Stagecoach (1939)

In 1939 Stagecoach came out and forever changed the Hollywood western.  Stagecoach marked the first collaboration between John Wayne and John Ford, a team-up that would spawn such other classics as The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.  This was an actor and director who clearly respected each other and enjoyed working with each other, and (better still) who brought out the best in each other.

Stagecoach broke new ground in just how stinkin' good a western could be.  It is fun to watch and enjoyably paced, keeping a good balance between action, humor, and drama.  It is well filmed, communicating the expansive scope of a landscape you could so easily get lost in, bringing the wide open spaces of the west into the movie theaters of the east.  But just as quickly the shot will change, and what had been wide open becomes the crowded, claustrophobic, confined space of the stagecoach itself.  Perhaps Ford wanted to make some statement about how we take the great big world and make it uncomfortable and crowded.

Anyway, Stagecoach also started a whole new movie archetype; it is the story of a small group of very different people who need to learn to work together in order to overcome large obstacles.  This is a much-copied story today, but in 1939 it was all but brand new.  

The story is simple: there is a stagecoach that must get from one town through another, in spite of the fact that Geronimo's Indians (not a politically correct term today, but I'll be using it because the movie does) threaten the wilds between the towns.  On the stagecoach in question we find 9 people, all on that ride for very different reasons.  The driver -the bumbling comic relief played by the John Ford staple Andy Devine -obviously he is along because it's his job, but he is sure to tell everyone he'd rather not be on that particular ride.  The marshal riding shotgun has arrested the outlaw the Ringo Kid (John Wayne) and wants to take him to jail.  There is a pregnant lady searching for her husband, and a notorious gambler who has offered to take her to him in safety.  Then there is a traveling whiskey salesman too meek to do anything but go along with the others, and a banker who has absconded with the payroll deposit.  Finally, there are two characters being run out of town; a drunk doctor and a prostitute named Dallas.  Claire Trevor plays Dallas so well the character has become cliched: the hooker with the heart of gold.

These characters are played off each other brilliantly, shining a penetrating light on the dysfunctions of society's norms.  Ringo immediately likes Dallas, though it is clear he is not aware of her past.  Everyone but him shuns her, and he thinks it is because of HIS past.  The doctor has the most to offer the group, but would rather drink than anything: evidently he regards the world a farce.  Altogether, the characters that are presented as most virtuous -the "heroes," if you will -are those that society regards as dirty or untouchable.  This is a movie that expertly flips our expectations and values, causing us to see all people as people, and not the pigeonhole they may have been forced into.  After all, perhaps Dallas is only a prostitute because she has no other option -she might instead become a good wife for someone.  If you believe Ringo, he's been falsely accused and condemned, forcing him into an outlaw life.  And the gambler -who the lady wouldn't even acknowledge in town -shows that he is a gentleman of the highest order.

Stagecoach proved that a western could be far more than cowboys and Indians, or sheriffs and outlaws.  This is a movie about how people need to be treated individually, as people and not as a representative of a group.  This is a film that questions the value of any society that so easily turns people against one another without learning the story behind the person.  This is a film that declares we all need a second chance.

And besides, it has one of the greatest lines of movie history: "Well, they're saved from the blessings of civilization."

Entertainment: 8/10

Artistic Value: 8/10

Technical merit: 7/10

Overall: 8/10

P.S. If you can, watch Stagecoach on the new Criterion Bluray release.  As with many films that are 80 years old it is hard to find this one in good quality.  Most releases today have fairly terrible picture and sound issues.  The Criterion release is probably the best you'll find, though unfortunately it still has a lot of dirt and visual issues.  

Rebecca (1940)

Have I mentioned that I love Alfred Hitchcock's work?  Given that fact, I guess writing a review of his only Best Picture winner seems rather a foregone conclusion.  And since I just learned that Hollywood will be remaking, and no doubt ruining, Rebecca, it seems incumbent on me to encourage as many people as possible to enjoy the original.

Rebecca is the story of a young, naive American girl played by Joan Fontaine who meets and marries a dashing widower named Maxim de Winter (the ever brilliant Lawrence Olivier) while in Europe. Maxim is of course very rich, owning an estate in the south of England called Manderley.  But of course not everything is ideal for the new Mrs. de Winter.  Maxim is still struggling terribly over the death of his first wife, named Rebecca, the year before.  Plus, the new life that Mrs. de Winter #2 finds is completely unlike her experience to date.  Everyone seems to expect her to be more sophisticated, a great hostess, have brilliant fashion taste, and so on.  In other words, everyone seems to expect her to be Rebecca.  Manderley is haunted by Rebecca.  Not in the literal sense of course; rather, the house simply breathes with the spirit of Rebecca.  The stationary still has her initials, the pillowcases are embroidered with her name, the servants still operate on the schedule Rebecca devised.  The entire world seems to circle around the new Mrs. de Winter with one overriding message: you aren't good enough, you shouldn't be here, Maxim would rather have Rebecca than you, you'll never measure up, you should leave because you can never replace Rebecca!

In the middle of all this is Mrs. Danvers, the housekeeper.  Played to chilling perfection by Judith Anderson, Mrs. Danvers is so loyal to Rebecca that she takes a set against our young heroine.  In fact, I'd say that Rebecca effectively ruined the employment opportunities of any woman named Danvers for the next 15 years!  In every way that Mrs. Danvers can she tries to subvert and undermine the confidence of the new Mrs. de Winters.  She describes Rebecca in an almost worshipful way, seeming more a lovesick puppy dog than housekeeper.  She rebukes Mrs. de Winter for failing to live up to expectations, and she even seeks to drive a wedge between her and Maxim.  And then, in the film's ultimate scene, Danvers could take the role of the devil himself, whispering fear and death into the young bride's insecure and despairing ear.

I tell you, Mrs. Danvers is among the most memorable and evil villains of all time.  As is Rebecca actually.  Even though Rebecca is never seen and has no lines, her presence is all over the movie aptly named for her.  

This is a fantastic film.  It is well acted, moves at a brisk pace even though it is a character drama, and is (of course) superbly directed.  You feel for the insecure heroine as she struggles awkwardly to fit into a foreign world.  You puzzle over the brooding Maxim who seems so good, yet who can lose his temper at the slightest mention of Rebecca.  But the genius of the movie comes in one scene where in one deft move Hitchcock turns everything you thought you knew about Rebecca upside down.  

Rebecca was Hitchcock's first American made film, and his only to win Best Picture (though many of his later films richly deserved the honor).  It is not my favorite of his films, but it certainly showcases its director's blossoming talent.  Don't let any new remake tell you about Rebecca.  Hear the story first as told by the Master of Suspense.  

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic value: 7/10
Technical merit: 9/10

Overall: 8/10

The Book of Eli (2010)

Sometimes it is just more fun to write about a movie you hated than about one you loved.  Over the past few years I've seen plenty of terrible movies, but none quite stick out in my mind quite like The Book of Eli.  Transformers 2?  Terribly awful, perhaps the worst train wreck of a movie ever.  But it didn't pretend to be smart.  Twilight?  Ghastly.  But again, it had no posturing, no pretensions of being anything more than an insipid movie about an insipid book.

The Book of Eli however wanted you to think it was smart and clever.  It wanted to be "meaningful."  It wanted to be memorable.  It succeeded at that I suppose, because I still think of it every time I think of the worst movies of all time.

Now, few movies get literally everything wrong (go Transformers 2!).  And so The Book of Eli does have some things going for it.  The action is top notch, bringing a somewhat comic book-inspired aesthetic to the visual flair and a gritty and brutal violence that is felt in the gut of the viewer.  The acting a bit above grade powered by Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.  Other technical aspects are just fine.

But the story!  Merciful Minerva (Wonder Woman ftw!!), there are so many plot holes there is literally nothing left!  Warning to those who have not seen it and still wish to: here there be spoilers!

In the post-apocalyptic future, Denzel Washington plays a man walking across America carrying the last Bible.  All other copies of the Bible had been destroyed by bad guys except this one.  This leads to plot hole #1: There are right now more than 6 billion copies of the Bible in the world, so good luck destroying them all.  If the Roman Emperors couldn't do it 2000 years ago, chances are a Mad Max wannabe couldn't either.  So Eli has the last Bible, and he is walking from one side of America to the other, guarding his treasure with his post-apocalyptic ninja skills that he picked up somewhere somehow.  He's been at this for 30 years.  Why it has taken 30 years is not explained, as we can learn on Google maps that walking from New York to San Francisco can be done in less than 2 months.  Perhaps he decided to take the New York-to-Greenland-to-Panama-to-Seattle-to-San Francisco route.  Anyway, Gary Oldman finds out he has the Bible and tries to get it from him to use to subjugate the people.  Denzel fights him off with his super ninja skills, including his dead shot pistol skills.  Skip to the end, and you find out that the book he was carrying was a Braille Bible, and Eli has been blind the whole time.  That's right, a blind guy can shoot a bullseye at over 30 yards with a pistol and fight with deadly efficiency using a knife.  My friends, that's a plot hole you can lose an entire county in.

It doesn't stop there.  The following are just a few of my smaller gripes with Eli:

• Movies usually like to explain how people get out of locked rooms.  Not Eli.  Eli don't need no explanations.  Both he and the lead girl can walk through heavy locked metal doors without any clue regarding how they did it.  She's locked in there! Cut to next scene, where she's walking down the road!
• How does anyone in this wasteland survive?  There is only concrete and dust!  No plants!  
• Oh, so the Bible Eli has is Braille?  Did anyone tell the writers that Braille books are far longer than normal ones?  A Braille Bible is about 17-18 volumes and takes up 60 inches of  shelf space.  Eli apparently was carrying only part of the Bible.
• The apocalypse must be great for the skin, because every woman in the movie has perfect skin.  And teeth.  And great fashion sense.
• Eating human meat (cannibalization) does not make your hands shake, as this movie claims.  Don't ask me how I know this.
• I'm perfectly ok with the idea that the sun causes problems for people in the apocalypse, like blindness and such.  But why do the birds and animals seem to have no problem?  Is the sun only bad for people?
• Eli claims faith doesn't make sense.  Sorry Eli, this movie is the only thing that doesn't make sense.  Faith is a reasonable action taken based on evidence.
• For someone who can quote the whole Bible perfectly at the end of the movie, he sure can't quote it accurately during the rest of the movie!  He doesn't even summarize it well!  And he certainly hasn't learned "Thou shalt not kill" very well either.
• Eli has a bow.  In some scenes.  Tell me, where does Eli store that bow when he's not using it?  Does it fold up in his backpack?  
• We get that the iPod is important.  But does the movie care to explain why?  Nope.  Nor do we get any indication of how the thing can still hold a charge after all these years.

So that's The Book of Eli, perhaps the greatest example of stupid plot holes in movie history.

Entertainment: 5/10

Artistic Value: 1/10

Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 3/10

M (1931)

If ever there was a movie to show just how much of a geek I am when it comes to film, M by Fritz Lang is it.  M is now over 80 years old.  It is black and white.  It is one of the earliest films to make use of sound.  It is entirely in German (meaning English subtitles for me!).  On the surface you'd think that absolutely no one in my entire generation would even have heard of it.  But I own it.  And love it.

As a work of art, I do not think that M could be any more relevant and modern.  The writing of this film is flawless, the acting (especially that of Peter Lorre) is phenomenal, the direction a marvel, the editing seamless.  The way Fritz Lang edited certain scenes so that you see two conversations happening at once about a single topic is nothing short of groundbreaking for its day.  Lang used the new sound technology to his full advantage, making everything absolutely silent in one scene, and having the murderer whistle Grieg's "In the Hall of the Mountain King" as he stalks his prey.  In every way the movie M is a delight to watch.

M is about a serial killer of children in Berlin, played by Peter Lorre.  This is a daring topic for its day, though one far overused today.  M explores the psyche of its sociopath, portraying him not simply as a monster but as a highly disturbed individual who struggles with his evil actions.  Thus morality is portrayed in shades of black, white, and gray.  The murderer must be stopped, certainly, but at the same time he is a sympathetic character.  Moreover, it is not only the police who are the good guys, but thieves, beggars, cheats, pickpockets, and all the criminal fraternity also team up to find him.   

Interestingly, as a movie to come out in the 1930's in Germany, M seems to anticipate the horrors of the Nazi emergence.  There are goose-stepping policemen, the repeated demand of "papers please," and a public all too willing to trade freedom and rights for security.  This is a film that hit the public mood of its moment, which is also a moment we seem to approach again today.

M is amazing.  By the time it is over you wonder about the depths of darkness in the heart of humanity, and wonder if justice ever could truly be done.  This is a masterwork of early cinema.

Entertainment: 7/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical merit: 9/10

Overall: 9/10

Chariots of Fire (1981)

Chariots of Fire is the best movie about running that exists, a fantastic character study, a wonderfully acted drama, a best picture winner, and the quintessential example of how 80's techno music wasn't ALL bad (just mostly bad).  And it is certainly one of my favorite movies of all time.

At its most simple, Chariots of Fire is about two rival sprinters from the UK who compete against each other and who both represent the same nation (Great Brittan) in the 1924 Olympic Games.

Of course, this is not that simplistic of a movie.  Far more goes on here than just two guys trying to beat each other to the finish line.  All in all, Chariots of Fire is about the reason people compete.  Why do we do the things we do?  What is a proper motive to aspire to greatness?  And ultimately, is there a right and wrong way to acheive greatness?  These two runners, so equal in talent and ability, each approach the sport of running in very different ways and for very different purposes.

Eric Liddell is a Scottish runner, dubbed "Scotland's finest wing."  He runs instinctually and with obvious pleasure.  His form is terrible -head back, arms flailing -but his speed is breathtaking and his spirit unquenchable.  He was also a dedicated Christian, raised by missionaries to China he eventually returned as a missionary to China himself and died during the Japanese occupation in WW2.  Why does Eric run?  Well, as Rev. Liddell (Eric's father) says to him, "You can praise God by peeling a spud, if you peel it to perfection.  But don't compromise.  Compromise is a language of the devil.  Run in God's name, and let the world stand back in wonder."  And as Eric say to his sister Jenny, "I believe God made me for a purpose.  For China.  But he also made me fast!  And when I run I feel his pleasure!"

The challenge to Eric comes when his faith is pitted against his running.  He is schedueld for a heat on a Sunday, but in his way of thinking the Sunday is the Sabbath and not a day for running.  Thus, Eric refuses to run on Sunday.  Now, I disagree with his theology of Sabbath, but I cannot do anything but admire Eric's stubborn insistance on doing only what he believed to be right, even in the face of being ordered to run by his future king.  Why does Eric run?  To glorify God.  He will not run if it means breaking God's law.  By the end we see how Eric's desire to honor God brings him honor as well.

In very high contrast to Eric stands Harold Abrahams.  Harold runs not for the glory of God but in headlong pursuit of personal glory.  As a Jew living in England Harold has always felt, as he puts it, "semi-deprived."  He has throughout life been ostracized, "led to water but not allowed to drink."  He thus regards his running as a weapon, a way to prove that he is just as much a man as any other.  He centers his whole identity around running; training night and day, hiring the best coach, studying his opponents.  Harold feels that if he doesn't win he will not prove his value. 

Yet even for Harold there is hope.  By the end Harold wonders if his determination to win will bring about everything he hopes.  Speaking to Aubrey just before his big race Harold says, "And now in one hour's time I will be out there again.  I will raise my eyes and look down that corridor; 4 feet wide, with 10 lonely seconds to justify my whole existence.  But WILL I?  I've known the fear of losing, but now I'm almost too frightened to win!"  Harold needs to wrap his head around whether there is more to life than winning, and what he hopes to gain.  That Harold avoids the limelight of glory at the end tells us that he has grown.

Of course there is more that goes on than just this.  Chariots of Fire is also about prejudice, the pathetic politics of national pride, the division between commoner and royalty, and the ideals of amateurism vs. professionalism.  It touches on the condescending nature of those who presume to judge the motives of other's hearts.  And it helps us to understand when it is appropriate to participate vicariously in the success of others.

It's a great movie.  With an unforgetable 80's musical score.

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic value: 10/10
Technical merit: 8/10

Overall: 9.5/10

The Grey (2011)

I'm somewhat a Liam Neeson fan, along with half the world, so I watched his 2011 thriller The Grey this past week.  While I cannot recommend this movie due to the extreme language and violence, there is quite a lot good to say about it.

Neeson plays Ottway, a marksman and hunter hired by an oil company in Alaska to keep the rig workers safe from the wolves.  The problem comes when the plane he is on crashes in the arctic wilderness, leaving Ottway and a few other survivers miles from help and surrounded by wolves.  The movie is largely about their struggle to survive.

Really, the movie is all about Liam Neeson.  Ottway is an emotionally wounded man, trying desperately to deal with the recent death of his wife.  That Neeson himself lost his wife in a skiing accident in 2009 seems entirely relevant to his performance.  And his performance is quite good.

As far as entertainment, The Grey is hit and miss.  There are moments when the tension is built up quite well, such as when the survivers are staring down the wolf pack , and all you can see are eyes in the darkness glowing from the light of their torches.  But the film does become repetative as well; by the time the wolves attack for the third or fourth time you have a decided "This is like the last time" feeling.  Also, the survivers make one or two choices that even in my most charitable frame of mind I must call questionable.  Finally, many, many people -particularly Americans who like perfectly resolved, happy endings -will not care for how the film ends.

But what impressed me most about The Grey is the thoughtfulness it injects into the struggle to survive.  This is not just a movie about those trying to live; it is a movie where those trying to live begin wondering why they want to live.  There are many reasons given to survive, ranging from seeing loved ones again to the desire to have children to the simple fear of death.  Death as a philosophical problem underlies this movie.  What reason do any of us have for fighting off the wolves?  What meaning is there for us in our struggle for life in the light of the certain death that comes for all of us and the ones we love?  It's no surprise then that spiritual issues are also discussed; the characters wonder if there is a God, and the movie ultimately questions whether life without God is worthwhile.  It isn't enough to be competent or capable -it isn't even enough to be an action hero.  If there is nothing in this world beyond ourselves then all of life becomes a long defeat, a wait for the wolves.  That is a philosophy of true despair, one that Ottway understands all too well by the end.  All in all very thoughtful, if a bit heavy handed at times.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic value: 8/10
Technical: 5/10

Overall: 6/10

Historical Fiction, Disrespect, and National Insults

Historical Fiction is a much respected genre in this world.  It has been around as long as people have told stories about events that have happened in the past.  Even Shakespeare wrote historical fiction in his retelling of the stories of Henry V and Julius Caesar.  Anytime you diverge even a little bit from the brute and basic facts of what happened in the past you engage to that degree in Historical Fiction.

I love the genre.  I have learned so much history simply by paying attention to what happens in movies.  However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything.  Rightly done, Historical Fiction informs the audience about a historical event or figure.  In a movie we can see legends from history come alive and we can know them as they may have been: real people who made hard decisions or did something extraordinary.  The best Historical Fiction helps us understand that our heroes have always had feet of clay; saints sometimes sin, founding fathers fought, conquerors struggled, mighty kings had weak spots.

But when Historical Fiction is done badly.  Sometimes lines are crossed, when events and persons from history are treated with disrespect.  At worst, the movie can become a colossal train wreck that even borders on national insult.

With that background, let me introduce you to a movie that will release in America on Friday (June 22): it is called (and I swear I'm not making this up) Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.  Just so you believe me, here's the poster:

Now, I can't be alone when I say that the whole concept of this movie insults me.  As an American, I believe it is greatly disrespectful to any president to change fundamentally who he was simply to entertain.  Quite frankly, the real Lincoln who lived is enough of a hero for any movie: he exhibited great leadership, held a nation together, and overcame great odds throughout his life.  Do we really need to mar his memory by making him an action hero, and one that fights vampires at that?

Of course I've not seen the movie, just the preview trailer.  From that trailer I can deduce little except that all the filmmakers have to offer that separates this movie from the massive numbers of other vampire movies is the insult to Lincoln.  Honestly, how could anything the movie does change this fact?  How could anything the filmmakers do with their new version of Lincoln be anything but insult?  To those filmmakers I say this: you are crossing a line.  You've left Historical Fiction behind and are tramping without respect where angels fear to trod.


At this point I expect someone to object: "But you love Amadeus!  How is the portrayal of Mozart in that movie any less an insult?  What's the big deal?"  Allow me to explain the difference.  In Amadeus Mozart is portrayed as a brazen, somewhat abrasive, and immature man.  His character is surely over the top.  However, he is not portrayed in a way entirely inconsistent with what we know of him.  I know people like the Mozart of Amadeus, don't you?  To portray him this way makes a legend into a human.  Plus, it is clear the filmmakers had great respect for his talent and wonderfully depicted how brilliant he was.  The events of that movie most assuredly didn't happen, but they might have, and thus the rules of Historical Fiction are followed.

How different is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter!  Lincoln here is portrayed entirely inconsistently from what we know and what is even possible!  To portray him this way makes a human into a legend, and not a good one at that!  The whole project makes me wonder how anyone could have respect for a man who, even if you disagreed with much of what he did, still deserves respect.  All we are thus left with is a mess of a movie concept.  No matter how technically good or entertaining the movie turns out, they have crossed a line.  Nor is it a small line: not only is a person from history affected, a whole nation is insulted.

To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)

I thought this would be a great review for Father's Day.  In 1962 Robert Mulligan directed Gregory Peck in a wonderful adaptation of Harper Lee's classic "To Kill a Mockingbird."  To start the review I just have to say this: the movie is great, a classic in every respect -especially regarding Gregory Peck's acting.  But you simply MUST read the book as well.  It's one of my favorites of all time.

Mockingbird is full of the grace and charm of childhood.  Events are seen from the eyes of Scout, the youngest child of Atticus Finch, the lawyer of Maycomb Alabama.  The small town is plagued by the same prejudice and evil racism common to the south at the time, and the tensions come to a head when Atticus is appointed to defend a young black man on trial for the rape of a white woman.

Yet even though such a terrible trial is center stage, somehow the movie retains wonder and fancy, most likely because it is Scout who tells the tale.  We see Scout make friends, get in fights, and try hard to understand the world around her.  She plays games, gets in trouble, goes to school, and gets to do the part of a ham in a school play.  But mostly she tries to get Boo Radley to come out (a rather young Robert Duvall).  And through it all is Atticus, encouraging her, correcting her, teaching her, and protecting her as best he can from the evils of the world.

Atticus is the father every man should be.  He is the Christian hero every man should want to be.  As Miss Maudie says in the book, "We're so rarely called on to be Christians, but when we are, we've got men like Atticus to go for us."  And go he does.  With complete integrity and conviction Atticus defends the truth, rather than prejudice.  In doing so he steps on toes all over Maycomb, earning himself some quiet admiration and a few dangerous enemies.

And in a scene sure to choke me up every time, he earns the respect of the black community of Maycomb because of his passionate and fair defense of Tom Robinson.  Though defeated in court, Atticus can hold his head high as having done his duty in defending truth.  He is the last to leave the court room, and as he gathers his papers and turns to leave, all the members of the black community in the balcony stand.  And then Reverend Sykes turns to Scout: "Miss Jean Louise, stand up.  Your father's passin'."

Atticus is the father I want to be.  I want my children to see that others respect me.  I want to leave them awestruck by revealing a hidden talent, as when Atticus shoots the mad dog.  I want them to be safe with me no matter what evil happens.  I want to inspire them to walk a mile in another man's shoes.  I want to be that father who "would be there all night, and he would be there when Jem waked up in the morning."

Entertainment: 7/10
Artistic: 9/10
Technical 8/10

Overall: 8/10

Pirates 4: a stranger tides half review

The other night my wife and I turned on the fourth Pirates of the Caribbean movie.  After about an hour we turned it off and returned it.  This is what I know about Pirates 4 (or at least what I can tell about it from watching half the movie): it stars Johnny Depp, it isn't funny, it isn't interesting, and overall it is stupid.

Now, it goes without saying that it is better than part three, At World's End.  A home video of two guys burping the theme song to Gilligan's Island would be better than At World's End.  It may even be better than part 2, Dead Man's Chest.  I mean, Dead Man's Chest was the dark and sinister and brooding evil step brother of part one.  It had none of the fun, light, and refreshing tenor of the first Pirates of the Caribbean.  And the only jokes it knew were completely stolen from the first one as well.  It did have a redeeming sword fight in a mill wheel, but that hardly made up for a slow, joyless slog through the rest of the movie's muck and drivel.  So yeah, Pirates 4 might have been better than that.  I'll just never know because I got frustrated and turned it off.

So what made me frustrated?  Why is it bad?  Glad you asked.  Here's a little bit of my thoughts.  The bit in the courtroom was clever, but the follow up with the throne room was idiotic.  Sparrow had absolutely no reason to escape from the palace, so we are subjected to a 10 minute pointless action scene.  Come to think of it, that whole bit from first being taken into the room to see the king until he finalized his escape didn't further the plot a whit.  Johnny Depp isn't really showing effort anymore as Sparrow, and the script doesn't give him much to work with.  If it wasn't for the first movie, this one would have tanked.  Someone want to explain how Barbossa transformed from sinister and smart to bumbling and entirely un-intimidating?  Why did they make the king an idiot?  What point was served by having Sparrow fight the girl dressed like him, and why did they make that fight almost exactly like the duel he had with Orlando Bloom in Pirates 1 (only no longer fun)?  You mean to tell me that a Spanish fleet can be only about 1/2 mile distant from a ship, but none of the crew would have noticed it (even though it surely would have been visible for HOURS before it would have been that close)?  Why would successful mutineers simply surrender and all but apologize when the captain only comes out of his cabin?  How is it not stupid that ropes come to life?  Zombies?  A wooden ship with a flamethrower (note for the uninformed: this is not a cool feature, it is vastly stupid)?

And that's only from half the movie.  I checked, saw that I still had an hour and 20 minutes left, calculated how many brain cells I would lose in that time, and decided I could use my time better.  You know, by searching Youtube for guys who belch theme songs.

Entertainment: 1/10
Artistic value: 0/10
Technical: 2/10

Overall: 2/10

Seriously Good Sequels

There is a general rule in the movie world: sequels will be terrible.  It doesn't seem to matter how good the first film is, the sequel is almost guaranteed to be awful.

The Matrix was a great action movie.  It had a bit of philosophy, mildly decent writing, and fantastic special effects that moved the film along.  The sequels were boring, pretentious, and even the action was bad because the story was so awful no one cared.

Pirates of the Caribbean: the Curse of the Black Pearl was fun and engaging, funny, with wit and great action.  The sequels were among the worst blights that Hollywood has ever produced (including the fourth, which I look forward to ripping into in its own review).  They were not funny, they recycled lines and jokes, and they simply seemed to forget what made the first one great.

I could go on, obviously, but I'm interested in the movies that break the trend.  What sequels are just as good, or even better, than their predecessors?  Here are a few I love:

Terminator 2: Judgment Day
The first Terminator was your straight sci-fi film about a robot sent back in time to kill a teenage girl.  It had one good line ("I'll be back!") and some seriously awful stop motion animation.

T2 rose above the first in every way.  The writing was excellent, delving deeply into the hypothetical conundrums of time travel.  Is the future set, or is there "No fate but what we make?"  The acting was...well, the acting wasn't important.  It's a good movie in spite of the acting.  Most importantly, T2 showcased its special effects, using computer animation for the first time to make a enemy who could shape shift at will.  T2 is by no means a Best Picture oscar contender, but I love it.

Aliens
Alien was a haunted house in space.  It was all that feeling of being trapped in a tight space with a terribly powerful and frightening monster.

Aliens was something else entirely.  Aliens was about a war, where the aliens were killable but they just kept coming.  On a whole the movie is well-crafted, but the characters of Ripley and Newt stand out.  Sigourney Weaver actually was nominated for an oscar for her performance!  Aliens is a great movie -I still like Alien better, but Aliens takes the series in a new direction without compromise on quality.  That makes it great.

The Godfather, part II
The Godfather is one of the most iconic, most perfect movies ever made by Hollywood.  Practically everything in it screams quality and nearly every line is quotable.

Part 2 is just as good.  Leaving conventional storytelling, part 2 tells two tales at once, weaving the plotlines together.  On the one hand you have the continuing story of Michael Corleone as he transforms his family business into something much more powerful and sinister.  On the other hand you learn the story of Vito Corleone as he builds the empire his son will later take over.  As you watch you see the respect for Vito grow as his family does, at the end seeing how he is surrounded by loved ones and living his dream.  At the same time you see Michael alienate nearly everyone, ending up utterly alone.  This is not a movie you watch to be reassured of the pleasant side of life, but it deals with the dark nature of humanity head on.  And there is no denying its greatness.


So what do you think?  What are your favorite sequels, those that meet or surpass the original in quality?

Rear Window (1954)

I am a Hitchcock fanatic.  Alfred the Great (as I call him) died four days after I was born, but I doubt he has a bigger fan than I am.  I own nearly every single film he made once he came across the pond from England to America, and two from his English period.  He was the Master of Suspense, able to create and tease out the tension of a story to unbelievable levels.

I either love or highly appreciate all his movies.  He knew his craft deeply, and was constantly on the cutting edge of technological advancements in filmmaking.  He also created many of the techneques used today in film, most notably the "vertigo effect."  All his films showcase superb craftsmanship; as a director he remains unparalleled.

And of all his films I love Rear Window best.  It isn't his most exciting (that award goes to North by Northwest), nor his most artistic (Vertigo), nor his scariest (Psycho), nor his highest award winning (Rebecca won best picture), or most iconic (The Birds).  It simply is his movie where everything works together so beautifully that I can't help but love it. 

Rear Window is the story of  "Jeff" Jefferies (Jimmy Stewart), a magazine photographer who loves to live out of a suitcase and travel the world.  His problem is that in getting his last award-winning photograph he was hit by a crashing race car, ending up in a full leg cast and nothing to do but stare out the rear window of his apartment.  This he does with increasing interest as he gets to know his neighbor's habits and quirks, giving them little names of his own -Miss Lonely Hearts, Miss Torso (his favorite, the dancer with the stunning figure), and so on.  Then one night Jeff notices the salesman who lives across the way leave several times in the middle of the night with a case.  This odd behavior, along with several  other small things, leads Jeff to wonder if his neighbor has murdered his wife.

Joining Jimmy Stewart is the incomparably fantastic Grace Kelly (great actress, great beauty, and future princess of Monaco) as Jeff's girlfriend Lisa Fremont.  Lisa is entirely the opposite of Jeff -she is stylish and rich, a true lady's lady, and a bigwig in the fashion world of New York City.  If Jeff likes to live out of a suitcase, Lisa would only buy a suitcase if it matched her new shoes.  And this relationship forms the real basis of the movie's conflict.  You see, Rear Window isn't really about a guy who may or may not have killed his wife.  It's about the question of marriage -what is the give and take, how do two different people live one life, is such a relationship really beneficial to humanity, and is it possible to be happily married long term?  These are the questions discussed by Jeff and Lisa, even if on the surface they are simply arguing about his desire to travel verses her desire that he set up a studio in the city. 
Is a relationship with a member of the opposite sex necessary for happiness?  Miss Lonley Hearts sure seems to think so, and almost does something desperate because of that belief.
Is marriage the door to happiness we seem to think it will be at first?  Ask the newliweds who move in who seem so happy, but then the nagging seems to start. 
What about Miss Torso?  Is she happy as the social butterfly, juggling all the wolfish looks of the men she entertains?  Or does she desire something deeper?
And ultimately, ask Lars Thorwald, our neighbor across the way.  Did he kill his wife?  Why, if marriage is such the great thing that Lisa seems to think?  Or is there more going on?

Aside from the boy/girl stuff, Rear Window is a great place to start a discussion about our voyeuristic society.  As Jeff asks, is it a good thing to spy on a neighbor, even if you prove he didn't kill his wife?  Where are the boundaries of privacy, and why should we respect them, and when should we cross them?  What are the rules of Rear Window ethics?  Hitchcock gives us a taste of an answer, particularly in the final shot, but ultimately the issue still exists to be resolved today.

Now if you are getting the idea that this is not an action packed movie, you are right.  It takes place exclusively in one set, and has all of about 5-6 actual speaking roles.  That being said, it is Hitchcock, and by the end you care about the characters and the tesion builds to boiling.

Of course, it does do two things imperfectly.  Hitchcock loved to try new things, which meant not everything he tried worked, and a few things just don't age well.  In Rear Window there are two flaws.  First, Hitchcock wanted the audience to experience what a flash of light in a dark room does to the character, but the color effect he added distracts, rather than adds to the tension.  Also, at one point Hitchcock speeds the film up rapidly, making everything happen much faster but also lending a noticable awkwardness to the movement.  Both these flaws take place within a minute of each other.

Aside from that, Rear Window is among my favorite films.  The music, the acting, the script, the fun, everything comes together to create a true masterpiece.  Highly Recommended!

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic value: 8/10
Technical merit: 8/10

Overall rating: 9/10  (this is a case where the whole is better than the individual parts.)

It's the little things that bug me

Little annoyance complaint time!  I really hate when DVDs (or blurays) have 13 trillion little things you MUST see when you load it up.  It will not let you skip to the menu, but forces you to read their little disclamers about piracy, load times, how not all titles are available in all regions, that they aren't responsible for what people say on commentaries, and of course trailers.  Sometimes they will let you fast forward, but skipping is out of the question!  The worst offending studio is Disney.

Please stop this nonsense Hollywood!  We bought the movie, LET US WATCH THE MOVIE SOMETIME TONIGHT!

Ugh, rant over.  I feel much better now.

Prometheus (2012)

Because of popular demand (ok, just my brother) I'm reviewing Prometheus, which released this past Friday.  I saw it because I'm a huge fan of the original Alien (1979) and Aliens (1986).  I'm not such a fan of Alien 3, which simply did not match the quality of the first two.  I barely recognize the existance of Alien: Resurrection.  I do not recognize anything by the title "Alien vs. Predator." 

Anyway, Prometheus is a movie by Ridley Scott, who directed the first Alien.  That film was original, groundbreaking, and exceptionally scary in every way.  And Alien also explored the notion of "the company," where human life is weighed against profit and become expendable.

Prometheus tries to do this.  It tries to be as scary as Alien, as action packed as Aliens, and as philosophical as 2001: A Space Oddysey.  It fails on all counts.  To explain why means there are some spoilers to follow.

First, it simply isn't scary.  Sure, there are a few times where you jump simply because there is a BANG and something leaps out of the dark to hit something.  But that's not really the terror that comes by knowing you are being stalked on the Nostromo.  Simply put, I'm still not sure what the real danger was in Prometheus.  Was the danger the black goo, or was that only a medium to transmit some biologic virus or something?  Was the danger the alien worm/snake/squid thing?  What was that thing?  Was the danger at root the Engineers?  The writer seems to have the smug idea that because we don't have a clue what is actually going on that we'd be even more scared.  Sorry, not working.  Because I really didn't know WHAT was supposed to be scary, I failed to become scared.  Aliens?  They are scary, with the face-huggind and chestbursting and two sets of jaws.  Black goo?  not scary.  Not even a bit.

Second, it fails to be action packed.  Another lesson Hollywood today needs to learn: it doesn't qualify as exciting action if we fail to care about what is happening.  See, we need to like the characters to be invested in their survival.  We need to know WHY someone is acting as they do to desire them to succeed.  Simply having stuff happen on screen is not action; without a good narrative it is just noise and confusion.

Third, it isn't philosophical.  Boy, this movie really wants us to think.  But only at a third grade level.  It begins to scratch the surface of issues like "why do we exist?" and "what's our purpose?" and "is there a God?" and so on.  However, most of the deeper questions are left unanswered and even largely unexplored.  A character, when asked "How do you know?" responds in all seriousness, "Because it's what I choose to believe."  Really?  That's how you know?  Because that's idiotic.  That kind of philosophy only satisfies those who are on rather large doses of "medical" marijuana.  Someone needs to tell these post-modern armchair philosophers that knowing a question doesn't make me think you are smart.  Being able to formulate a more or less sensible answer to the question would be a lot better.  But Prometheus isn't a movie about answers; only questions.  This movie had potential; but in trying to do too much and appeal to a broader audience it just falls flat.

Ah well, now that my gander is up I might as well rant about the characters.  I didn't particularly care for the people on board the Prometheus.  In Alien I cared.  In Aliens I cared.  They were great characters; well written and acted.  The audience connects with them.  Not so much in Prometheus.  None of them are particularly well developed, except perhaps the one that isn't even human.  But what really kills their chances of having me care for them is how galactically stupid they are.

Shall I list a few of the stupid things the characters do?  (I'm doing a bit of mind-reading here)

“Hmm, I’m on an alien world that could conceivably be full of dangers beyond imagining. But my instruments tell me that the air is breathable. Time to take off my helmet and expose myself to all kinds of possible contaminates! I’m a scientist, but by jove, this proves I’m a wacky one!  Won’t my fellow space explorers think I’m fun and exciting! Oh look, they’re all doing it too!  Yay for reckless stupidity!”

“Oh look, a little space cobra. That can’t be bad or evil! I was afraid of a very dead alien only a few hours ago, but now I’m gonna try to pet a very live one that is acting in an obviously hostile way. I just want the audience to know that I deserve my horrible pending death.”

“Behold, a perfectly preserved dead alien head! We’ve just begun to examine it, but I think we should shock its brain to stimulate the cells that appear to be still alive for inexplicable reasons. I don’t know what we hope to accomplish by this. Oh look, the head is now undulating –it’s a phrenologist’s dream come true! Well, let’s put it behind glass before it explodes for uncertain reasons.”

“I don’t know what kind of disease I have, and I don’t know if I could be cured, but kill me anyway so we don’t need to find out.”

“Wow, that’s a big donut shaped ship that is rolling toward us. We’ll get squished like ants beneath it’s presumably glazed surface if we don’t do something. I know, let’s run the same direction it’s rolling, rather than turning to run out of its path!”

“Ok robot head, you and I don’t see eye to eye. I mean, you poisoned my boyfriend (husband?), cared more about the alien that was growing in me than you did about my life, and you even seemed ambivalent about the fact that all life on earth is targeted for horrible biological death. But now I’m gonna team up with you and trust you to steer me where I want to go. Yay teamwork!”

I don't think I need to go on.  Things happen all the time that just seem to defy explanation.

Of course, not everything is bad.  This was a very well-presented film.  Ridley Scott sure knows how to make a movie that looks phenomenal!  The acting is good, the effects are good, the editing and sound and all aspects of the film making process is well done.  And I know I'm being hard on some aspects of the movie than others would be.  I was entertained.  I enjoyed quite a bit of it.  I loved many of the small details that referenced the other Alien movies.  But this is an average movie, but in my book that isn't good enough.  When you have a director as good as Ridley Scott, with a rich world in which to build your story, average is disappointing.  I went to the theater hoping for a doctoral thesis, and got cereal box philosophy. 

All things equal, it is certainly the third best movie in the Alien anthology.  On the other hand, being the third best film in that series isn't such a mark of greatness.

Entertainment: 4/10
Artistic value: 3/10
Technical merit: 6/10

Overall: 4/10

P.S.  Here's my take on the "meaning" of the film, for those who want to know. 
Prometheus was the titan in Greek mythology who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans, thus making them equal to the gods.  For his crime he was horribly punished.  Why this title for this movie?  Keep that question in mind.
We see first an alien who dies on a barren world, and his body breaks down to be the seed of life in that world.  Presumably, we are to understand that this is the beginning of life on earth, that we were "engineered" here in that event.  Skiping ahead, we learn of the cave drawings, from which our scientists deduce the location of the planet to which they travel in the film.  They thought it was an invitation to go there, but then they discover that this is basically a biological weapons factory, and earth was targeted for destruction.  Before life on earth could be destroyed, however, the weapons factory itself had an outbreak that shut it down.  Then when an engineer is reawakened, he resumes his original intention of destroying life on earth before being stopped.
Here's my thought: what if the cave drawings were not an invitation, but a warning?  As in, beware what comes from there?  What if some of the engineers wanted to help the humans, to keep them alive and allow them to discover "fire," that technology that would make them equal to the "gods," the engineers?  What if the outbreak on the planet wasn't an accident, but a sabotage? 
That's my take.  Life on earth was an experiment, meant to end.  But Prometheus stole the fire and ensured the survival of humanity.
Sound complicated?  Sure, but in a good way.  The background plot, and the way it allows a variety of explanations, is probably the main strength of the movie.  Whether you love it or simply tolerate it, Prometheus is fun to think about.  Too bad none of the characters were thinking.

12 Angry Men (1957)

Hollywood today needs to learn a few lessons.  Lesson #1; a movie doesn't need to be horridly complicated with a thousand set pieces and a hundred characters to be complex and gripping.  For example, 12 Angry Men had a total of 14 speaking roles, and only one real set.  Yet for all that it is tense and thrilling.

Perhaps what makes the difference is acting, another point movies today lag far behind the Hollywood of yesteryear.  Henry Fonda and Lee Cobb are the headline players in 12 Angry Men, and they perform with passion and brilliance under the direction of Sidney Lumet.  This movie is a must see if only for the fact that it is both a thriller and a character drama, one with the unique mark that we do not know the names of ANY of the characters until the final scene.

The story is amazing in its simplicity: A young man is on trial for the murder of his father, and we follow the jury as they deliberate whether he is guilty or innocent.  11 of the jurors enter the room convinced of his guilt.  One has doubts, and as he begins to explain his reservations others begin to be persuaded.  Tensions rise, collars are loosened, and fists very nearly fly as opinions and facts are discussed.

There is SO much this movie does right.  The physical temperature rises in the room as the emotional temperature also does.  The dialogue is well written, making us believe that each of the men in the room could be truly human, with their own stories and lives outside what we see on screen.  We explore the different reasons people come to the conclusions they do, whether from an unbiased (though perhaps mistaken) approach to the facts, prejudice, going along with the crowd, emotional baggage, or just plain advancing a personal agenda (in this film, the willingness to cast whatever vote gets the jury's business done soonest).  This movie will both give you confidence in America's jury system, yet at the same time give you shudders as you consider that those who decide the innocence or guilt of others are only human as well.

Of course, not everything is perfect.  The camera loves close ups here, but once or twice a close up can be inappropriately jarring.  This is particularly noticable when the old man casts his first "not guilty" vote.  Once or twice the camera focus is a bit off.  Also, I thought the acting of the nerdy juror #1 was a bit over the top. 

The imperfections are of course small potatoes.  With everything it does right, how can you dwell on the tiny flaws?  This movie will teach you about the law.  It will teach you how to argue your case.  It will teach you how to lead others and build a coalition.  It will introduce a lot of moral grey into a Hollywood world that is usually so black and white.  By they end you hope they made the right decision, but honestly we don't know whether the young man is really guilty or innocent.  The question is simply this; do you have reasonable doubt?

Entertainment value: 7/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical: 8/10

Overall: 9/10

Note: 12 Angry Men was just released by Criterion on bluray.  Undoubtedly this is the edition to buy, if I've convinced you to do so.  I've got an older collector's edition dvd.

The Third Man (1949)

The Third Man is my favorite film to recommend.  It is one of my top ten favorite movies of all time, it's highly entertaining, and nearly flawless in execution.  But the #1 reason I recommend it is because most people have never heard of it.

Directed by Carol Reed, The Third Man stars Joe Cotton as the bumbling, idealistic, and mildly witty ("I haven't got a sensible name") Holly Martins.  Martins is an American who arrives in post-war Vienna with the intention of joining a friend, Harry Lime, who has invited him to help with his medical charity.  But Martins arrives only to find Lime recently deceased, having been killed in a car accident.  The shock comes when Martins discovers that Lime was under investigation by the police as a star in the black market.  Unable to believe such things about his friend, Martins decides to stick around in Vienna and clear Lime's name.

To this point everything sounds quite normal.  Simple Hollywood trope.  But this movie plays out unlike any you've ever seen, and the journey is glorious.  The wonderful screenplay by Graham Greene moves quickly and with great wit, advancing the plot while keeping the audience alternately laughing and playing the philosopher.  The acting is great, and the direction superb.  I hate when movies simply have everyone in a foriegn nation inexplicably speak English, so the decision to include dialogue in other languages (without subtitles!!) is refreshing.  If Holly Martins doesn't understand what is said WE don't understand what is said (unless you speak German or Russion or whatever, then you do.).

However, there are three things that stand out so amazingly they must have credit.  First, the soundtrack is all zither music played by Anton Karas.  This makes the movie unlike anything you've heard before, and really helps locate the action within the culture of Vienna.  Second, the biggest setpiece of the film takes place in the sewers under Vienna.  The set created for this sequence is still among the largest and most complex sets ever constructed for a movie, and the way the action is shot in that set is remarkable.  Third, have I mentioned that The Third Man also stars Orson Welles?  Honestly, he doesn't get much screen time, but Welles dominates this picture and makes it his own.  From the moment you see only his feet, to his last scene (where you see only his fingertips, a nice touch) the Third Man becomes the Orson Welles show.  And he delivers with his usual charasmatic brilliance.  I prefer Welles in this movie to his performance in Citizen Kane!

So: If you are a movie fan, be sure to watch this one.  If you like mysteries, watch this movie!  If you like Orson Welles, watch this movie!  If you like zither music, watch this movie!

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical: 10/10

Overall: 10/10

Manifesto

I am blogging.  Never thought I'd see the day.  Normally I would say that blogging is the highest form of narcisissm, and disavow all association with it.  But I've come to realize that I need a place to write.  I need to put some thoughts out there that are honest, passionate, and free of political niceties.  This is an exercise in stress relief and self-expression.

Put it that way, I guess I still agree that blogs are narcisistic. 

Anyway, I'm blogging about movies.  Why?  Because I like them.  If you don't like them then you're probably here because you like me.  If you don't like movies or me, why are you here?

Of course I'll be gushing over movies I like and ranting about movies I hate.  That's par for the course.  But there is something else I want to do as a service to other movie lovers: I want to recommend films that any self-respecting movie lover absolutely MUST see.  So I'll be writing about a lot of older films that might not be well known, or perhaps foreign, or are just plain so amazing they deserve continual recognition.

Rules:

1. This is my blog, and the title is self-explanitory.  I'm opinionated, and in this little world of my making my opinion is always right.  You're entitled to your opinion of course, and can comment to your heart's content about it.  But please don't be offended if my opinion (stated strongly) disagrees with yours.  I'm opinionated, and I don't want to hold back.
2. I have three measures by which I judge a movie.  Entertainment value (is it fun?), Artistic value (does it say something worthwhile?), and Technical competence (direction, acting, etc.).  There will then be a final score which is my overall impression.  This final score is not an average; it is influenced but not determined by the scores I give the other measures. 
3. Hi mom!

  Enough of that, bring on the movies!