French home. A squad of Italian hit men descend on the village, the Manzonis forced to improvise as they come under attack. There's some cool action in this finale, even if it is more than a little ridiculous in the end results. That's the movie in itself. It is all over the place, struggling to find that one tone that works and sticking with it. The script at times in director Luc Besson's film depends far too much on coincidence -- like how the Mafia finds Giovanni and Co., not to mention finding the house -- for my liking, but the moments that work, really work. How about Giovanni (posing as a writer) asked to be a guest speaker at a film screening, originally intended to be Some Came Running but it ends up being....Goodfellas. Yes, it's a self-conscious script/movie decision (De Niro starred in said movie) but it works and the payoff is excellent.

Good movie, not great, with some very funny, very dark moments.

The Family (2013): ***/****

Prisoners

It was a movie that seemed like it was a sure thing to snag some Oscar nominations. Powerful, dramatic acting, incredibly dark subject matter, and a whole lot of talent assembled for a cast. And what did 2013's Prisoners get nominated for? Exactly....one, that nomination for Best Cinematography. Okay, yes, that's fair. It's certainly a visually interesting film, but nothing else?!? Come on now. So....anyways, yeah, this was an excellent movie.

On a gloomy, rainy Thanksgiving Day, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his family walk down the street to celebrate the holiday with their neighbors, the Birch's. After dinner as the Dovers get ready to go, they realize their daughter and the Birch's youngest daughter are both missing, nowhere to be found. Minutes turn to hours, hours to a day, and there's no trace of either girl. The police are called in, including lead detective David Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), a suspect, Alex Jones (Paul Dano), found just a few hours after the disappearance was first reported. Looking for clues/evidence tying Jones to the girls though, the police come up empty and are forced to release him after a 48-hour hold. Keller remains convinced that Jones is the one who kidnapped the two girls and decides to take drastic measures to bring them back. All the while, Loki becomes progressively more obsessed with the case, leads drying up in one dead end after another. The clock is ticking for the two girls.

From director Denis Villeneuve and writer Aaron Guzkowski, this movie is a doozy. Movies about serial killers, murderers, diseases running rampant, they can all be uncomfortable in countless ways. But as for a movie about someone kidnapping two young children? Unsettling doesn't begin to describe that ever-developing story. I watched this one, and I couldn't help but think of my five-year old niece. This is a movie that isn't intended to entertain (obviously) but one you appreciate. Audiences responded to the film, 'Prisoners' earning $122 million, and it's easy to see why. The acting here is what acting is all about. It's human and real, and when it calls for some big, dramatic moments, it doesn't feel authentic. It is authentic, credit to Villeneuve and cinematographer Roger Deakins for making a film with a bleak, dreary look that doesn't pull any punches. Deakins picked up an Oscar nomination for his cinematography. Tough to see him winning against Nebraska or Gravity, but he deserved that nomination.

The 2013 film year was very loaded when it comes to acting, especially for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor. Maybe the issue here was deciding between Jackman and Gyllenhaal in nominations? These are two powerhouse performances and for different reasons. A family man and middle-class dad torn apart by his daughter's kidnapping? A detective with a troubled childhood past who similarly becomes obsessed with finding two missing girls? These are great parts, both actors stepping up to the plate and delivering. Jackman handles his role in the right way with scenes that could feel forced or overdone. He's driven down a road that most would never want to even contemplate, but he's going to get his daughter back. He doesn't care what he does, if it's right, morally or in the eyes of the law, or what his decisions will ultimately do to him. I thought Gyllenhaal's part was underrated, reminding me some of his part in Zodiac. His detective is tough, brutally efficient and the pressure is starting to wear on him, especially with Jackman's Keller pressuring him to close the case and bring his daughters back.

Brace yourself for the rest of the cast though. It is a halfway decent group if you're into that sort of thing. Maria Bello plays Keller's wife, Grace, progressively losing her mind as hours turn into days, needing her husband more than ever as he takes desperate measures to get their child back, Dylan Minnette playing their teenage son. The parents of the second kidnapped girl are played to perfection by Terrence Howard and Viola Davis while Zoe Borde plays their teenage daughter. Dano seems to be typecast a bit as the possibly crazy/unhinged guy but there's a reason. He's good at it, really good. We're never quite sure of his intentions, his background, his motivation, Melissa Leo playing his aunt. Also look for Wayne Duvall, Len Cariou and David Dastmalchian in key supporting parts.

Beyond the general uncomfortable feeling in tone and emotion that basically permeates every single scene in a 153-minute movie (It never drags), what makes it especially memorable and tolerable is that the story becomes a whudunnit story. Yes, obviously, we want to see the girls rescued. But as clues and leads and evidence dry up, we also want to see who did the kidnapping. Why did they do it? Guzkowski's script does a great job keeping us guessing right until the reveal. Hints are dropped here and there, but it's difficult to peg everything down as it comes along. Uncomfortable? Yes, but the mystery aspect makes it interesting on a far different level.

It all builds to an impressive reveal and finale, including a great final scene. Some viewers/critics call it ambiguous, but it really isn't if you think it through. I very much liked this movie, or at least as much as you're supposed to like a movie about child kidnapping. Appreciate it for the top to bottom strengths of the cast.

Prisoners (2013): ***/****

Major Dundee

With his 1962 western Ride the High Country, director Sam Peckinpah put himself on the map, springboarding his directing and writing success on TV into feature films. It took him three years to do a follow-up, a western that had countless production issues and was eventually taken away from Peckinpah in the editing phase. It's everything that was good and bad about Peckinpah as a director. It's not a western often remembered as one of his bests, but 1965's Major Dundee is one of my favorites.

It's late in 1864, the Civil War raging back east, but in the New Mexico territory, an Apache war party led by Sierra Charriba (Michael Pate), massacres a troop of U.S. cavalry, kidnapping three boys from a local ranch at the same time. The commander of a nearby Confederate prison camp, Major Amos Dundee (Charlton Heston) decides to go after the Apaches, rescuing the kids and bringing Charriba to justice. Without abandoning the camp though, he must assemble a ragtag group of Confederate prisoners, black infantry, inexperienced officers, cowboys, drunks, bandits and thieves to capture the Apaches. At his right hand is a Confederate officer and friend from the past but now a sworn enemy, Capt. Benjamin Tyreen (Richard Harris). Dundee's company of irregular cavalry hits the trail, following the Apache war party into Mexico, tangling with occupying French forces as well. The Apaches and the French are just two enemies though, the Union and Confederate loyalties among the company threatening to tear Dundee's command apart from the inside.

The production history of this Peckinpah western has quite the checkered past. The production in Mexico went way over budget and way over schedule. Depending on what you read, Peckinpah's original cut for 'Dundee' was anywhere between three and four hours long. When the studio took it away from him, it was cut down to just over two hours. A DVD released in 2005 had a new, never before seen version with almost 15 additional minutes added to the running time. Some additional footage was found that was unable to be reinserted back into the film, but as is, we'll probably never know/see Peckinpah's intended version. So what's the end result with the 136-minute version? A far better western than the 123-minute version that features some good performances, a ridiculously deep cast, some ahead of its time vicious action, and a story that drifts needlessly at times.

What was Peckinpah's goal? He wanted to make an epic western, a new western in the vein of the John Ford cavalry movies. It was supposed to be big and violent full of scope and vision. 'Dundee' doesn't quite live up to that, but in terms of pure entertainment, it's hard to beat. It starts with Charlton Heston in the titular role. Like Peckinpah's best movies, Dundee is the flawed anti-hero like nobody's business. The story almost becomes Moby Dick in the Civil War west. Dundee has been posted to this isolated prison camp because of a command decision he made at Gettysburg (hinted at, never spelled out), and he intends to right that wrong. His plan? Get the kids back, take out Sierra Charriba, become a hero again. The problem? Dundee may not be cut out for command. He's equal parts brilliant strategist with overreaching egoist. His pride and ego get in the way of things, the mission into Mexico becoming an obsession. Quite the performance, one that doesn't always get the notoriety it deserves in Heston's already impressive filmography.

One of Peckinpah's favorite storytelling devices was the anti-hero and his right hand man, sometimes a former friend turned unwilling ally, a device used to its best ability four years later in The Wild Bunch. Here, that relationship is between Heston's Dundee and Richard Harris' Capt. Ben Tyreen. Again, their checkered history (friendship turned bitter rivalry, even hatred) all leads up to this, two men forced to work together. Harris is one of my favorite actors, and this is my favorite performance of many, one of my all-time favorite characters in any film. Harris' Tyreen is everything Dundee wants to be; intelligent, charming, a good leader, and well liked and respected by his men. Tyreen has one great line after another, Harris bringing this character to life, a Irish immigrant turned cashiered American officer to Confederate renegade. The dynamic between Dundee and Tyreen provides some of the movie's best dialogue scenes, the confrontations crackling with energy. Kudos to both actors for developing that chemistry to its fullest.

Brace yourself though. This movie has one sick cast of tough guy actors, many from the Peckinpah stock character Hall of Fame. Jim Hutton provides some laughs as Lt. Graham, a bumbling artillery officer assigned to the cavalry. James Coburn is a scene-stealer as Samuel Potts, Dundee's one-armed, bearded, quick-witted scout, as is Mario Adorf as the feisty, loyal Sgt. Gomez, Dundee's most capable Union soldier. Michael Anderson Jr. does a fine job too as Trooper Ryan, Dundee's young bugler, providing the narration from his in-mission journal. There's also Brock Peters as Aesop, the leader of the small contingent of black infantry, Slim Pickens as Wiley, the drunken mule-packer, R.G. Armstrong as Reverend Dahlstrom, the shotgun-wielding preacher, and Dub Taylor as Priam, the disheveled horse thief. As for Tyreen's Confederates, there's Ben Johnson as the tough Sgt. Chillum, L.Q. Jones and Warren Oates as Arthur and O.W. Hadley, and John Davis Chandler as Jimmy Lee, the troublemaker. Also look for Karl Swenson as Dundee's second-in-command at the prison camp. Just a ridiculously deep cast full of great characters.

Where the movie struggles some -- but is also damn entertaining in those struggles -- is the final 40 minutes. The story does drift too much from the Apaches to the French to Dundee's lost weekend in Durango and a brief love affair with Senta Berger's Teresa. Trooper Ryan's narration gets choppy, weeks slipping by in a flash. The saving grace is back-to-back action sequences, one a showdown with the Apaches in a box canyon, the other a bloody, violent battle with French lancers in the Rio Grande. This is Peckinpah at his action best, clearly an indicator of where his movies would go, especially with The Wild Bunch. Watch the scene with the French and see how brutal it is, how graphic it could have been if censors allowed it. Characters are unceremoniously killed off (blink and you'll miss it), including one surprising death, but it's just a great action scene leading to a quick ending.

Most Peckinpah fans don't list this as their favorite, maybe not even one of their favorites. I just really like this movie, always have, and the longer version with the additional 15 minutes or so really does help make it better. The musical score from composer Daniele Amfitheatrof takes some heat, especially the Major Dundee theme (listen HERE), but I like it, almost as a guilty pleasure. Filming on location in Mexico, including stops in Durango, a gorgeous waterfall location at El Saltito, and many more, all add to that authentic flavor. You really feel like you're on an odyssey across Mexico, seeing a variety of spots, locations and cities. One of my favorite westerns, a heavily flawed but just a damn entertaining movie in the end. Hard to beat, even if we'll never see that epic 4-hour version Peckinpah intended.

Major Dundee (1965): ****/****
Rewrite of August 2009 review

Battle for the Planet of the Apes

Here we sit. It's been a long ride full of ups and downs, but we made it through, and I'd like to thank all of those who supported me along the way. Yes, it is officially time to wrap up the Planet of the Apes series. It is time for 1973's Battle for the Planet of the Apes. Pretty dramatic, huh?!? I should totally do voiceover work.

It has been 12 years since the highly intelligent, thoughtful talking chimp, Caesar (Roddy McDowall) led the bloody revolt that gained apes -- the chimps, orangutans, and gorillas -- their freedom from their cruel human masters. It was a revolt that set off a chain reaction, countries and cities turning on each other, nuclear weapons wiping whole cities off the face of the Earth. Caesar and a small community of apes and humans manage to escape the destruction, building a city in the wilderness and starting their own civilization of sorts. It is a tenuous situation though, Caesar dealing with the apes' control over the humans, an ape general, Aldo (Claude Akins), eager to gain power, and the possibility of another group of human survivors -- mutated beings -- invading his territory. Can he hold it all together?

I've long been a fan of the Planet of the Apes series so it's been fun catching up with the series, especially watching all five movies straight through for the first time ever. It's cool to see the continuity among the five flicks, see recurring characters, recurring stories and plotlines. This fifth entry, from director J. Lee Thompson (who also directed Conquest), was released as part of the collection as an 'Extended Version,' running 93 minutes with about 10 minutes of additional footage reinserted. Not going to lie here, I was kinda disappointed with this final entry. There are positives -- more in that department later -- but there are also far too many negatives. The story seems like a jumbled collection of the previous storylines -- especially Beneath and Conquest -- and doesn't create enough of its own identity. Fans of the series will definitely enjoy it, but as far as series finales go, this one could have been better.

What are the biggest issues? Well, the script for starters. Reading about the Extended Cut (with spoilers), it's cool to see what footage was added back into the movie. Some scenes work better than others, some lack any rhythm or pacing. The exploration of the bombed-out city should be adrenaline-pumping, but the build-up is slow that it loses any momentum. It also seems thrown together for the sake of a sequel, an unnecessary one at that. It's only 12 years since the end of 'Conquest,' but the apes speak clearly and perfectly understandable. A whole species learns to speak in a little over a decade? Why did the humans go with the apes? Was it for survival? A whole sub-culture comes together so quickly, rushed backstory like the entire movie. There are portions that work as it tries to connect and wrap up with the rest of the series, especially the connection to Beneath, the villain, Governor Kolp (Severn Dearden), having an assistant, Mendez (Paul Stevens), the same name as the leader of the mutants in Beneath, the Alpha bomb there too. Little touches like that are pretty cool, especially for nerds like me

The biggest positive is the face of the franchise right there with Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall, who starred in four of the five movies playing two different roles. His Caesar is the intelligent, thoughtful leader of the ape civilization, juggling countless roles. He's a leader, a father, a friend, and he's got to keep all the plates spinning at once. McDowall is the heart of it all, and not surprisingly, he kills the part. He is the link through it all, the best aspect of the character being his interest, his curiosity about his past. What were his parents like? How did they end up on a human-ruled Earth? What led to their tragic deaths? As a family man, we meet his wife, Lisa (Natalie Trundy, who also starred in four Ape movies), and his teenage son, Cornelius (Bobby Porter), who just wants to be a kid, Caesar doing his best to make his son's life smooth and easy. Any issues the movie may have, McDowall is above it. A fitting lead performance to wrap things up.

The rest of the cast is okay, some solid names, some recognizable faces, but nothing really eye-popping. Akins hams it up like a crazy person, his General Aldo really just a child in a position of power. He's the polar opposite of Caesar, fiery and emotional, but an action he takes certainly takes drives the story forward. For some of the other key ape performances, Lew Ayres is a scene-stealer as Mandemus, the senior citizen ape placed in charge of the armory, his logical thinking tripping everyone up, and Paul Williams as Virgil, the intellectual, the thinker who plays Devil's Advocate to just about everything Caesar does, but in a helpful fashion. Austin Stoker plays MacDonald, the face of the human group living with the apes. He has a good chemistry with McDowall's Caesar in their scenes together in an underused part.

I don't know. I came away disappointed. Maybe it tries to do too much, maybe it's just not very good. If you're a fan of the series, you've got to see it to wrap things up. There, plain and simple. It lacks that special something to hold it all together. A framing device with John Huston making a quick appearance as the Lawgiver tries to show that the Apes timeline can and should be adjusted, but everything else in the series seems to suggest otherwise. If it didn't, everything would collapse in on itself in the space time continuum. Yeah, time travel analysis. Didn't see that coming, did you?!? Watch it for the series, for the sci-fi aspect, just enough positives in a movie that lacked some energy. Still, it's been a hugely entertaining series, a fun ride over five movies. Thanks to the girlfriend for the Christmas present. Now, I've just gotta get her to watch them...

Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973): ** 1/2 /****

The Wolf of Wall Street

So big money, huh? Yeah, it scares the hell out of me mostly because the only time we ever hear about Wall Street and huge international corporations is when they're getting taken down for all sorts of tax frauds, insider trading and stock manipulation. How can the rich get richer basically. Like politics, right?!? Yeah, the world's a scary place. Nowhere is that more evident than in director Martin Scorsese's latest, 2013's The Wolf of Wall Street.

Arriving on Wall Street in 1987, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a young, ambitious and even naive stock broker looking to make a career for himself. He also has horrific timing. Within months of becoming a full-time broker, Jordan is out of work as quick as he had it, a result of Black Monday. Looking for work, Jordan ends up working in a New Jersey boiler room selling penny stocks. The money is there, his aggressive selling style winning over customer after customer. It's not enough though. Jordan wants more. He needs more. He gets it his own way, starting his own start-up scam selling stocks with the very official sounding name, Stratton Oakmont, and a new right-hand man, Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), goes to work. He gets an office, gets some salesmen, teaches them the selling techniques, and it works....a lot. Money starts flowing in, ridiculous amounts of money, and Jordan's empire grows. Millions of dollars, a luxurious, self-indulgent life of sex, drugs, and everything in between, everything is attainable. Has Jordan's company gotten too big though?

You know what's the most terrifying thing to take away from this movie? It happened. This all happened. Read about the real-life Jordan Belfort HERE and know that as ridiculously over the top, as self-indulgent, as ludicrous as the movie is, IT HAPPENED. Belfort's story also served as the inspiration for 2000's Boiler Room. 'Wolf' doesn't delve in too much to the gory financial details, trying to introduce what's going on and moving on to the life and empire Belfort has created for himself. Not surprisingly, it has picked up some Oscar buzz, garnering nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, picking up five overall. It's a loaded Academy Awards so it will definitely be interesting to see what comes of it all.

What's the end result here? A terrifying, truly funny, unsettling, amazingly entertaining story. Scorsese's style is there at all times. DiCaprio's narration -- mostly heard over the action, at times seen as Jordan addresses the camera -- is almost non-stop, keeping things going, explaining all the new developments that the ever-crooked Stratton Oakmont is up to. 'Wolf' clocks in at a robust 179 minutes (that's almost 3 full hours for you non-math fans like me), the script from Terence Winter covering a ton of ground and a lot of years, but it never feels rushed. If you didn't know this was real, you'd think it was a drugged-up fantasy, a dream-like trip into a bizarre nightmare. There isn't one linear story, no one plot, just an ever-building doomsday scenario we all know is coming. The first hour is the rise to power, the second the stay at the top, and the third the inevitable and crushing downfall. Replacing mobsters with Wall Street brokers, 'Wolf' did remind me of Scorsese's Goodfellas at times in terms of that rise to power story arc.

As the appointed Wolf of Wall Street (earning the nickname 'Wolfie'), DiCaprio picked up another Best Actor nomination, his third Best actor and fourth overall (he remains winless), for his part here. It's a part that is hard to look away from. It is a trainwreck, and we're just waiting for the train to wreck. DiCaprio's performance is a gem as we watch Jordan's rise to power and inevitable fall from grace. He learns the ins-and-outs of the stock market from a veteran broker, John Hanna (Matthew McConaughey, a truly scene-stealing part, and he's on-screen about 10 minutes, maybe), and from there, Jordan is on his way. It's ego. It's pride. It's vanity. It is having everything the world can offer. His life becomes a cliche of the rich and famous as he visits prostitutes on a regular basis, does ridiculous amounts of drugs, becomes addicted to quaaludes, and commits himself to a life he loves and embraces, a life that will lead to his doom. From the narration to the decadence, DiCaprio brings this scumbag to life. It's not a likable character. Jordan is a deplorable individual, but he's epically, grandly good at his profession. Will DiCaprio win the Oscar? I don't know considering the opponents -- Dern, McConaughey, Bale, Ejiofor -- but he more than deserves that nomination. 

DiCaprio isn't alone though, 'Wolf' featuring an impressive list of performances. Some are like McConaughey, quick, effective and lasting in terms of influence, while others figure more prominently, like Jonah Hill's Best Supporting Actor nominated part as Donnie. It's hard to put this character into words, a motor-mouth, a troublemaker, a loyal right-hand man, and just as greedy as Jordan, especially when the money starts to pile up (quite literally). Another really strong part goes to relative unknown (but not for too much longer) Margot Robbie as Naomi, Jordan's second wife, a former model and the definition of a trophy wife....who becomes much more. Adding to the scene-stealing list (how many such parts can a movie have?) is Rob Reiner as Jordan's Dad, helping his son with the business but quite aware where his son is heading. The link for these three parts -- and really the entire cast -- is the chemistry. As ridiculously goofy and off the wall as the story can be at times, it's at least somewhat grounded because of the chemistry, the believable qualities.

Also look for Kyle Chandler as Denham, the FBI agent leading the case against Jordan, Jon Favreau as Riskin, the security officer trying to help Jordan around the S.E.C. sanctions, Jean Dujardin as Saurel, the helpful Swiss banker, and Jon Bernthal, P.J. Byrne, Kenneth Choi, Brian Sacca, and Henry Zebrowski as Jordan's crew of "vice presidents" who become his inner circle. Even look for actor/director Spike Jonze in a small, effective part.

I have a concept of Best Picture nominations as being almost exclusively dramatic. This year's nominations certainly back up that assumption, from 12 Years a Slave to Captain Phillips, Nebraska to Dallas Buyers Club (American Hustle obviously had some laughs too). So what to take away from 'Wolf'? It is funny, ridiculously funny. This isn't physical humor laughs. These are scenes so far out of the ordinary that their unique qualities are funny just because. These are scenes played straight that produce countless laughs. My personal favorite? Jordan and Donnie overdo it on some old quaaludes (Lemmon 714) thinking they've lost their potency. Well...they didn't. The extended scene as both try to overcome some heavy duty effects are hilarious. I was crying. 'Wolf' has plenty of these moments, from analyzing a contract of a little person who agrees to be used as a throwing dart to McConaughey's Hannah's monologue about how to truly become a successful stock broker. It's incredibly dark humor, often uncomfortable, but these were genuine laughs.

Is there a complaint here? Yeah, the length of the movie. It never drags but the almost three-hour movie.....yeah, it felt as I was walking out that I'd been there three or four days. I don't know what you cut, but just be known it's a long movie. Mostly though, it's really good. It's the general negative outlook on, well, everything. Lost in the shuffle of the drama and debauchery is such a negative tone and outlook on life. Everyone is out for themselves, and no one really cares who gets caught in the wake. A trip of a movie full of drug use, nudity (some scenes far more graphic than others), truly interesting characters, lots of illegal stock and Wall Street activity, style to burn, and just a treat to watch. Scorsese does it again. I can't wait to see what, if any, awards it takes home at next month's Oscars.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013): *** 1/2 /****

The Sicilian Clan

Well, here we are again, and it's been too long. Mostly because they're not readily available in the U.S., I have to search out Euro-crime thrillers from the 1960s and 1970s on Netflix, on Youtube, and occasionally random channels on TV. So when I do find one, I better savor it, right? Not an issue with 1969's The Sicilian Clan, a very stylish, very easy movie to like.

About to be sent to trial over the murder of two police officers, accused killer and thief Roger Sartet (Alain Delon) instead manages a daring escape aided by a former partner in crime, Aldo (Yves Lefebvre). In exchange for helping him pull off the escape, Sartet agrees to work with Aldo's family, the Manalese clan, a small-scale but successful Sicilian crime family, headed by patriarch Vittorio (Jean Gabin). Their plan? Take down a heavily guarded diamond exhibit displayed in Rome, state of the art technology intended to trip them up at any given moment. It seems an impossible, even suicidal objective with virtually no shot of succeeding. With some help from an American mafioso counterpart, Sartet and the Manalese clan put a plan into action though. It's as daring as they come, but some rivalries and personal motivations threaten to tear it apart before the heist is ever put into action. Their time is limited too, the police commissioner, Le Goff (Lino Ventura), obsessively searching for Sartet.

These movies never get old. Okay, well that's not completely true. There are some duds, but even the duds usually have something worth recommending. This one from director Henri Verneuil is a gem so no worries in that department. When it works, it just does, plain and simple. There is a style that helps carry the sub-genre from one movie to another. The on-location shooting never hurts, especially here in Paris, but the music goes a long way too. Here it's one of the best composers ever, Ennio Morricone providing a score that's equal parts playful and catchy with darker samples as needed. Listen to a sample HERE. For me though, the most appealing part of the Euro-crime genre is simple. These movies are cynical, brutal and dark. A majority of the stories play like tweaked American film noirs. Crime doesn't pay, the crooks are pretty nasty, the cops sometimes more so, and we're rarely talking about a happy Hollywood ending.

Released in 1969, this French crime thriller's appeal is more than obvious. One movie that stars Alain Delon, Lino Ventura and Jean Gabin?!? These were three iconic actors in France, internationally, in the genre, in all sorts of ways, so to see them working together in a single movie is just a lot of fun. There are lots of characters, but the ensemble cast leaves the focus on this trio. Delon is one of my favorites, his cool, calm, even icy demeanor just reflecting well as the anti-hero you can't help but like. Gabin is the smooth one here though, his Vittorio almost monotone in his delivery. His facial expressions almost never change, nothing rattling him. Even when things go awry, he calmly deals with, internalizing the rage. As for Ventura, it's cool to see him in a non-villain role, his Le Goff an experienced police officer who becomes almost obsessed with catching the murdering Sartet. All characters/actors that are capable of carrying a movie on their own, working together in a very worthwhile ensemble.

Who else to look out for? Those are the most recognizable names, but there's some cool supporting parts. Vittorio's sons include Lefebvre and Marc Porel, his son-in-law played by Philippe Baronnet, all three taking active parts in their crime family. Aldo's wife, Jeanne, is played by Irina Dernick, a Frenchwoman who takes a liking to Delon's Sartet as a fellow Frenchman as she's not used to living with all these Sicilians. Amedeo Nazzari is excellent as Tony, an American mobster who's worked with Vittorio in the past, working together again to pull off this diamond heist. Tony sends one of his men, Sydney Chaplin playing the alcoholic crook, Jack. Danielle Volle has a small but necessary (and good) part as Sartet's sister, worried about her brother's well-being.

And now for that heist. This is a genre that's done just about everything it can do to throw something new and original and fresh at the audience. Well, kudos to you The Sicilian Clan. This is definitely something new. When the diamond exhibit is introduced, I thought I was watching Rififi or Le Cercle Rouge (actually released a year later in 1970), but I was in for a surprise. 'Sicilian' doesn't go for the status quo....at all. This French crime thriller definitely comes up with something new and different, Sartet, Vittorio and the Manalese clan working with Tony and his New York mobsters to pull off the job. No spoilers here, the heist coming together nicely. If you think about it, there is a flaw in their plan that involves kidnapping -- it's rather unnecessary if you ask me -- but you get so caught up in what they're doing it isn't a huge issue. It becomes far more about 'Can they pull it off?'

But as Euro-crime thrillers have taught me, that ending.....well, the heist is usually the easy part. It's the fallout that provides the most drama. Again, I'm not going to spoil how it develops because even though it is hinted at in the build-up, it gets lost in the shuffle. When it does reveal itself, yeah, it works after some initial issues I had with it. The twist comes from a special place in the Mafia family lexicon. Don't....go....against....the....Family. That's it. Don't mess it up, and you'll probably be okay. It is quite an ending, very appropriate to the general darkness of the genre. An excellent movie, one very much worth catching up to.

The Sicilian Clan (1969): *** 1/2 /****

Rollercoaster

It took me a couple visits to Six Flags Great America, and some peer pressure to boot (damn 8th grade field trip), but I eventually learned to love riding a rollercoaster. Do you? It's easy to see the appeal, but I've learned enough not to push people to get on a rollercoaster if they don't want to. The heights, the speed, the upside-down loops, and oh yeah, the potential to die horribly should something go wrong. That's nothing, right? Well, if you're wavering over ever riding an amusement park ride like that, steer clear of a 1977 disaster movie, Rollercoaster.

At a fan-favorite amusement park on the west coast, a man (Timothy Bottoms) walks around the park, taking part in some carnival games, eating some cotton candy, and then late in the day, he pulls a radio transmitter from his pocket and explodes a bomb on the park's oldest, safest and most loved rollercoaster, killing all aboard the ride. An inspector from the Department of Standards and Safety, Harry Calder (George Segal) is called in to investigate, his most recent inspection turning up nothing three months earlier. Just days later on the east coast, another rollercoaster accident claims more lives. The rides in ruins with no clues or evidence, Harry is convinced the accidents are tied together, especially when he finds his own connection about the owners of the amusement parks. Can he convince someone of his theory? He may not have to. The FBI, including lead agent Hoyt (Richard Widmark), have been called in to investigate. Can they stop the bomber before he strikes again?

With the success of the disaster movie wave waning some by 1977, director James Goldstone's film hit theaters the same summer as a mildly successful movie, Star Wars, and managed to hold its own, finding a niche with audiences. I liked this movie, didn't love it. It's cool to see a disaster movie that doesn't depend on some natural calamity or a giant skyscraper on fire, but instead a suspense story that is uncomfortable, really gets the adrenaline going at times, and works because...well, let's face it. Something like this could happen. For the most part, it avoids all the pratfalls that helped doom the genre. It never gets too jokey or goofy, never feels like we're watching a novelty film, there's no huge all-star cast. This is a movie about the build-up and the suspense, not a gimmick.

As for the cast, there really isn't a huge listing. George Segal has always been one of my favorites, and I liked him a lot here as Calder, the inspector who feels some responsibility for the bombings (it was his inspection) even though it wasn't his fault. He's Joe Everyman, a regular guy trying to do the right thing. That's tough when everyone around him is seemingly challenged. Richard Widmark does a good job in that department as Hoyt, the veteran FBI agent who, dammit, is going to do things his way and isn't going to take any advice from some wanna-be investigator. Segal and Widmark are the stars though, their arguments and discussions about how to handle things providing some of the movie's strongest moments. In the meaningless cameo department, Henry Fonda is around for two scenes as Davenport, Calder's boss who he's always busting his balls about one thing or another. The same for Harry Guardino as a police officer kinda attached to the case who hangs around for a couple scenes.

And then there's that bomber fellow, played to perfection by Timothy Bottoms. An underrated actor who never became a big star, Bottoms is listed here only as 'Young Man.' He's never given a name or any background, leaving his intentions or motivations in the dark. He says to Calder at one point over the phone that it's all about the money, but something else we never really learn about seems to be lurking. Would it have been nice to get a little explanation? I'd think so, but it works without it just the same. This guy doesn't care if lots of people get killed. He's going to accomplish what he wants. Bottoms does a creepy, sinister and underplayed job here. The character doesn't seem to have a pulse until late in the movie, a monotone delivery and calm mannerisms adding to that creepy nature. A solid part, avoiding as many cliches and stereotypes of disaster movie villains, suspense/thrillers too about psychopaths, madmen and murderers.

For the most part here, it's the set pieces that work. Well, two out of three at least. The opening bombing is slowly developed, tension hanging in the air just waiting for the explosion. Bottoms is at his eerie sinister best in this scene, not saying a word as he moves very deliberately around the park waiting for his chance. When the explosion comes, it's startling and unsettling as expected. The same for the finale, Calder, Hoyt and a team of agents trying to find the bomber as a new rollercoaster is unveiled to throngs of people, an extended sequence that takes most of 30 minutes. The weak point is in the middle, Bottoms' bomber sending Calder and the agents on a wild goose chase across a park as he tries to get his hands on a $1 million dollar ransom. His solution? Have Calder -- communicating via radio -- go on a bunch of rides to lose his tail. The potential is there, but the scene just keeps going, almost 20 minutes of painfully slow build-up with no real payoff. Still, a .667 batting average ain't bad, is it?

Overall, there's some cool positives. It was filmed on location at several actual amusement parks (talk about a whole bunch of positive advertisement, huh?!?), including Ocean View Park in Norfolk (the first sequence), Kings Dominion in Richmond (the middle sequence), making that long sequence very bearable, and Six Flags Magic Mountain for the finale. The actual parks provide some cool backdrops for the developing story, as well as a quick detour later to Navy Pier and the Hyatt Regency in Chicago. So what to say in the end? It's a good movie with some really solid moments that's hamstrung by some really slow-moving sequences. Worth it, an entertaining disaster movie. Also worth mentioning? Look for a young Helen Hunt as Segal's daughter and Steve Guttenberg in a blink and you'll miss it appearance.

Rollercoaster (1977): ** 1/2 /****

Elysium

With his 2009 debut District 9, screenwriter and director Neill Blomkamp had a Debut. Yes, a capital D. It was that good, a science fiction story that was smart and unique, visually interesting and unlike just about any other sci-fi flick out there. Blomkamp has been patient though picking his follow-up, finally directing his second feature film, 2013's Elysium.

It's 2154 and Earth as we know it is no more. Overpopulation has ravaged the planet, the rich and well-to-do creating an immense, luxurious space station named Elysium that floats around the planet, allowing them to steer clear of the unclean masses back on Earth. In the slums of Los Angeles, an ex-con, Max Da Costa (Matt Damon), is making it day-to-day, working in a manufacturing factory on an assembly line for the Elysium-run Armadyne Corp. A work accident exposes him to deadly amounts of radiation, Max given just five days to live. Elysium has Med-Bays that can cure any disease, any ailment, but Max has no way of getting there. With his days quite literally numbered, Max takes a deal with a black market dealer to try and "steal" a rich man's financial information by actually hacking his brain. The chances of success are slim at best, but Max has no better alternative.

What I'm about to say I don't say as a complaint, just an observation. Is it just me or does it seem like wave after wave of dystopian science fiction films keep hitting theaters? From Oblivion to The Hunger Games movies, Total Recall to Looper and many more, we seem to be in the Age of Dystopia, well, in films at least. Even Blomkamp's previous film, District 9, was the definition of a dystopian film. Is it a bad thing? Can you have too much of a good thing? When handled correctly, I don't think it matters if a movie is, for the lack of a better word, "familiar." And don't be confused, Elysium is familiar but almost always in a good way. It's somewhat predictable almost from the get-go and if you've read anything from 1984 to Fahrenheit 451, you have an idea of where it's going. There are haves and have-nots, the haves doing their damnedest to make sure it stays that way. If that ain't a good jumping off point, I don't know what is.

In the same way Blomkamp's 'District' was unique, so is 'Elysium.' Again writing the screenplay and directing, Blomkamp does what the best science fiction films do. He creates a world that is original, unsettling, realistic and quite a window into our society in the present. It works because it is rather easy to see our 2014 Earth becoming the 2154 Earth of Elysium. Overpopulation is a very real threat so it's easy to see developing this way. The overpopulated masses left behind live in expansive slums, Los Angeles turning into slums as far as the eye can see, not unlike the slums in Rio de Janiero. They work for minimal wages, kept under the oppressive thumb of the government and corporations of Elysium. That power seems to be waning though, something the Defense Secretary, Delacourt (Jodie Foster), is aware of and trying to combat. From the technology to the transportation, the unidentifiable accents that the people of Elysium have developed, it's Blomkamp developing a world, all those little touches combining to make it unsettling and dramatic and realistic, maybe most importantly, a frightening world.

For this all to work though, we need some sort of human component, and that comes from Damon's Max, a doomed anti-hero if there ever was. His background is hinted at, addressed some in fuzzy-edged flashbacks (Maxwell Perry Cotton playing Young Max), an orphan who turned to stealing cars (maybe more) and ended up in jail. Now, he's trying to go clean when his life is shortened with the work accident. Criminal past aside, Damon's Max is sympathetic. With nothing to lose, nothing that can happen to him is actually that threatening. Still, he desperately wants to live, and that's why he takes a ridiculously suicidal mission from black market dealer and smuggler, Spider (Wagner Moura). We're rooting for Max from the word 'go,' and we want him to make it. The radiation exposure has severely weakened him, forcing Spider to outfit him with a weaponized/armored exo-skeleton. That Blomkamp, he seems to have a fascination with engineered/mutated anti-heroes. Damon hits all the right notes as Max, sympathetic, intense and driven like nothing else to survive.

Beyond Damon though, Blomkamp chose not to use much in terms of recognizable star power. The biggest name is Jodie Foster as Delacourt, the icy, greedy and high-reaching Defense Secretary. She's fed up with limitations placed on her shoulders, especially by the peacefully idealistic President of Elysium (Faran Tahir), even though results are demanded above all else. Blomkamp favorite and District 9 star Sharlto Copley plays Kruger, a black ops agent who does all the dirty work for Delacourt. I like Copley (really liked him in 'District'), but there are times he gets to ham it up too much, too many one-liners. Still, he's a terrifying villain, a possible unhinged and very capable agent. Alice Braga plays Frey, a childhood friend/crush of Max's, now a single mom with a daughter (Emma Tremblay) dying from leukemia, William Fichtner plays an Armadyne C.E.O. and a target of Max's, and Diego Luna plays Julio, Max's close friend trying to help his wounded friend in need.

Where Blomkamp has made a name for himself and can hopefully help him have long-term success is his storytelling ability. His sci-fi stories are smart, no doubt about it. But just like District 9, he blends in that well-written, message-oriented story with some great, heart-pumping and visceral action story. He still relies too much on the ultra-hyper, shaky cam techniques, but the action isn't as indecipherable as some movies. This action is fast, bloody and gets the blood pumping. The finale really packs a punch in the action department, Max loose in Elysium with Kruger and his two enforcers (Brandon Auret and Josh Blacker) hot on his trail. My favorite though was near the midpoint of the movie, Max trying to pull off Spider's crazy plan, robbing the memory of Fichtner's brains, not realizing he's stumbled into something far bigger than he thought. It's a big, loud action scene, full of slow-motion and hyper editing that works together, composer Ryan Amon's score adding to that pulse-pounding shootout.

Filmed on the outskirts of the slums in an isolated, sandy flatland, it's a great action sequence. That's what I like most about Blomkamp's movies. They're a good mix of the smart, intelligent and thoughtful with equal parts action, exciting throughout, and some pretty cool characters. It isn't a classic sci-fi, but it's still very good. Easily recommended.

Elysium (2013): ***/****