Star Trek

Thanks to his work with ABC's Lost, director/producer extraordinaire J,J. Abrams has basically got free reign if you ask me. Anybody who produces a show as good as Lost gets the benefit of the doubt, even if MI:3 was a bit of a disappointment. He seems to have a golden touch with whatever he goes after so when a teaser trailer was released for an updated version of Star Trek, more than a few eyebrows were raised. With a franchise as hugely popular and successful as Star Trek, anyone taking that on has got some guts.

Now other than some pop culture references (for one, George Costanza screaming 'Khan!'), I have no background in the Star Trek universe. Sure, I've heard of Captain Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise and all that good stuff, but I've never seen even a minute of any of the different shows or movies that so many fans swear by. In that way, I'd like to think I'm in the target audience for Abrams' movie, noobs almost completely oblivious to the series and franchise. With a sequel already announced after the huge success Star Trek had this summer -- over $250 million-- the opener in what could be a long series is an entertaining flick that sets the groundwork for fans new and old to the series.

In the year 2233, a Starfleet ship, the U.S.S. Kelvin is destroyed by a monstrous Romulan warship deep in space with first officer George Kirk (Chris Hemsworth) ordering an evacuation before sacrificing himself and the ship. One of the people escaping is George's pregnant wife who gives birth to a son, James. Flash forward some 20 years later and James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) is all grown up. Meeting a high-ranking Starfleet officer, Capt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood), Kirk is convinced into joining Starfleet where he enters officer training. After three years of study --taken care of quickly with a 'Three Years Later" title card-- Kirk does not get the orders he wanted, a position on the fleet's flagship, the U.S.S. Enterprise.

But with some help from friend and medical officer Bones McCoy (Karl Urban), Kirk gets on board as the flagship takes off leading the fleet on a dangerous mission. Reaching their destination, they find the same Romulan warship that destroyed the Kelvin almost 25 years earlier waiting for them with maniacal leader Nero (Eric Bana) in command. Having heard how his father died, Kirk suspects the fleet is flying into a trap and must do his damnedest to save the fleet, including taking over the Enterprise. There's elements of time travel and changing the future too so brace yourself for a handful of scenes that make your head hurt with some fast-paced conversations.

It's refreshing to see a big budget action movie with lots of style and glitz that is, well, good. Star Trek isn't just good in one aspect, it's a solid movie across the board. There's great action sequences blending CGI and actual stunts on a more personal level to go with believable and interesting interactions among a long list of characters. As the special features documentary mentions, Abrams has the ability to blend both the large and little scales, hitting you with an over the top space fight and then intimate moments after the battle. At just over 2 hours long, you won't even notice as the time flies by.

From what little I know of the franchise, this reboot sticks close to all the versions that came before it. Pine is a strong choice to play Kirk, and thankfully he doesn't do his best Shatner impression. He makes James T. Kirk a cocky but likable character that is easy to root for and get behind. The other key character is of course, Spock Prime, played to perfection by Zachary Quinto. Spock is half-man, half-Vulcan so he blends the characteristics of both species, the logic of a Vulcan and the fire and emotion of a human. The natural rivalry and subsequent bonding between Kirk and Spock is a key one that will almost assuredly be carried into later movies.

As for the rest of the cast, Abrams assembled a strong group of young, up and coming actors who will provide a strong springboard into the series. Urban plays McCoy, the medical officer, Zoe Saldana is Uhura, the linguistics expert, scene-stealing Simon Pegg is Scotty, the engineer, John Cho as Sulu, the Enterprise's pilot, and Anton Yelchin as Checkov, the navigator. Other than Pegg, no one really shines here but most of the group's screentime is setting up who they are and what they do. It will be interesting to see how they develop. Bana is a good villain if a bit underused, but it's the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, that makes a great extended cameo. An all-around solid cast that helps bring the movie up a notch.

A pleasant surprise for another franchise rebooting, which I've got to say is not necessarily a bad thing with Daniel Craig reinvigorating the Bond series, Christian Bale doing the same for Batman, and now Abrams, Pine and Quinto stepping up to the plate with one of the most popular science fiction franchises ever. If you're concerned about not knowing anything about the series, don't be. The movie is a polished, exciting, well-told story. Don't miss it.

Star Trek <----trailer (2009): ***/****

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Starting in 1970, British novelist Patrick O'Brian wrote 20 books in a series that's been dubbed the 'Aubrey-Maturin' series. O'Brian's books explore a very specific time -- early 19th Century as England battled Napoleon and France -- and clearly hit a nerve with audiences. You don't put out 20 books with the same characters if somebody isn't buying them, or maybe that's just my take. I tried reading one of these books when I was 10 or 11 and struggled in the early pages and never finished it. But after watching 2003's Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, a film adaptation of O'Brian's novels, I think I'm going to give them another shot.

Adventures on the high seas have been popular in just about every form of entertainment from movies to TV to literature to stage. Some are based in truth like Mutiny on the Bounty, others are just good stories like Herman Melville's Moby Dick. Something about traveling across the vast oceans clicks with audiences, maybe the romanticism of a time gone by? Who knows for sure, but the setting is a prime choice for a jumping off point for a story in any of its forms. Even released in 2003, 'Master and Commander' has the distinct feel of a movie from Hollywood's Golden Age.

A title card sets the stage quickly, it's 1805 and the H.M.S. Surprise is off the coast of Brazil. The Surprise's Captain, Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe), has been given orders to track down and destroy --if possible-- a French privateer, the Acheron. Encountering the Acheron in a thick fog bank, Aubrey and the Surprise are caught off guard against the bigger, faster and more powerful French ship. After a heavily one-sided victory, the Acheron sails south thinking it has delivered a crushing blow, but Aubrey will follow his orders to a T, and he's going to get his ship. If not, the Acheron may reach the Pacific Ocean where it can wreak havoc on British trade.

While director Peter Weir's movie made almost $100 million in the U.S. alone, it has been critiqued as a bit of a flop considering the $150 million budget. But box office struggles aside, this is a hidden gem for fans of historical and period pieces which come along few and far between. From the language to the wardrobe to the sets, this makes you feel like you're on the ship with Aubrey and his crew. And other than action scenes in the beginning and the end that serve as bookends, 'Commander' is all about showing what life was like aboard an early 19th century British man of war.

And with a running time of 138 minutes, Weir gets significant time to tell that story. As a viewer, we see how the crew and officers live (the officer live a little better than crew, surprised me too) as they sail around South American and Cape Horn into the vast Pacific. The conditions are brutal, death is seemingly always right around the corner in any number of ways, the food is slop, and worst of all, a French privateer seems to have the ship's number. At times, the pacing can be a little slow but never to the point where I felt like I was bored. Some parts here and there could have been trimmed some, but that's a minor complaint.

With roles in movies like Gladiator, 3:10 to Yuma, Cinderella Man, here in 'Commander' and next year in the new Robin Hood movie, Crowe has carved himself a nice little niche in the historical genre. One of my favorite actors around, Crowe always delivers a strong performance while also making his characters sympathetic. His Jack Aubrey, 'Lucky Jack' to his men, is liked and respected by his men even when forced to make the most difficult decisions. At heart, they know Aubrey will look out for them. Reuniting after working together on A Beautiful Mind, Paul Bettany is quiet, understated and almost steals the movie from Crowe as Dr. Stephen Maturin, the Surprise's highly intelligent surgeon and naturalist.

The duo have a great dynamic together, Crowe the intelligent veteran warrior and Bettany the intellectual conscience, even playing a duet together (a very moving use of Luigi Boccherini's La Musica Notturna Delle Strade Di Madrid' No. 6, Op. 30). Aubrey and Maturin are long-time friends so that dynamic is strained at times as the captain must decide what's best for his ship while the doctor looks out for the individual and the morality of the situation. With a good but not great cast behind Crowe and Bettany, these two actors dominate the screentime. Others impressing include James D'Arcy as Lt. Pulling, a young officer on the rise, and Max Pirkis as Blakeney, a teenage midshipman forced to grow up amidst a war on the high seas.

If you're a fan of older movies that were content to just be entertaining (like that's a bad thing), this movie is for you. It's a beautiful movie to look at with some great visuals of 19th century warships chasing each other across miles of ocean, and then builds to a visceral, chaotic finale. As if that wasn't enough, the ending is a bit of a cliffhanger with the above Boccherini opera used as the sountrack. A great movie all around, especially worthwhile for Crowe and Bettany's performances, this won't disappoint.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World <---trailer (2003): *** 1/2 /****

Angels and Demons

As good as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons were, what happened to them when turned into a movie? The books aren't great literature, but they're damn entertaining so a team of director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks should be a sure thing in helping the transition from bestselling book to blockbuster movie. But for whatever reason, something has not clicked with either movie. 'Da Vinci' in movie form was downright boring at times, and sadly, so is the sequel, 2009's Angels and Demons.

Like many fans of Brown's novels, I was caught up in the Da Vinci craze upon its release and after loving that one sought out Angels and Demons which actually is a prequel in the storyline. I raced through both books in a day or so each unable to put it down. Brown's style lends itself to cranking through chapters at a time with cliffhangers seemingly every few pages. So I somewhat naturally figured a movie would be easy to do off this subject material. Who knows, maybe I didn't think it through, but I was wrong in a big way.

After the pope dies, cardinals from around the world descend on Vatican City to choose a successor from their ranks. One night, four of the cardinals are kidnapped with a foreboding note, they will be killed an hour apart somewhere in Rome, all of this leading up to the complete destruction of the Vatican by a powerful, deadly substance known as antimatter. Worse than that, the act has been done by the Illuminati, a long-time enemy of the Catholic church only know exacting their revenge. The deceased pope's camerlengo, Patrick McKenna (Ewan McGregor) calls in Professor Thomas Langdon (Hanks) to help solve the mystery.

Upon arriving in Rome just hours before the murders are set to begin, Langdon discovers a way to save the kidnapped cardinals. Centuries before, Galileo created a path for people to join the Illuminati if they could follow four clues leading to four different locations. These places are all over Rome and Vatican City so with help from a beautiful Italian physicist (Ayelet Zurer, because every movie needs a beautiful Italian physicist) Langdon starts a race against time to save the cardinals that will take him all across the city.

If this makes sense at all, Howard's 138-minute version of Brown's book feels rushed for the first 90 minutes or so. Howard does not have the advantage of having hundreds of pages of background to set the stage for what's about to happen. Too bad because in place of that all-important background we get lots of scenes of Langdon explaining the historical importance and symbolism of what we're hearing. The book allows this to happen as an aside that doesn't take away from the pacing of the story. In movie form, it brings the high tension to a screeching halt while Langdon pieces together historical mysteries that have stumped brilliant minds for hundreds of years. Langdon on the other hand can figure them out in mere minutes.

Some of this has to be attributed to the sometimes mind-bogglingly bad screenplay which bounces around so much and so quickly it can hard to keep up. Granted, the book is basically one long, extended chase sequence, but there's time here and there for a breather. Not so here as the last half hour to 45 minutes goes from bad to worse and keeps on climbing on the ridiculous meter. I loved Brown's novel even more than 'Da Vinci' but can admit I thought parts of the ending were horribly out of place. The movie takes that one step further on a badness scale, but I won't ruin that here for you. I'll let it be spoiled elsewhere.

While I don't think Tom Hanks is the right choice to play Langdon, the movie's faults are not his own. The dialogue is stilted beyond belief and rarely comes across as believable. Hanks tries to make the most of it, but almost every line of dialogue he has is either a history lesson or a smart-ass comment. Zurer's Vittoria Vetra character has been relegated to background duty here, going from a great character in the book to a sounding board here for some of Langdon's mystery-solving. McGregor is a bright spot -- although the character loses a lot of necessary background from the novel -- with Stellan Skarsgard and Pierfrancesco Favino making the most out of their parts as Vatican security supervisors.

I hate putting this because I realize I sound like a pompous ass, but the book is miles ahead of the film version. Transitioning a beloved book to the big screen is a daunting process, no doubt about that, but it just hasn't worked here with either of Brown's source novels. As for Howard, he makes a beautiful movie -- it'd be hard to make Rome/Vatican City not look good -- but too many changes are made that were made for no obvious reason. Stick with Angels and Demons the novel and avoid this stinker. God help us when The Lost Symbol hits big screens.

Angels and Demons <----trailer (2009): * 1/2 /****

Iron Man

Here's a novel concept for you. When casting an action movie, a superhero movie, don't just pick the biggest, burliest actor around and hand him a script full of ridiculous one-liners. In the last few years, the big budget action flick has gone down a different route, cast some of the best actors in Hollywood and give them a starring role, actors like Christian Bale, Edward Norton, and Robert Downey Jr.

For one, it's fun to see these actors in roles that aren't so buttoned-down and right out of a purely dramatic product. I'm all for the Oscar winners, but seeing a movie and being entertained can be enjoyable too. The changing trend though isn't just to cast a big name actor and let the thing go. The two most recent Batman movies come to mind as examples of then filling out a supporting cast that equals the star power, like Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Cillian Murphy and on and on. Following this formula is 2008's Iron Man, one of the best superhero movies out there.

Born with a brilliant mind and the resources to build quite a life for himself, Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) has everything in life; money, cars, women, huge houses and a generally ridiculously over the top lifestyle. As head of Stark Industries -- the world's biggest weapons manufacturer -- Tony puts his skills in engineering and innovation to good use, creating all sorts of new weaponry that hopefully can bring peace to the world. Demonstrating one of his weapons in Afghanistan for U.S. armed forces, Starks' convoy is ambushed and he's captured by a terrorist group dubbed the 'Ten Rings' led by the power-hungry Raza (Faran Tahir).

Kept as a prisoner in a mountain cave, Stark is forced into building the very weapon he was demonstrating for the terrorists. But with some help from another prisoner, Yinsen (a small but memorable part for Shaun Toub), Stark builds a complicated suit of iron with weapons and hydraulics that helps him escape, but not before he sees piles of Stark Industries weapons in the caves. Returning to the states, Stark builds another suit, even more complicated, and goes about righting wrongs that his company has done with help from a close friend and army contact, Col. James Rhodes (Terrence Howard). What's worse, all the evidence points to his partner, Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), as the one selling the weapons.

For a long list of reasons that would take two or three posts, I really enjoyed this movie from start to finish. The top reason is by far Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in an inspired bit of casting. Over his career, Downey has had his fair of struggles with drugs and police, but he's always been a great actor which he shows off here. He somehow makes Stark a likable fellow with a perfect blend of humor, toughness and genuine sympathy. Topping it off, Downey seems to be enjoying himself and doesn't take himself too seriously. His introduction to flying is one of the movie's best scenes (about seven minutes into this clip which continues into Part 7) and just keeps on building.

Anyone who's read any of my reviews of newer movies knows that CGI is one my biggest pet peeves in action movies...when it's handled poorly and overused. Not so here as the CGI elements blend seamlessly into the story like this scene with Iron Man tangling with two fighter jets. The ending gets a little crazy but it's never too much. The action in general is fast-paced but coherent, and overall not overdone. For a 126-minute long movie, there isn't a ton of action to begin with. Large chunks of the story are spent on Stark developing and creating his suit, and they're great chunks of the story that bring the character to life.

The supporting cast is mostly three roles, Bridges' Stane (the obvious villain), Howard's Rhodes, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, a woman who basically tries to keep Stark's crazy life as controlled as possible. Paltrow hadn't been in a big budget movie since 2004 as she started a family with Coldplay's Chris Martin, but it's great to see her back with a good role. She's got chemistry with Downey but also holds her ground with him. Bridges revels in the bad guy role, and Howard is a good second banana as Rhodes. Howard has been in the news for basically having his part recast without him knowing it which is a shame because as much as I like Don Cheadle, Howard was a good fit.

Every so often a movie surprises you, and this one qualifies for me. Great casting, some phenomenal action sequences and across the board a hugely entertaining movie. I knew little to nothing about the character from comic books and still loved it. Also, stick around for a post-credits scene at the end of the movie with Samuel L. Jackson making an appearance. You won't be disappointed. And more good news, Iron Man 2 due out in May 2010. Count me in.

Iron Man <----trailer (2008): *** 1/2 /****

The Driver

As far back as the silent Keystone Cops series, movies have had car chases. In the late 60s, Bullitt and The French Connection opened the door for a slew of car-chase related movies that continues to this day. Name a halfway decent action movie from the last 30-40 years, and there's a good chance there is a car chase. Who knows what attracts audiences to them? Ridiculously cool cars gunning it across country and through crowded cities just sounds fun.

But with car chases, and I'm not talking racing movies, there are few movies directed to the most important thing in the chase -- the guy behind the wheel. Released in 1978, The Driver just does that, focusing almost completely on the man driving the badass car(s). Director Walter Hill handles a movie that could have been a color film noir movie with the typically cool anti-hero, the femme fatale, and the dedicated, driven cop trying to catch the rebellious main character. It's the type of movie that almost borders on the pretentious with characters addressed as their occupation -- the Driver, the Detective, the Connection -- but pulls back just enough not to be obnoxious.

When a crook/robber/underworld thug is trying to pull off a job, there's one person that can significantly help his chances get away. Everyone knows him simply as the Driver (Ryan O'Neal), the best getaway driver and wheelman around. The police are fully aware of who and what he is, especially the Detective (Bruce Dern), but they're never able to pin any of the crimes on him, and he always gets away to pull off another getaway. But the Detective has been pushed too far so he goes about setting up a trap that even the Driver can't escape from.

The plot is straightforward with little diversions to take away from the heated and on-going battle between the getaway driver and the police officer trying to bring him in. There's a rivalry between the men that O'Neal and Dern pull off perfectly. O'Neal's Driver is quickly aware that he's being set up and still take the job if for nothing else than to prove he can do it, and more importantly he's smarter than a cop. O'Neal isn't a great actor, but playing the strong, silent type works nicely for him. Dern is a scene-stealer (as he usually was) as the slightly crazy detective who will risk anything to catch his rival.

Director Hill clearly knows what he's doing with an often minimalist story that focuses so closely on style over substance, especially with the chase scenes that bookend the movie. The opening as the Driver attempts to escape from the police (watch it HERE) is a great intro as to what type of movie you're about to watch. It also features one of the best endings to a car chase I can remember. The finale -- check it out here with SPOILERS of course -- is even better, combining some great stunt driving with a sometimes unbearable tension as O'Neal drives a souped-up pickup truck chasing down a Firebird.

Watching the chase scenes is easier to appreciate because O'Neal did just enough driving to make it seem believable. Sure, a stunt driver probably did most of it, but the viewer actually sees O'Neal behind the wheel. It sounds simple, but it helps a lot. And one of the reasons I'll always love older movies, no fake-looking CGI could ever replace good old fashioned stunts. In these chase scenes, Hill doesn't mess around with a loud blaring soundtrack that tells you how to feel. Just like Bullitt, The Driver's chase scenes are almost silent other than the sounds of the engines chugging along trying to outdo each other. Definitely some of the best car chases around because they don't mess with the formula. Simple, straightforward and exciting.

With the rest of the cast, a few names jump out but it's O'Neal and Dern's movie to win or lose. Isabelle Adjani is the Player, a young woman in desperate need of money who provides an alibi for the Driver after the opening getaway. If there was a love interest, Adjani would be it, but the story doesn't have time to waste with a love story. Ronee Blakley is the Connection, the woman who sets the Driver up with jobs and seems to have some sort of past with him but that could be me overanalyzing. Felice Orlandi and Matt Clark are two of Dern's fellow detectives working the case and Joseph Walsh and Rudy Ramos are Glasses and Teeth, two crooks who need the Driver's services.

A quasi-existential chase movie that's a lot of fun to watch, especially for any fans of car chases in the vein of Bullitt, The French Connection, and Two-Lane Blacktop. Stars Ryan O'Neal and Bruce Dern look to be having a good time making it, and director Walter Hill turns in a taut, exciting story dominated by car chases at either end of the movie. Car junkies shouldn't miss this one.

The Driver <----trailer (1978): ***/****

Don't Make Waves

When it comes to movies, I can B.S. my way through a lot of different films, westerns, war, action, adventure, and comedy to sound remotely intelligent. Then there's those genres that I've never really had much of an interest in and typically avoid the bubonic plague, stuff like musicals, horror, musicals, torture porn, and even musicals. One I've always been aware of but had no real interest in investing any time was a staple of the 60s (so I hear) was the beach/surfing movie. My previous knowledge extended to a Family Guy spoof so really involved as you can see.

Not having ever sought out a beach movie, I stumbled across one on TCM last night called 'Don't Make Waves' released in 1967. The listing sounded stupid enough -- a swimming-pool salesman gets mixed up with beauty queens and bodybuilders when he falls in love -- and the cast didn't sound half bad so I gave it a shot. That's not fair I guess, the two leads sounded interesting, Tony Curtis who I wouldn't typically associate with a light-hearted beach movie, and Italian beauty Claudia Cardinale, an actress I often associate with darker, more serious movies. So with little expectations, I jumped right in.

Traveling to California in his beaten-up, broken down VW Bug, Carlo Cofield (Curtis) pulls over at a hillside rest stop overlooking the Pacific for lunch, only to have his car roll down the mountain and blow up when a woman's car's bumper hooks his and carries it away. The woman, Laura Califatti (Cardinale) offers to bring Carlo to her apartment while she finds the insurance papers. Of course, she can't find the papers so he stays over that night and is woken up by some incessant knocking at the door. Laura opens the door for Rod Preston (Robert Webber in top form a-hole mode), the married man she's having an affair with.

Rod wastes little time kicking the half-naked Carlo out of the apartment, forcing him to sleep on the beach. He wakes up early the next morning and decides to go for a swim, only to be knocked out by a surfboard belonging to a bikini-clad skydiver, Malibu (Sharon Tate). Waking up to see her, Carlo is quickly head over heels and decides he's got to break Malibu and her bodybuilding boyfriend, Harry (David Draper), up so he can swoop in. Carlo's best option? Blackmail Rod into giving him a job with his swimming pool company and begin to woo Malibu. That enough for you? I just wrote two whole paragraphs about the plot in a beach movie, and I'm pooped.

That's just skimming the surface of what's going on in this always entertaining and often ridiculous 97-minute beach movie. Director Alexander Mackendrick made some good movies in his short career, Sweet Smell of Success and The Ladykillers among others, but this one is all over the place. The first 30 minutes are a good start that provides some actual laughs, but once Carlo's plan goes into action the story goes all over the place. Famous ventriloquist Edgar Bergen makes an odd appearance without his dummy as an astrologist going by the name Madame Lavinia, and then Joanna Barnes pops in here and there for a few scenes as Rod's ignored wife.

There are some genuinely funny scenes, but the story bounces around so much it's hard to remember them. Everything leads up to an uniquely bizarre ending as the various storylines come together to be resolved, in where else? A seaside house about to slide down the hill end over end into the ocean. Let's face it, you get some good thinking done in a situation like that. With all this craziness going on, it would have been nice for even a little background. Curtis' Carlo goes from down on his luck dupe to a sophisticated con man in the matter of a scene or two, no explanation given. What gives?

As for what pulled me in, Curtis and Cardinale are good leads. I've always been a fan of Curtis as a comedic actor, and he doesn't disappoint here. Cardinale is drop dead gorgeous, and this is one of the few early movies where she wasn't dubbed so you get to hear her heavily accented English. Mackendrick also displays Cardinale in various stages of undress throughout, but one-ups himself with Sharon Tate. Almost always in a bikini, Tate gets an extremely subtle trampoline jumping scene that goes on for nearly two minutes. Before her career was tragically cut short when she was murdered by the Mansons, Tate clearly made an impact judging just by the amount of fan videos put up on Youtube for her part as Malibu.

Now with all this said, complaints, bitching, criticisms, I was entertained from start to finish. It's a stupid movie with so much going on that a fair share of things gets lost along the way. Come on now, there's Tony Curtis, Claudia Cardinale, gorgeous southern California locations, body builders, bikini-wearing skydivers, Edgar Bergen 'playing' a girl, and Jim Backus playing himself. How can you lose? Scary thought, this was based on a book which I might just have to check out. If curious at all about this odd little gem, here's Part 1 of 10 at Youtube with the Byrds singing the theme.

Don't Make Waves <----trailer (1967): ** 1/2 /****

The Beguiled

Give Clint Eastwood credit for doing everything possible to avoid being typecast early in his career. Fresh off the success of the Sergio Leone Dollars trilogy and American westerns Hang 'Em High and Two Mules for Sister Sara, Eastwood went for a number of different roles that could not have been further from the wild west gunslinger. Do I even need to mention Paint Your Wagon? While Eastwood never fully left the western or cop genre, it's always interesting to see these departures from the typical Eastwood part, like 1971's The Beguiled.

A major disappointment in theaters because of some not so truthful marketing, The Beguiled was the third teaming between Eastwood and director Don Siegel and it wouldn't be their last as they worked together in the Dirty Harry series too. Siegel was known for his tough, hard-hitting movies that included westerns, war movies and police stories. So working together on a Gothic, off-beat Civil War suspense thriller was really a departure for both actor and director. Surprisingly enough, the combination works in an odd way.

While walking through the woods looking for mushrooms, 12-year old Amy (Pamelyn Ferdin) stumbles across a wounded Union soldier. She's able to drag him to the School for Young Ladies she lives in in southern Louisiana. The owner of the school, Martha Farnsworth (Geraldine Page), decides to treat the soldier's wounds before turning him over to Confederate forces so he can be sent to a prison camp. Soon enough, the Union soldier comes around and introduces himself as Corporal John McBurney (Eastwood). Seeing an opportunity, McBurney takes it and starts going to work on the men-starved women living at the school as he recovers and builds up his strength.

This is about as off-beat a movie as Eastwood has made and for that reason one of the best. It's completely different from any other movie he stars in. Shot on location in Louisiana, 'Beguiled' has the feel of a Gothic horror movie. Using an actual Southern home for outdoor shooting, there's a feeling of authenticity that would have been lost with a Hollywood set. The house is surrounded by brush, shrubbery and plant life, giving an intense feeling of claustrophobia right from the get-go. There's a sense that anything could be hiding in the brush -- Union or Confederate soldiers -- and who knows when it will reveal itself.

Credit goes to composer Lalo Schifrin and cinematographer Bruce Surtees for creating such a beautiful but unsettling movie. Schifrin's score varies from whimsical to downright scary depending on the scene. Surtees' camera work relies on shadows and darkness in the vast hallways of the Southern plantation home. Combine these two and the with the ever-changing tone of the movie, you've got a surprisingly moody Civil War story. It has elements of horror and suspense that work so well together leading up until the final scenes which provide quite a twist. Several scenes make me wince just thinking of them, but I won't spoil them here.

Probably speaking here more than in some of his earlier movies combined, Eastwood plays against type as Cp. John McBurney, or McB to his friends. He's a hustler and a con man in many ways, seducing any of the young women who come close to him, especially school teacher Edwina (Elizabeth Hartman in a great part). McBurney's going to do whatever it takes to avoid being sent to a Confederate prison camp, no matter how many people he has to trick. As his counter, Broadway actress Page is a worthy foe, a woman in charge of an isolated school for young women. Her Martha knows she probably shouldn't keep McB on, but also feels a need to have a man around the grounds. The other girls include Ferdin in a scene-stealing role, Jo Ann Harris as Carol, the sexually curious 17-year old, Darleen Carr as Doris, the fiercely patriotic Southerner convinced they should turn McB in, and Mae Mercer as Hallie, Martha's slave.

Completely surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie. Different from what you might normally expect from a Clint Eastwood and Don Siegel movie, but keep an open mind and this one could catch you off guard too.

The Beguiled (1971): ***/****

The Country Girl

Something about stars who died too soon endear themselves to audiences, actors like James Dean, Montgomery Clift, and Grace Kelly. In a movie career that lasted barely six years, Kelly made just 11 movies, more often than not playing a glamorous leading lady with style too spare. And why not? She is one of the most classically beautiful women to ever appear on the silver screen. But years before Charlize Theron figured it out, Kelly went completely unglamorous in a role that won her the only Oscar of her career.

The movie was 1954's The Country Girl based on a Clifford Odets play and also features some great performances from crooner Bing Crosby and always reliable William Holden. Fifty-plus years later, the film feels slightly dated and comes across as somewhat boring visually. It's a play turned into a movie that never left the stage for lack of a better description. But visuals aside, The Country Girl relies almost solely on the success of its three stars to make this movie memorable, and in that way it is a great success. Kelly won the Oscar for Best Actress, Crosby was nominated for Best Actor, and somehow Holden was snubbed a nomination for one of his best performances.

With just weeks to go before his play opens in theaters, director Bernie Dodd (Holden) is still looking for that ideal lead. He picks Frank Elgin (Crosby), a past his prime performer who's fallen out of the limelight after years at the top of his game. Dodd's producer and financial backer, Philip Cook (Anthony Ross), is not so convinced that Elgin is the right man for the job, but Dodd insists and demands and gets his way. Elgin has gone through some struggles over the years since the tragic death of his son, including a long stretch where he downed bottles of liquor as quick as he could find it.

But even with all these warning signs, Dodd continues to work with Elgin because he thinks he'll catch lightning in a bottle with his performance. As the opening day draws near, Dodd sees more and more how Elgin's wife Georgie (Kelly) controls her husband's life in almost every way. Then as a result, Frank seems to suffer, especially in his on-stage performances. But what Dodd is seeing is not the whole picture as Elgin puts up a brave front when talking with the director who stood up for him. When he's with his wife, Frank is a quiet, worried man who lacks any self-esteem and blames himself for their son's death (which is revealed in a flashback). Can director Dodd figure this out in time to save his show and job?

There are other background and supporting characters here and there, but Kelly, Crosby and Holden dominate the movie and a scene doesn't go by that at least two of these three aren't in. Kelly beat out Judy Garland, Dorothy Dandridge, Audrey Hepburn and Jane Wyman out for the Oscar, an award she fully deserved. The costuming department dulls down Kelly's beauty as much as possible, having her wear a large pair of glasses, putting her in quiet, dark clothes, and pulling her hair back. Filmed in black and white, Kelly looks like a mother in her mid 30s who has suffered through some horrific stretches in her life.

Her performance is solid throughout, but she takes it into another gear late in the movie in a confrontation with Holden's Dodd after Frank has started drinking again. Obvious SPOILERS but check it out HERE courtesy of Youtube several minutes into this clip. Too often, a beautiful actress or a handsome actor isn't respected for their acting abilities because they're just so nice to look at. And while Kelly was always a strong presence in her roles -- including her movies with Alfred Hitchcock -- her part in The Country Girl shows that she can handle a darker, meaty character. A fully-deserved Academy Award often remembered more for her beauty and style than acting ability.

As for her co-stars, Kelly had a ton of chemistry with both Crosby and Holden. She'd work with Crosby again in High Society two years later and with Holden the same year in The Bridges at Toko-Ri. Crosby is known for his singing and dancing ability more than anything (White Christmas is a personal favorite), but his boozing performer here is a less than pleasant fellow with his fair share of personal flaws. During the casting process, Crosby almost turned down the role because he thought he was too old, but the fact that he was significantly older than both Kelly and Holden works well in terms of the character. Just like Kelly, not your typical Crosby, but one that shows he was not just a song and dance man.

Now for Holden, who was probably one of the biggest male stars in Hollywood in the 1950s, with classics like Sunset Blvd., Bridge on the River Kwai, Sabrina, and Stalag 17 among others. Often criticized for basically playing a variation of...well, himself, he was the lone actor here not to get an Oscar nomination. To be fair, it was a loaded year, here's the 1954 nominees. As an audience, we see what the Elgin's marriage is like, but Holden's Dodd is in the dark. For all he knows, Georgie is a controlling, manipulative wife when really she's trying to protect her husband. But Dodd is always likable and sympathetic, a driven career man trying to avoid a flop of epic proportions.

A dated movie that is very 1950s, but in a good way. Youtube has it available in segments, starting here with Part 1 of 11. Filmed entirely on indoor sets, the movie won't lose any scope if you watch it on your computer. It's a movie that depends on the characters with nothing else to distract from a sometimes heartbreaking story about a couple struggling through their marriage and the director just trying to make a successful play. Highly recommend this one.

The Country Girl <----trailer (1954): ***/****

American Gangster

Any star/director combo that turned out a movie as good as 2000's Gladiator basically gets a free pass from me. I'll pretty much watch anything that comes as a result of that duo, star Russell Crowe and director Ridley Scott, working together again. It took a little while, but they did team up together in 2007's American Gangster, based on a true story as well. And as if those two weren't good enough, throw in Oscar-winner Denzel Washington into the mix.

With a Scott-produced and directed movie, it's obvious what you're going to get from the finished product. There's going to be an air of professionalism with the movie that some directors just can't produce. Great performances from the leads is almost a given, and probably most importantly of all, it'll be an entertaining movie, so much so you might not realize how real or authentic the story feels. American Gangster has all this (almost), but never reaches it's potential for whatever reason thanks to some rather leisurely storytelling. To be fair, I watched the extended DVD version which clocks in at 173 minutes opposed to the theatrical version's 154 minutes so keep that in mind as I complain.

It's 1969 in Harlem and Frank Lucas (Washington) is at a crossroads. His longtime boss/friend/father figure Bumpy Johnson -- basically the king of New York gangsters -- has died, and everyone else in NY thinks Frank's going to go with him. But Frank goes into business for himself, traveling to war-torn Vietnam to arrange a deal for a consistent supply of heroin into the U.S. which he names 'Blue Magic' for street sale. That's all Lucas needs as he takes off and the money starts rolling in, carrying him higher than even the Italian crime families. Then, there's Richie Roberts (Crowe), an honest detective infamous in the force for turning in $1 million dollars when he could have kept it for himself. Directed by supervisors, Roberts sets up a force to take down the heavy hitters in the drug industry, and sure enough, the evidence leads to a mystery man no one knows anything about, one Frank Lucas.

The story covers about seven years from Lucas' rise to his eventual conviction and jail time. It never feels rushed, and the proceedings are always pretty clear but Scott takes too much time setting things up. The first hour is downright boring and almost lost me. I realize he has to establish a background for the next two hours, but he takes a little too long. The second hour is a little better as things start moving along, but it's still not up to par with a typical Ridley Scott movie. The third hour saves the movie from being a complete bust as there's a sense of urgency, an excitement that was missing from the previous 120 or so minutes.

What surprised me most here was that Washington is not at his best. For me, Denzel is about as bankable a star as Hollywood has right now, and I'll watch him in just about anything -- maybe even read a phone book. But his Lucas is too subdued most of the time with a few quick outbursts of extreme violence, including maybe the movie's best scene because it shows the paradox Lucas has created. Like the 1972 classic The Godfather, Lucas wants to provide for his family and protect them as best he can, breaking the law be damned. He will do anything to keep them safe, including his wife Eva (Lymari Nadal) and loving mother (Ruby Dee in an Oscar-nominated supporting role).

In the same way I look at Washington, I look at Crowe. They're both actors, not movie stars. Crowe is the highpoint of Gangster as Richie Roberts, a cop trying to juggle his chaotic home life and divorced wife (an underused Carla Gugino) and the task force he's been assigned to take down the drug producers and suppliers. A New Zealand native, Crowe pulls off a pretty decent Jersey accent too in helping make Roberts the sympathetic cop. The story demands it, but a major problem is that Crowe and Washington don't have a scene together until the last 30 minutes. Their meeting (<----SPOILERS) is another great scene, and the following conversation is reminiscent of De Niro and Pacino in the coffee shop in Heat. It is scenes like this that show the potential of how good the movie should have been, but never is.

With an almost three-hour long movie, Scott fills out the ranks with a phenomenal supporting cast. Some are better than others and more than a few are left by the wayside as the story moves along, but that's almost a given with a cast list this big. Rapper RZA and John Hawkes play two members of Richie's task force, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Common, and T.I. as some of Frank's family, Ted Levine as Frank's police supervisor, and even Cuba Gooding Jr and Armand Assante as two of Frank's underworld 'contacts.' And since the movie doesn't paint Lucas as the bad guy, that part goes to Josh Brolin as the Special Investigations detective Trupo who's not too proud to take a bribe, lots of bribes.

It's disappointing writing an average review of this movie because I wanted to like it, and I was expecting a lot more. Something just doesn't click though. I won't go as far as saying it's a boring movie, but there's no heart to it, no real energy to keep things moving over an almost three hour movie. Sure, there's positives from the casting to the great 70s feel to the story, but I was expecting more. Still worth a watch though because an average movie with Crowe, Washington and Scott is still better than a ton of other new releases. Check out one of the all-time best trailers for a recent movie below.

American Gangster <----trailer (2007): **/****