The Lady Vanishes (1938)

The Lady Vanishes is the next to last movie that Hitchcock made before leaving England for the USA.  By this point in his career he had larger budgets to work with, and had garnered quite a bit of international recognition.  He had hit a huge home run with The 39 Steps back in 1935, and had a few well-received but less fantastic films that followed it up.  But in 1938 he released another real masterpiece, a film that still stands out as one of his best: The Lady Vanishes.

This is a film that perfects the pacing of a thriller.  Actually, The Lady Vanishes begins in almost every respect as a comedy.  It is light and funny, introducing and showcasing its characters in engaging and lovable ways.  There is a young English girl, Iris (played by Margaret Lockwood), traveling through Europe with her friends for the last time before going home to marry.  There is a pair of English gentlemen who seem to think the world begins and ends with cricket (that's a sport, for all my American friends).  There's a bumbling, lovable hotel owner, a nice English lady on her way home after serving as a foreign governess, and a young rascally man writing a book on folk dance who insists on doing loud, stomping research late at night in the town hotel.

As I said, things start off innocently enough, with clever and witty dialogue and not a few running gags (such as the maid having to come in and out of the room with the cricket nerds).  There's been a snow avalanche covering the rail lines, and the hotel of a small alpine town in some unnamed European country is packed with travelers trying to get home.  Everything is going along swimmingly; meals are eaten, the travelers are serenaded by a man outside playing the guitar, and the worst problem (aside from the hotel running out of food) is the loud music and dancing from the top floor room of the folk dance researcher.

But then somebody kills the singer outside.  And the next day somebody pushes a pot from a high window, which then injures Iris, our main protagonist.  Things have become a bit sinister, and Hitchcock just slowly dials up the pressure from there.  After all, once the train gets going the next day, the lady vanishes.  Where did Miss Froy go, the lovable English governess who befriends Iris?  She just disappears, and for no apparent reason nobody on the train other than Iris seems to remember that she had been on at all.  From here we get some fantastic movie-making; at one point Hitchcock even has us the audience doubting that Miss Froy really was there at all.

I won't give away the end, because you ought to see this film.  But the plot seamlessly and deftly moves from very light to mystery to action, maintaining the suspense throughout.  For all of this, the praise deservedly goes to Hitchcock.

But upon Hitchcock's shoulders falls the blame for the movie's shortcomings.  Fortunately, those shortcomings are very few.  The movie's worst moment is the opening shot: we are presented with that Alpine village in a shot that sweeps into town from outside of town, all the way to the front door of the hotel. Of course, the village in the shot is a model, and obviously so.  It is a good model, but a bad effect and does not age well.  Another issue has to do with the central MacGuffin, the reason everybody is after poor Miss Froy.  For spoiler reasons I can't tell you what it is, but I can say as far as coded messages go it strains credulity by quite a bit.

But those are small complaints, issues that only really serve to show the great parts of The Lady Vanishes in greater relief.  This is everything that a movie ought to be; funny, memorable, entertaining, a bit mysterious, and nail biting to the end.  This is a lady worth finding.

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic value: 5/10
Technical merit: 6/10

Overall: 7.5/10

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011)

Still stupid, but not as stupid as the last one.  Only about as stupid as the first one.

To be fair, they went a long way toward fixing most of the issues that were so embarrassingly bad in the previous two.  They spent actual time developing the transformers as characters.  They used the visuals much better this time, using selective slow motion so we can actually keep track of what is happening.  The action was a cut or two above the last two.  The big set pieces are memorable and fun, such as the toppling building.  They cut out the racist twin Autobots.  The plot seemed much more coherent (though it still boiled down to a MacGuffin in the end).  Optimus is once again simply amazingly awesome.  And no Megan Fox.

But really, just as soon as everything would be going along swimmingly, those idiot little robots that seem to be TheBeef's pets come up again and say and do idiotic things.  That kind of thing just drives me nuts.  Otherwise, everything was tremendously predictable, things seemed to happen with little reason, TheBeef still stars (and has gotten whinier), and the new girl is no better than Megan Fox.

So, Transformers 3.  Transformers is fun again.  It just isn't any smarter.

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic value: 1/10 (ha!)
Technical merit: 5/10

Overall: 4/10

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Awful.  Deplorable.  Abysmal.  Dismal.  Bad.  Refuse.  Junk. Worthless.  Horrible.  Terrible.  Atrocious.  Appalling.  Nasty.  Ghastly.  Unpleasant.  Unbearable.  Unspeakable.  Unlikable.  Vile.  Dreadful.  Shameless.  Deficient.  Flawed.  Substandard.  Sub par.  Poor.  Inferior.  Shoddy.  Defective.  Trashy.  Sloppy.  Slapdash.  Rotten.  Lousy.  Obnoxious.  Foul.  Distasteful.  Repulsive.  Weak.  Meager.  Feeble.  Less than Mediocre.  Inadequate.  Pathetic.  Shameful.  Putrid.  Fourth-Rate.  Rancid.

Perhaps the worst movie of all time.

I liked the first Transformers.  It had a charm to it, in spite of bad acting and laughable plot.  So what makes Transformers 2 so bad?  Can I say everything?

The writing and plot ideas were just over the top idiotic.  The first one lacked anything near an engaging plot, having mostly to do with a magic space cube.  This one was about a bad guy trying to blow up the sun while still on earth.  As anyone with a greater than 1st grade education could probably tell you, this is most likely a very poor idea.  So basically, it's not that the plot makes no sense, it's more that the plot is galactically stupid.  I try to turn my brain off when watching certain action films, but when my brain is so actively insulted by a movie, it's hard to enjoy it.

Let's go on, shall we?  What else is wrong with this movie?

• TheBeef is back.  Why?  Nobody like him.
• Megan Fox is back.  I think I know why (she does run around in practically nothing the whole movie), but it's not a good reason.
• The directing goes from straightforward to "MAKE IT STOP!"  Example: I have no desire to watch TheBeef and miss-pose-a-lot slobber all over her while the camera spins around them for 30 seconds.  So painful.
• Michael Bay (our favorite worst director) doesn't seem to know what a robot is.  Instead of them acting like robots, they act out sexually, have teeth (with gold fillings), and age with flatulence and other embarrassing bodily functions.
• Those twin Autobots.  Even if they are not racist (they are), they are annoying to the highest degree.
• These are robots, not star wars jedi.  So why is the bad guy a sith lord?
• Why do robots need to be born in little sacks in space?
• Sam goes to Autobot heaven.  Really.
• They need to "wake up" a sleeping jet.  So it can teleport them.  
• They teleport instantly from Washington to Egypt.  It's early afternoon in both places.
• The movie seems to think the pyramids are within sight of the sea.  
• Petra is in Jordan, not Egypt.  And you can't walk from Petra to the pyramids in one day.
• Did you know that border guards will let you cross illegally if you talk about the Yankees?
• Optimus dies, and only fairy dust can bring him back!  I'm surprised Sam didn't look at the audience and have us "believe" him back to life.  "Clap!  Clap for fairies -I mean Optimus!"

This list could keep going.  There really was nothing that I can remember that was good or redeeming.  Ultimately, I'm not sure which is worse: that the producers were cynical enough to believe that audiences would be happy with this final product, or that so many people actually were.

Entertainment: 1/10 

Artistic value: -2/10

Technical merit: 1/10 (still looked pretty, but they did nothing right with the pretty looks.)

Overall: 0/10  -dreadful.  This is a movie that should never have been made.

Transformers (2007)

This is the worst movie I have ever liked.

Honestly, there is no denying that this is in almost every way a bad movie.  The plot is nonsense: the good guys need to keep the magic space cube safe from the bad guys, or evil wrong things happen.  I remember sitting in the theater and hearing the opening line: "In the beginning was the cube."  I proceeded to laugh at the writing for about 15-20 seconds, then turned my brain off for the rest of the picture.
The acting is abysmal.  Shia LaBeouf (hereafter called "TheBeef") and Megan Fox turn in sub-high school drama performances, aided by an assortment of other b-grade support actors and a few cameos.  In the mind of director Michael Bay, good acting seems to be posing his leading lady in the most suggestive ways and outfits possible.
The action is frenetic and confusing: when the space robots are fighting it is extremely hard to tell what is going on, and in some cases hard to tell why we should care.

And yet I liked it.  I just couldn't help liking it.  It's probably the kid in me that grew up with 500 transformer toys, but I was often left with a "that was great!" feeling for no real reason.  Perhaps it was those moments like Optimus Prime transforming on the highway to deal serious punishment to Decepticons.  Perhaps it was the way they just seemed to get the Starscream/Megatron relationship right.  I don't know.  I just liked it.

Not to say it couldn't have been better.  Boy, it could have been better.  Let's have more of the robots please, and less of the idiot humans.  Let's try to develop the characters of the transformers themselves, instead of trying to insert toilet humor into things.  Here's a bold idea, but let's just give it a hearing: perhaps a movie called Transformers could be about the transformers, and not be all about TheBeef and little miss pose a lot.

What can I say?  This was barely a movie.  It at times seemed like a 2 hour pyrotechnic display.  But if you are a child of the 80's, as I am, somehow it all comes together into something vaguely likable.  Not the most stunning endorsement, I know.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic Value: Are You Kidding Me? (1/10)
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 4/10

Leon: The Professional (1994)

I heard great things about this film before I watched it.  It is high in the IMDb top 250, and has achieved a high regard among a loyal cult following.  Not wanting to miss a potential overlooked masterpiece, I rented it.  Results are mixed.

Leon hardly has an original plot.  Talented mob hitman Leon befriends a young 12 year old neighbor girl, and when her entire family is killed by crooked policemen, Leon takes her in.  Then he gives her some training, and they fight back against the corrupt cops.  It might have its own aspects, but that sort of plot is rather vanilla in Hollywood for the last 30 years.

The acting is not bad.  Jean Reno does a fine job as Leon, and Natalie Portman plays his young friend.  They both are passable in their roles, with no major problems (Portman definitely showed promise).  However, neither played their characters as well as needed.  I mean, I didn't really care all that much for either.  I more pitied them, but perhaps that's the point.  The whole movie seems to be about the unloved finding each other.

The show is stolen, however, by Gary Oldman.  Oldman plays the corrupt policeman with a relish I just plain did not expect.  He is beyond brilliant, a joy to watch in a snappy grey suit.  His was a performance not to be missed; he elevated the movie from forgettable to memorable all on his own.

Otherwise, I just didn't get the praise people heap upon it.  The great crime committed by Leon is that in most every way the movie is remarkably average.  Sure, it delves into interesting topics such as honor among thieves, mistrust, and the need for community/love.  Some viewers might think it deals with its subject in sublime and powerful ways.  To me it seemed like a high school paper on psychoanalysis.  Good subject, average to simply passable execution.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 5/10

The Princess Bride (1987)

The Princess Bride is one of the ultimate comedies of all time.  Anyone who has seen this whimsical tale can tell you there is something magical and brilliant about it.  And something outrageously funny.

For the longest time The Princess Bride was my favorite movie of all time.  The reasons are many; it had tons of fantastic action, it told a great and timeless story, it was immensely quotable, and it was funny beyond all reason.  This movie will forever retain a blessed place in my heart, even if other movies have replaced it on my "best ever" list.

You really don't need to know much about the story.  Basically, there's a grandfather reading a sick grandson a book, and we see the book come to life in his imagination.  It stars Carey Elwes and Robin Wright (who later married Sean Penn and added his name to hers), along with appearances from Andre the Giant and Billy Crystal.  Suffice to say, the greatest-named-movie-princess-ever "Buttercup" needs saving from the evil prince, and the dashing Westley/current Dread Pirate Roberts is up to the task.  Along the way we have adventure, giants, pirates, fencing, iocane powder, torture, true love, and the tormentation of farm boys.

And now, in leu of further exposition on the plot, I will simply quote from the movie, laughing all the while as I type: "Anybody want a peanut?"  "Inconceivable!"  "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."  "Mawage.  Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday.  Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweem, wifin a dweem..."  "It just so happens that your friend here is only mostly dead."  "Murdered by pirates is good!"  "Veer left!"  "And thank you for bringing up such a painful subject.  While  you're at it why don't you give me a paper cut and pour lemon juice on it?"  "As you wish."  "Is this a kissing book?"  "You wish to surrender to me?  Very well, I accept."  "I am not left handed."  "...My way's not very sportsmanlike."  "To the pain!"  "Have you the wing?"  "Perhaps it's just some local fisherman out for a pleasure cruise at night through eel infested waters."  "Life is pain, highness!  Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."  "Goodnight Westley, good work, sleep well, I'll most likely kill you in the morning."  "Am I going mad, or did the word think just escape your lips?" "True love is the greatest thing in the world...except for a nice MLT, a Mutton Lettuce and Tomato sandwich."  "Death cannot stop true love.  All it can do is delay it for a while."  "You rush a miracle man you get rotten miracles."  "When I found you, you were so slobbering drunk you couldn't buy brandy!"  "I wonder if he is using the same wind we are using."  "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."  "I'm not a witch I'm your wife!"  "'Give us the gate key.'  'I have no gate key.'  'Fezzik, tear his arms off.'  'Oh, you mean this gate key!'"  "No one would surrender to the Dread Pirate Westley."  "I've seen worse."  "Humperdinck!  Humperdinck!"  "Let me explain.  No, there is too much; let me sum up."
And of course, "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die."

The movie isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination.  It has very little in the way of great and timeless philosophical themes.  It leaves a bit to be desired in the acting department.  It breaks no ground in any technical category.

But in spite of any problems I could point out, I remain convinced that The Princess Bride could not be more perfect.  Even its defects become endearing features to cherish.  For example, I happen to think it adds to the movie that the ROUS's look like guys in giant rat suits.  Watch it.  Laughter guaranteed, and it will probably succeed in touching you as well.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 4/10
Technical merit: 4/10

Overall: 6/10

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Epic.  Little else really needs said about the 1962 absolute classic other than the simple word "Epic."  Hollywood released plenty of movies in the epic genre during that period, with emphasis on scope, drama, costume, and grandeur.  The Ten Commandments, The Robe, Spartacus, Cleopatra, and many others drove the epic genre forward.  But there are two films that will forever define the genre and also be among the best films ever made: Ben Hur and Lawrence of Arabia.  Of those last two I love Ben Hur more, but Lawrence surpasses it in technical brilliance and sheer scope.  Lawrence of Arabia is the kind of movie that makes you realize what a movie can really be.

Let's talk cinematography.  By far this is to me the standout aspect of Lawrence.  I have never seen a movie that is more perfectly framed, more expertly focused, and more beautiful in picture.  Great care has obviously been taken in the choice of locations, the set up of the shot, and the execution of the camera.  Freddy Young, the director of photography, was clearly a master of his trade at the height of his career.  The desert simply becomes a living thing, filmed in a wondrous way.  We who have grown up in a fat land, a land of hills and trees and lakes could never conceive of what desert living would be like, but in watching Lawrence we have the feeling of being there, of experiencing the heat and wide open spaces.  Sand swirls in the wind, rocks stand against the sun, and small shapes of people move far off and barely visible in the vast ocean of the desert.  We see it all perfectly, even the trick of the sun making the desert horizon shimmer like water.  This is everything that moving images in the movies should be.  This is a movie I wish I could see on the big screen, as it was meant to be seen.

The vast spectacle continues as we watch Lawrence build his army of Arabs.  Sooner or later it has to hit us that this movie was made at a time long before computer images, so all those people we see are real people, real horsemen in that real place.  For once we see what a mounted army must have looked like in World War I; droves of people kicking up insane amounts of dust in vast desolate places.  And then the camera will pull back and show us just how small that army is in comparison to the land, the great desert of Arabia.  Epic. 

And yet in the midst of all the spectacle there is soul; this is a movie that is about a person, not about images or trying to impress the audience.  This movie is about a person as mystifying and unknowable as the desert itself.  Lawrence was the kind of man able to lead strangers to their deaths, the kind of man who understood and valued the culture of those he led (even though he himself was English), and yet the kind of man who struggled to know himself.  This role is played wonderfully and hauntingly by Peter O'Toole.  This was one of O'Toole's first films, yet he owned the role and surpassed in brilliance everyone else in the film, which included some of Hollywood's brightest stars (Claude Rains, Omar Sharif, and Alec Guinness, to name a few).  And this role would forever define O'Toole.  He could never be in another film without bringing Lawrence to mind.  When I once saw him in person I recognized him first as Lawrence of Arabia, and only after that could call to mind the name of the actor I beheld.  Everyone does a fabulous job in this film, but Peter O'Toole set himself in movie history, doing a job that will forever go down as one of the best roles ever played.

Who can forget Lawrence of Arabia's classic moments?  Who can forget Sherif Ali riding in from an unknown distance, from a speck on the horizon toward the camera?  Who can forget Lawrence holding that match, extinguishing the fire with his fingers? ("Naturally it hurts!  The trick...is not minding that it hurts.")  Who can forget the Anvil of the Sun?  Who can forget Lawrence standing on the wrecked locomotive, receiving the adulation of the army, with his robes blowing in the wind?  Who can forget the look on his face as he screams, "NO PRISONERS!" 

This is a movie that makes you sit back and say, "They don't make 'em like that anymore."  Today we seem to get plenty of specacle with no soul, stupidity made to sparkle.  Lawrence is not that.  Lawrence of Arabia is not afraid to hold a shot for a long time without cutting away.  It isn't ashamed of its 3 1/2 hour length.  Why?  Because it has something to say that is worth saying.  Lawrence of Arabia is simply epic.

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

Overall: 9/10

The Prestige (2006)

Christopher Nolan is seemingly incapable of making a bad movie.  I'm sure one day he'll surprise me with a stinker, but for now he is Hollywood's premier director in my book.  He knows how to do action properly, and he knows how to do philosophy and character dramas.  He has made some of the biggest blockbusters of the past decade (the Dark Knight trilogy) and some of the best to talk about (Memento, Inception).  Right now he is the best Hollywood has to offer, the anti-Joel Schumacher, as it were.

The Prestige ends up as one of Nolan's "talk about" films.  This is a film that just begs conversation, one that will linger on your mind for hours, days, months, even years after you see it.  It is a great work of character drama, one that asks the question "how far will you go to accomplish your goals?"  The themes of this film are all about dedication, sacrifice, obsession, singleness of vision, and the will to act.  The Prestige is about two men, illusionists at the top of their game, who are in a feud that is increasingly escalating.  They had been friends, but when a terrible accident claimed the life of one of their wives the other is blamed, and the battle begins.  So tell me, how far would you go to outdo the other, to have the world's greatest trick?  How much would you pay or risk or sacrifice to bring the other down?

The actors in this film do a magnificent job.  Until the end we don't quite realize how difficult a role at least one actor had, and when we appreciate it upon our second or third (or thirtieth) viewing we catch much more of the excellent work done here.  I probably enjoyed Scarlett Johansson's performance the least, and even she was passable.  But the standout is the supporting role played by none other than David Bowie, who puts in a brilliant turn as Nikola Tesla.

Everything in this film is exceptionally well thought-out.  Small lines, images, and actions that seem quite normal or forgettable in the first viewing take on much more significance upon repeated viewings.  This is a movie that ages well, that grows better and more complex and beautiful the more times you watch it.

So what is a "Prestige?"  Perhaps I'll let the movie tell you: "Every great magic trick consists of three parts, or acts.  The first part is called "the Pledge." the magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man.  He shows you this object.  Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal.  But of course...it probably isn't.  The second act is called "the Turn."  The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary.  Now you're looking for the secret...but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking.  You don't really want to know.  You want to be fooled.  But you wouldn't clap yet.  Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back.  That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige."

The writing of this film is phenomenal, as the previous quote demonstrates.  This line sets the tone and even the basic plot, as the movie itself follows the "acts" of the magic trick.  We are introduced to the characters, discover their motivations, begin to like them or dislike them, and think we know so much about them.  Then some extraordinary things happen.  We had been comfortable with the tricks displayed to this point, but now we can't quite explain them and are not given the inside scoop on how they are done.  But to be mystified is only part of the whole thing; the Prestige awaits, the final bit that gives the punch and redefines everything that we had already seen.

At the end the secrets of both men are laid bare to the audience.  Then we discover that the best illusionist is Christopher Nolan, our director, who has had us watching one hand the whole time while pulling rabbits with the other.  Yet even through the smiles we can't seem to help upon the realization of our own deception we can't help but be in a bit of horror; here are two men who have sunk below imaginable levels in their quest to outdo and destroy the other.  As each succeed, the true victors are Nolan and, ultimately, us.

The movie begins with the line, "Are you watching closely?"  I suggest that you do, and enjoy the ride.

Entertainment: 7/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical Merit: 7/10

Overall: 7/10

Inception (2010)

Early on in Inception we are introducted to the idea of "extraction."  Extraction is a kind of espionage, a way of stealing information that is closely guarded.  What sets it apart form normal theft is that extraction is done in a dream.  Through some unexplained technology people can now share dreams, resulting in the ability to interact with another person and their subconscious in a whole new way.  This of course provides the opportunity for a unique kind of information theft, one done while the victim sleeps and of which they will have no real recollection.  After all, how often do you remember your dreams?  This theft is extraction.

"Inception," as defined by the film, is the opposite: instead of stealing, the goal is instead to plant information in someone's mind in such a way that they think the idea is their own.  As you might imagine, this is not an easy thing to do.  In fact, most of the characters in the film seem to think it is impossible since we as humans usually have a pretty clear idea what are our own thoughts and what are not.  But Cobb, our main character (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) knows inception is possible.  And when offered a chance at redemption, Cobb takes the challenge.

Really, not much more of the plot is necessary to know.  The plot is exceptionally far-fetched and implausible.  But let me encourage you to overlook that fact and simply accept the movie's premise that it can be done.  The rewards of accepting the hypothetical possibility of shared dreaming -along with extraction and inception -are great, both in terms of action and philosophical musings.  This is a movie about dreams and how our minds interact with what it perceives, and as such the movie is about reality as well.

After all, one of the great questions of philosophy is this: How do I know?  How do we know what is true?  Not "how do we perceive?"  We can answer that question easily enough.  We have our senses, we see, taste, touch, smell, and hear.  But how do we know what we perceive is real?  Isn't reality much more than what we can perceive with our senses?  After all, your senses can be deceived.  Would such a deception alter reality, or does reality have a separate existence that is not dependent on your perception of it?  No, reality must have a true existence quite apart from us, but this only brings up more questions.  How can we know the truth about reality, if all we have to trust is our experience and perception?  How do we know that what we experience now is not a dream?  To use the old example, "How do I know I'm a man, and not a butterfly dreaming he is a man?"  If all your senses are involved in your dream it can seem just as real as reality, and this brings the terrifying possibility of losing touch with reality to Cobb and his friends, who spend so much time in dreams.  Moreover, if reality exists apart from our ability to perceive it, then it further stands to reason that reality might include quite a bit that is far beyond our ability to perceive.  It is fundamental philosophical ideas like these that help lay the groundwork for discussion of concepts like the supernatural; it is not rational to assume that reality is limited to our senses, thus it is perfectly rational to concede that a portion of reality is something very like popular conceptions of the supernatural.  But now of course we have taken ideas raised in the movie and wandered far from the movie itself!

Where the movie goes is simply great, particularly in the concept of dreams within dreams.  If you are dreaming, can you fall asleep in your dream and have another dream?  How many steps down could you go?  This leads to Inception's great distinction; several things are happening at once, in very disparate locations, yet the action has a single narrative unity.  Inception is unique, and original, qualities that Hollywood doesn't seem to value right now.  In no other movie will you find the main characters involved in a alpine shootout, floating weightless in a hotel elevator, plunging off a bridge in a van, and flying across the ocean in a jet, all at the same time!  That the previous sentence makes sense to those who have seen the film demonstrates just how good writer/director Christopher Nolan is at telling a complex story.

On the technical side there are a few things worth noting.  First, the picture quality of this film, especially now on Bluray, is astounding.  Inception is among the best-looking blurays I own.  Second, the special effects are beyond good.  There are amazing things that happen in dreams, as they always do, and they all look perfect (aside from one rather awkward part where two characters begin walking on a wall/vertical road).

On the acting side, everything is quite passable.  Nothing really stands out as amazing, but the actors hold their own well and communicate the necessary emotion.  (by the way, Nolan seems to have a habit of using the same actors in every film he makes.)

This is a movie that holds together wonderfully, with no weak areas.  It has several iconic moments, a great buildup, a perfect high-tension climax (that is at the same time sweetly sentimental), and a resolution that is fantastic, complete with a highly ambiguous final shot.

Inception may well go down as one of my favorite films.  It is action packed, but with a brain.  It is sterling in originality.  If it would have been released in 2009 or 2011 it by all rights ought to have taken Best Picture (however, it had The King's Speech to contend with in 2010).  And it will keep you up at night (presumably keeping you from dreaming) wondering if the top ever does stop spinning.

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


Overall: 9/10
(yes, it's that good.)

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I went into the theater trying my best to keep my expectations at bay.  After all, it is hard to imagine a Batman movie being made that is better than The Dark Knight.  Now, to say this up front is important: The Dark Knight Rises is a very good movie, and it is a fitting finale to Nolan's Batman trilogy.  However, it certainly has its flaws.  After some reflection, I believe it will remain my third favorite of the trilogy.

Rises is quality.  I don't think director Christopher Nolan is capable of making a movie that lacks quality.  In terms of production values I have nothing but praise.  This is an extremely well-constructed film, one that is compelling in both visuals and sound.  The pacing and editing of the film is wondrous; for a nearly 3 hour movie there are remarkably few downtimes, and never once did it seem to drag.  It was a long film, but it never felt long and I was never bored.  This was a good movie -thrilling, exciting, and fun.  Nolan leads a good team, and what he produces is seemingly always worthwhile.

That doesn't mean the movie is perfect.  Many of the individual elements had great strengths, but there were a great many more weaknesses in Rises than in the previous two in the series.

Catwoman is a great place to start.  Any fan of the comic looked forward with great anticipation to see what Nolan would do with this iconic and much-beloved character.  Anne Hathaway pulls off the character better than I could have hoped.  Who knew the Princess Diaries chick could be believable in an action movie, let alone as Catwoman?  She has some of the better moments of the movie, deftly and cunningly switching roles, doing whatever is necessary to get what she wants.  Clearly she is quick and smart, instantly turning from "hysterical frightened little girl" to "flustered maid" to "icy thief."  Whatever will get the job done, she can do.  However, all this ability is one of my small complaints: she is so accomplished, but we never really get to know her.  We don't know her backstory, we don't know how it is she learned all she knows.  She is simply dumped into the film fully-developed and we the audience are expected just to accept that somehow this girl is so capable physically and mentally.  It's a small complaint, but one that bugs me.  After all, in a movie series that so valued showing us all the preparation Bruce took to become Batman it seems a little odd that someone who can hold their own in a fight alongside (or against) Batman is never developed in the same way.

Alfred Pennyworth has also been a long staple of the Batman mythology, and Michael Caine has performed the role admirably throughout these three films.  Clearly the character loves Bruce, and truly fears what might happen to him when faced with the new threat of Bane.  Alfred has always been the one who has understood the enemy better than Bruce, but always is there to help Bruce pick up the pieces when things go wrong, not even bothering too much with the "I told you so" comments.  Caine does a great acting job as always, and clearly Nolan knows how to use him (Caine has now appeared in the last five Christopher Nolan movies).  I was surprised then to see how little Alfred does in Rises.  His role is quite small compared to the other films. You never want to take away from Batman to focus on Alfred, that would defeat the point.  But I did wish for more Alfred.

There was a bit more focus on romance in Rises, with two love interests developed for Bruce.  The great thing is that this "love triangle" never becomes a focus, nor did it get in the way.  The romance is developed casually, almost effortlessly.  On the other hand, what works as a strength in terms of not getting in the way of the plot works against the effectiveness of the relationship.  I never really saw much in the way of chemistry or deep connection between Bruce and either girl.  Perhaps more the the point, I didn't quite understand why either girl would be all that interested in Bruce, though the plot later answers that question for at least one of them.  I just know that when all was said and done Bruce ended up with one of the girls, but if I didn't bring a great understanding of the characters into the theater with me I would not have understood why.  I see that as a shortcoming in the storytelling of the movie, though a Batman fan would not be disappointed.


On to more important matters; the bad guy.  Bane is simply a great Batman foe, and in Rises Bane was everything he should be.  Except perhaps his voice -something about Bane's voice sounded off to me.  Maybe it was how it was more tenor than bass, and thus didn't seem to fit the brutal and huge body from which it came.  Perhaps it was how it seemed to come from all sides, rather than from the character himself.  It could be that it was too well-enunciated, too clear for a voice coming from behind such a mask.  Now I admit that Nolan had a real obstacle to overcome, and he received a lot of flak early on for Bane's voice being too hard to understand.  Maybe this result is the best that can be expected, but my initial impression was still "Bane's voice sounds like that?"  Anyway, that's such a small issue with such a large character.  Bane was captured near-perfectly as Batman's most dangerous foe.  Watching Bane in action you have no doubt that he is a brutal, physically dominant man that Batman should not even consider facing in a straight-up fight.  Moreover, Bane is clearly intelligent and cunning.  He is terrifying and deadly, everything the comic made him to be.


And what Bane does is create overwhelming destruction and pain. Each of these Batman films has a theme, a problem to be overcome by Batman that can be summed up in one word.  For Batman Begins the theme is fear.  In The Dark Knight the theme is chaos.  Here in Rises the theme is pain, and believe me it is done well.   In a plot very inspired by the Batman series "Knightfall," Bane takes on Batman and Gotham, emerging on top in both respects.  Bane establishes his dominance (in a plot development sure to be shocking for those who aren't familiar with Knightfall), and both Batman and Gotham need to find some way to rise from the ashes of destruction.  What Bane accomplishes is so monstrously huge that it almost strains credulity (check that, it does seem way too far-fetched).  But the effect is that we the audience wonder what possible way Batman can fix things, and that I believe is the point.  This is a very good plot, and it creates all the perfect opportunities to wrap up all the major and minor themes that have been developing through the trilogy.  Many defining moments from the previous two movies come into play, and they lend support to the conclusions of Rises.


Of course, I do have my small issues with the plot, and they can be summarized as follows: fusion?  Really?  Haven't we seen this somewhere before? (Spider-man 2 anyone?)  Furthermore, the problems of traveling just do not seem to apply to this movie.  A character can pop out of a hole in the middle of nowhere (presumably Asia) without anything except the clothes on his back, yet that character can somehow get to Gotham without difficulty and in record time.  How is such a thing accomplished?  It just isn't explained, and that bugs me.  Also, while the writing was good and a proper Batman story, it lacked many of the same comic relief moments of the first two films (though to be fair, perhaps that was an intentional decision made by the director.  This one had to have more gravitas.).


But perhaps the biggest issue I had with the film is that it lacked the memorable set-pieces of the first two movies.  Not that it didn't have any; there were a few memorable moments.  But aside from the first Batman/Bane fight, there just didn't seem to be any iconic moments involving Batman himself.  Begins had a wonderful introduction to Batman, a great batmobile chase, and a stunning last fight.  The Dark Knight had a spectacular sequence in Hong Kong, the marvelous vehicle sequence with the Joker in the truck, the interrogation scene, and the end where he fights both bad guys and a SWAT team.  My issue is that everything in Rises seemed generic and non-memorable compared to those first films.  That first Bane fight was great, but aside from that the most memorable part was Bruce climbing a wall.  Symbolic yes, but not the same as before, and not really a "Batman" moment."

That brings us to the end.  As I've noted, the end is fitting to the series.  I'll not spoil anything for anyone by going into specifics, but all threads are tied off.  My only issue is that everything ends up a little too neat and tidy.  One character, built up throughout the film is disposed of without much fanfare and forgotten.  Another character that shows up in an extended cameo is not disposed of at all.  And everything ultimately ends on perhaps an overly optimistic note.  It almost gave me the feeling that the end was re-cut with additional scenes after negative feedback in screenings.  Everything just goes from very bad to rather sunny almost instantly.  Could Gotham really ever recover from such an ordeal?

All in all, The Dark Knight Rises is a great way to spend a few hours.  Christopher Nolan has finished what is now the ultimate comic book movie series.  It has a tone that is realistic and dark, with important themes and deeper meaning than other typical action films.  Other comic book movies seem light and trivial in comparison.  But The Dark Knight Rises really only reaches those heights by standing on the shoulders of the other two (and better) films that came before it.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 6/10

Overall: 5/10


P.S. Final "this bugged me" moments: Wayne Manor was rebuilt with old-style radiators?  Really?  And don't you just love how quickly day turns into night?  Motorcycles leave the stock exchange in the bright afternoon -Batman starts chasing them and it is midnight.

The Dark Knight (2008)

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

So how do you make a sequel to one of the best-received superhero movies of all time?  Simple: you make a movie that is better in every way.  Batman Begins was a really good movie.  The Dark Knight is as close to the perfect Batman movie as you can get.

The plot is straightforward; Batman is making a difference.  Teamed up with his police friend Gordon and the new D.A. Harvey Dent, Batman succeeds in all-but shutting down the mob and making being a criminal a losing proposition in Gotham.  Everything seems poised for a new golden age in Gotham.  But into the void left by the now out of work mob bosses steps a new and altogether different kind of villain -the Joker.  This is a criminal who is a new kind of challenge for Batman; he cannot be bought, has no connections to exploit, seemingly no rational demands that can be met or predicted.  He has no rules, and is the unfortunate combination of brilliant and homicidal.  The Joker is a self-described agent of Chaos, who has as his only goal the destruction of Batman's ideals.  He doesn't want to kill Batman so much as break him, to drag Batman down and force him to cross the line.  He wants to prove that "madness is like gravity; all it takes is a little push."  And for Batman the very existence of the Joker is maddening; without Batman's accomplishments and methods, the Joker could never have existed.  The Joker, then, is the effect; Batman is the cause.

The Joker is a terrifying villain, captured in The Dark Knight as perfectly as he frequently is in the comics.  Heath Ledger deserves every bit of the accolades he got for playing Joker; he is often funny, entirely quirky, and in every way sinister.  In the comic the Joker is the perfect foil to Batman; they are together yin and yang.  They both hate, respect, and in some strange and fascinating way, love the other, and this complicated relationship is pulled off perfectly in this movie (as the Joker puts it, "What would I do without you?  ...You complete me!").  In the ultimate scene with the two characters, Batman is interrogating a captured Joker.  This scene is everything the Batman/Joker relationship ought to be: Batman is asking the questions and beating up the Joker, but the Joker is winning.  Here the Joker is tempting Batman to break his one rule, cross that one line, and kill him, since "It's the only way you're going to stop me."  And as Batman gets ever more frustrated, beating on Joker to get the location of the captured DA and Rachel, the Joker delivers the perfect line of the film: "You have nothing to threaten me with!  Nothing to do with all your strength!"  I tell you, this is Batman.

Nearly everything about this movie is extraordinary.  Great writing, great visuals, great action, great directing, not bad acting, great set-pieces, wonderful props, and themes/story elements that are set up and executed perfectly.

Upon reflection, there is an issue that I have with both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  To be fair, there is only so much you can do in the allotted time, and I think they used the time well.  The problem is that Bruce is enduring so much suffering and abuse for the people of Gotham, yet we never really get to know the people of Gotham.  We get to meet a few scattered individuals, but we have no real appreciation for the culture of the city.  At times it even seems as though Batman and the villains exist in an urban jungle populated by little more than only those directly involved in the plot, or those who will be comic relief.  Don't get me wrong, I still want Batman to save the city, but I have no connection to it.  The two ferry boats at the end figure in rather strongly, yet none of the people on those boats are fleshed out in any way shape or form.

Well, the only gripes are small.  This is in every way a great movie.  The ending sequences are about perfect.  Even though the film changes the character of Harvey Dent somewhat from the books, it still remains true to the spirit of his character and it ends quite fittingly.  The poetic parallels at the end are brilliant -Dent was the hero Gotham needed, but not the one it deserved.  Batman was the hero Gotham deserved, but not the one it needed (or something like that).  Further, the end brings up a few ambiguities: who won at the last, Batman or the Joker?  Did Batman cross his line in dealing with the last threat?  After all, the Joker ends up captured by Batman, but Batman ends up in exile.  The unstoppable force has met the immovable object.

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical merit: 8/10

Overall: 8/10

Note: this is a rather dark film, and rather disturbing at times.  Even though it is Batman, it is NOT for the kiddies.

Batman Begins (2005)

If ever a movie series needed to be killed and reborn it was Batman.  The series of Batman movies that Tim Burton had begun had long since jumped the shark, with each movie progressively becoming more cornball and campy than the last one.  In 1989 Batman was dark and brooding, a sinister and mysterious protector of a wonderfully Gothic Gotham.  The Joker was brilliantly played in an over the top performance by Jack Nicholson, with more quotable lines than we might have hoped.  Even if the Joker's big evil plot at the end was stupid, the movie was fun and a fitting Batman story.

Batman Returns, on the other hand, gave us penguins with rockets strapped to their backs and a giant rubber ducky.  Batman Forever had an over-abundance of neon, plus Chris O'Donnell (a casting decision that any movie lover will tell you is always a bad one).  Batman and Robin went completely off-rails, with a bat credit card, bat ice skates, anatomically correct bat suits, -pretty much everything was bat-stupid.  It also turned one of Batman's most intelligent and dangerous foes (Bane) into a mindless goon.  There was a lot for a Batman fan to love about 1989's Batman.  There was nothing for ANYONE to like about Batman and Robin.

A few years later a new director enters the scene, with a new vision of what Batman could be.  The results are stunning.  Christopher Nolan wanted to take Batman in a fresh direction, attempting to keep everything in a gritty, realistic world the audience might actually believe could exist.  The result was Batman Begins, a movie that captured Batman like nothing before it.

As a Batman fan, I received the news of a reboot with strong trepidation.  After all, if the Batman films had been getting progressively worse, and if the last one was one of the worst movies of all time, then what chance did a new Batman film have?  As small details of the production leaked out it did nothing to ease my trepidation.  The new bat symbol was quite the change from the comics, and I didn't like it much at first thinking it far too industrial.  And the new batmobile looked nothing at all like it should -or so I thought.  Then I saw some clips and trailers and thought maybe it deserved a chance.

Perhaps you know what it is for a fan of something to hope that just perhaps a movie will capture what makes a beloved story great.  Perhaps you know the great disappointment involved in seeing a movie make a wreck of a beloved book, or a sequel absolutely destroy what made the original great.  With Batman Begins I simply didn't know which to expect.  You see, I've been a Batman fan for years.  I love everything that makes the character unique and interesting.  Batman is a great superhero because he doesn't have superpowers.  He's just smart, driven, and has the resources to wage his war on crime.  But the comics are never content to be simply about crimefighting -they are loaded with philosophy and psychology.  What would drive a man to do what Bruce Wayne does?  How can you reconcile breaking the law (being a vigilante) with your quest to uphold justice?  What lonely price is there to pay to be the Dark Knight?

Batman Begins takes those questions and runs with them.  There is so much packed into this movie it is amazing it works as well as it does.  We must see Bruce's motivation (death of his parents), understand his mindset, observe his training and drive, and discover along with him the symbol he will use to strike terror into the heart of Gotham's criminals -the bat.  After that transformation into Batman we get to see him fight and vanquish three dangerous villains from the comics: Carmine Falcone, Ra's al Ghul, and the Scarecrow.  There's barely room to breathe, yet it works with such a natural ease that you do not even notice how crowded and complex things become.  For all that I give full props to director Christopher Nolan.

Well, what works in this film?  The screenplay is great.  The acting is above average (for an action movie), with a fantastic cast.  The music is marvelous and draws you into the pulse of Gotham.  The special effects are well done.  The editing is great, and merged with good sound mixing you really think the stage punches the actors throw are as brutal as we are supposed to believe.

What doesn't work?  This list is short.  There are a few cheesy moments.  The Scarecrow effects either work for you or they don't (for me they do).

Batman Begins calmed all my fears that it would be bad.  In fact, I distinctly remember the awed feeling I had after the credits began to roll the first time I saw it.  Finally, Batman was good again.  Finally we had a movie that understood the character well.  And for the first time in a long time I had hope that the next Batman movie would be just as good (it turned out to be better!).

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic value: 5/10
Technical merit: 6/10

Overall: 6/10

The Artist (2011)

The Artist is everything you would expect from a movie made in the 1920's or early 30's.  It is black and white, and (mostly) silent.  But of course, The Artist was not made in the 20's or 30's -it was Best Picture of 2011.  As such, it became only the second silent film to win best picture (since Wings in 1927), and the first black and white film to win since Schindler's List (1993). 

The Artist is a non-musical, somewhat more contempletive variation on Singin' In The Rain.  Sound has come to Hollywood, and the silent film stars must either adapt or pass into obscurity.  Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a silent star who finds himself very rapidly going from top of the world to bottom of the heap.  The movie chronicles his fall and also a developing relationship between him and a new star of movies with sound.  The plot does drag in one or two places, but on the whole the movie does have a light and quick-moving feel to it.

The first question I was asked after I saw The Artist was whether I thought it deserved the Best Picture award.  The only truthful answer to that is "it depends on what it was up against."  There are still a few of the nominees from last year that I have not seen.  But certainly of those I have seen it is hands down the best.  It is in every way, especially in the risks that it takes, a masterful piece of filmmaking. 

Two features are immediately evident upon starting the film: it is black and white and it is silent.  The two had to go together of course, as the movie strives to capture the look and feel of the 1920's style of film.  It wildly succeeds.  Everything from the fashions people wear to the cars they drive to the way the sign says "Hollywoodland" to the way people move and act on screen, to the light switches on the wall all seem perfect.  In watching this movie you are transported to the 1920's Los Angeles, and everything about that transport is wonderful.  Moreover, visually almost always there is more than one thing worth noticing on screen at any time.  Two people have a conversation in front of a poster for a movie titled something like "He Stole Her Heart."  He denies the importance of sound in film, while next to him is a "Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil" monkey statue.  In every way the movie is visually compelling.

And certainly the most impactful aspect of the film is its use of sound.  It hit me like a slap in the face how much I expected certain things and did not hear them.  For example, right in the beginning we are watching the screening of a new silent film by the movie's star.  So we are watching a silent film in a silent film, if you are following me.  What is gloriously jarring is how the title "The End" comes up, and we wait with Valentin for the audience's applause; it comes wildly, with great enthusiasm, but we do not hear a whit of it.  I had forgotten for a moment that I was watching a silent film, and almost checked to see if I had muted the speakers!  From there the use of silence grows ever sweeter.  Just as Schindler's List used a bit of color in an otherwise black and white movie to emphasize a certain dramatic element, so also The Artist uses a bit of sound to bring out certain themes very dramatically.  There is a marvelous dream sequence Valentin has where everything begins making noise around him -yet we still cannot hear his voice.  What is odd, of course, is the fact that he KNOWS we the audience hear all these things, but cannot hear him.  And thus is revealed his fear; that in the changing of Hollywood he, George Valentin, has lost his voice.  Will he find his voice by the end, or will he give in to despair?

Yes, this is a movie worthy of Best Picture.  Risky, because who anymore these days goes to see a silent black and white movie?  (Besides total geeks like me, I mean.)  But those risks pay off in phenomenal ways, making The Artist one of the absolute must-see films of the past year.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical merit: 7/10

Overall: 7/10

The 39 Steps (1935)

Back in the 1930's British films were not really held in high regard.  Chances were that any film made in England would not see any success whatsoever outside the British islands.  The reasons for this are easy to understand: few British actors were regarded as true stars, there were no internationally well-known directors, and the budgets they had simply paled in comparison to what Hollywood could produce.  What would it take to make the world take notice of any movie that came from Britain?

It took Alfred Hitchcock's first major international success, The 39 Steps. The stars aligned for Hitchcock to create a runaway success: the source was a popular hit novel, and the star was Robert Donat, who had just garnered a great deal of acclaim playing in the previous year's hit The Count of Monte Cristo.

The plot is classic Hitchcock: Donat plays a Canadian in London named Hannay.  He tries to help a woman who seems in distress, but she ends up murdered in his apartment.  Since he would be the main suspect he ends up on the run from both police and shadowy assassins as he tries to solve a mystery and clear his name.  Unfortunately he has precious few clues to help him solve the puzzle: a map of Scotland with one town circled, the fact that one bad guy has a bit of his pinky finger missing, and also the cryptic phrase "The 39 steps." 

From there Hannay ends up chased all over England and Scotland.  He is shot at, lied to, hunted, hounded, meets all kinds of strange and normal people, and ends up handcuffed to a woman who wants nothing more than to turn him in to the authorities.  Needless to say, this is a film that has a lot going on.  After seeing the movie you'll never want to condemn a man simply because of what you read in the paper. You'll always want to hear him out.

What does the movie do right?  Well, practically everything -especially when we consider that it was breaking quite a lot of new ground in 1935.  The acting was good, if a little bit over the top by Donat.  The script is wonderful fun, with a lot of great lines a memorable moments.  The action is right on target and breathtaking at times.  The camera work is wonderful, especially the outdoor segments at night that truly convey a feeling of darkness without obscuring our view of the actors.  And of course what brings it all together is the steady, strong hand of a genius director -Alfred Hitchcock.

What are the 39 steps?  I can't tell you that without giving away the mystery.  What I can tell you is that the movie The 39 Steps is simply great, and far ahead of its time.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 4/10
Technical merit: 7/10

Overall: 7/10

Jaws (1975)

There is one movie that is singularly responsible for what we now know as the "summer blockbuster."  That movie is Jaws.  Jaws set the tone of big budget movies coming out in summer.  Jaws launched the career of its director, Steven Spielberg, into the stratosphere.  Most notably, Jaws made thousands of people scared to go in the water.

The movie opens with one of the more memorable deaths ever filmed.  A young girl decides to go for a late night swim, then gets attacked by something beneath the surface of the water.  We see her scream, thrash about, try to get away, and finally disappear under the water.  We never see a shark, and therein lies the genius of the scene.  It is simply something innocent and normal that is interrupted by something strange and horrifying.

The film from there splits into two acts.  Act one is about politics, as Martin Brody, the town top cop struggles to get the beaches closed to protect people.  Against him are all the political forces of small town Amity Island ("Amity as you know means friendship!") that must keep the beaches open to attract the tourist money that is so important to the economy of the town.  This aspect of the film is wonderfully effective.  We wonder how anyone can willfully blind their own eyes and put people in danger for the sake of money.  I guess we don't like our reflection in the mirror all that much.

Act 2 then is the hunt for the shark.  We are left with our three lead characters -Brody the sheriff, Quint the old salt shark hunter, and Hooper the young shark expert with all his modern tools.  Without question some of the best scenes (comparing scars) and best lines ("You're gonna need a bigger boat.") are from this section.  By the end we get into the realm of the improbable, but the journey is so satisfying it does not matter.  Jaws still remains today one of the most exciting and well-crafted thrillers ever made.

Naturally, many individual elements of the movie are somewhat hit-or-miss.  While the acting of some supporting characters is questionable, the three main parts played by Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, and Richard Dreyfuss are superb.  Especially in the second act the strength of these actors really helps to carry the film.

The shark itself is phenomenally scary.  Except when you get a good look at it.  The robot shark prop used in filming is rubbery, does not move very realistically, and overall looks like the very fake shark that it is.  Amazingly, this fact does not take you out of the film, since you never get a very good look at it until long after the shark is established as a real terror and threat.  You might even say that Jaws would have been a forgettable, even laughable monster movie if not for a combination of serendipity and one monumentally good directorial decision by Spielberg.  As the story goes, the opening scene as written actually called for the mechanical shark to breach out of the water and swallow the girl whole.  I can't even imagine how ghastly that would have been.  Fortunately, the shark was not functioning properly, and Spielberg made the decision to rewrite the scene so that the shark was not even seen.  This of course made everything much more frightening, as we always fear that which we cannot see.  The pattern was then followed the rest of the film, where the audience never gets a good look at the shark -we only see the awful results of the attack.  So by the time we actually see the rubber robot we stay scared because of how we've been conditioned.  If I may say so, Jaws could not have been made more terrifying even with today's computer effects.

Of course, much of that also had to do with the music.  Almost everyone knows the very simple tones of the Jaws theme.  The music has become synonymous with sharks.  Those notes somehow find a primal part of each of us and keeps us from the water.  Jaws was the second time that John Williams worked with Spielberg, but this is the work that cemented one of the most successful working relationships in Hollywood.

Jaws is often relegated to the category of popcorn thriller, a popular movie without substance.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Yes it is exciting, and yes it is popular.  But this is a film of substance, one that explores themes such as risk vs reward, old ways vs new, and how and why to face your fears.  It remains one of my favorite films and is one I highly recommend.

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic value: 6/10
Technical merit: 8/10

Overall: 8.5/10

The Vow (2012)

The Vow is one of those romantic comedies that I don't tend to get overexcited about.  Generally speaking, romantic comedies are as formulaic as action films.  Couple meet, can't stand each other, engage in a war of some sort, fool no one, encounter some sort of crisis, then end up together.  This is the pattern of romantic comedies from An Affair to Remember to You've Got Mail.  And The Vow is no exception.  The only difference is that the couple have their meet for the first time moment after their wedding.  You see, she's got amnesia, and he's trying to win her back.

And right there is why I wanted to see this movie.  It sells itself by being about marriage, how the vow to love even through sickness and hard times is binding.  For the most part, the movie does this somewhat well.  The situation must be very frustrating; a man is in love with his wife, but following an accident she does not even know who he is.  He remains determined to help her and win her back, suffering through every hardship that could be imagined.  I've wanted a story like this for years, one that sees marriage and faithfulness as a good and praiseworthy thing.  Too often Hollywood pushes some crazy ideal of instant, easy love, one night stands, and happily ever after.  Here seemed to be a film that promotes a view of love and marriage that endures pain and testing.  Here seemed to be a movie that said a marriage vow is binding, and divorce should not be an option that people easily run to.

Unfortunately, the film stumbles in this idea at the end, preferring to give a message of "love means making sure you are happy, regardless of the vow I've taken."  I hate that message; it cheapens both love and marriage.  Love is not about making you happy; true love is always about making people holy.  As such, love needs to do what is right regardless how long or how hard the trial.

Anyway, enough of my bellyaching on the message.  The rest of the movie, both in entertainment and in quality, was forgettably competent.  The acting was notable in its average-ness, and the editing and directing also showed notable flaws (such as when a character takes of his shirt, and the contrast between tanned chest and pale neck and face clearly shows the makeup).

Of course there is nothing awful about The Vow.  It is simply yet another formulaic Hollywood young adult romance.  You might like it.  I even enjoyed a large portion.  But I remain disappointed on the whole.

Entertainment: 4/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical Merit: 4/10

Overall: 4/10

The Avengers (2012)

The Avengers has been a long time coming.  Teased over the course of at least four previous superhero movies, The Avengers is the culmination of quite a bit of fan excitement.  In fact, with the level of expectation being so high it is hard to see how any movie could possibly live up to it.  But let's just get this one thing very clear:

The Avengers rocks.

Now, this is a movie that breaks absolutely no barriers.  It will not be remembered for its unique plot (it follows the "build-the-team-get-almost-beat-come-back-and-win" formula to the letter).  Furthermore, there is precious little character development -the viewer is practically required to come to this film having seen the previous movies about the individual heroes.  Actually, I could see how the plot could be a bewildering mess for someone who had not seen all the previous films.  The plot is almost an afterthought: I'd think you are quite in the majority if you have no idea who all the alien dudes were at the end who were fighting in New York.  All most people know is that Loki was doing something presumably bad with the glowing box, which resulted in cosmic bad guys who need to be squished by Hulk.  Artistically, there are no deep meanings to be found, no deep philosophical discussions on the nature of good and evil, the line between heroism and madness, no exploration even of why we would want the world to be saved (all questions the last two Batman films explored very well).  In short, there is very little of artistic value in The Avengers.  Everything that happens in the movie, on its own, might seem superficial and rather ridiculous. 

None of that matters, because The Avengers is fun.  This is a movie that I will buy on Bluray as soon as it comes out, and I will watch it with shameless frequency.  I have loved and read the comics of these heroes for years, and in The Avengers they come to life in almost every way that I would expect and kick some serious bad guy butt in every way that I could have hoped.  The Hulk shines, having more great moments than in the previous two movies dedicated to him combined.  Thor was fun -I've always wanted to know what would happen if Mjolnir was used on Hulk.  Iron Man was as I would have hoped, as were Black Widow and Hawkeye (I should say "eventually" for Hawkeye, as he spends half the movie doing something I didn't quite expect).  Captain America especially pleased me, as I never really thought he came into his own in the Captain America movie.  Sure, he looked the part, but he never seemed the great leader and confident commander he is in the comics.  In Avengers we finally get to see that start.  This is a highly entertaining movie that starts strong and never lets up until the end -you'll not believe how quickly 143 minutes can go by.

Technically, the movie is also extraordinary.  The credit for all of it goes to Joss Whedon, the director and writer of the screenplay.  There are more special effects shots than I care to count, but none seem to be done simply for the "look at the pretty things we can show you" factor (unlike the Star Wars prequels).  And for being almost 2 1/2 hours, the movie never seems to drag due to an excelent screenplay.  Humor is liberally sprinkled in, bringing much more laughter than you might expect from an action flick.  The only technical aspect that does not shine as brightly is the acting.  Not that any of the acting is bad, it just simply does not shine like the rest.

So what else is there to say but this: when the movie is over you are going to want to try shawarma.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 3/10
Technical merit: 7/10

Overall: 6/10

The French Connection (1971)

In my opinion, The French Connection was, still is, and always will be the greatest movie made about the war on drugs.  It was also the first R-rated film to win the Best Picture Oscar.  Somehow The French Connection remains obscure to many people.  I know I had not heard much about it before I saw it for the first time.  But on many (many!) repeat viewings I continue to discover many things to love about it.

First off, let me say that this is not a happy film.  It is filmed in a gritty, almost depressing way.  And its message seems to be that efforts against something like the drug industry are futile even to the point of absurd.  Let me also say that I do not really agree with the message of the film.  I believe that the war on drugs is worthwhile because drugs are entirely destructive to society and individuals.  However, The French Connection does serve as a good correction for many false ways of thinking.  We need to know that those who sell and use the drugs are people too, with both good and bad qualities (as such they are not so different from those of us who would stop the flow of drugs: we have both good and bad qualities too).  We need to know that certain ways of fighting drugs can be counterproductive.  And we need to know what the deadly results of obsession are.  People have so often been asleep, unaware of the realities of the street and the true nature of the war on drugs.  The French Connection is a jarring film, one meant to wake us up.

This "wake up" tone is very effectively set by the movie's score.  The music is so discordant, so strange and un-melodic it very nearly makes you cringe.  In fact, the first time I watched the film I had to check during the opening credits to make sure that the sound was even working properly.  An alarm clock could not be more abrasive.  The music instantly puts you on edge, then continues to drive in the background of the film.

The tone of the film continues to be set by the first scene, which involves a murder in Marseille.  The city of Marseille is beautiful and peaceful.  It is presented almost as a paradise on earth.  Without any dialogue we are introduced to a character who just seems to be going about his day, watching people.  Then, as he goes home, he is suddenly and unexpectedly shot and killed by a remorseless gunman.  With these deft strokes the movie trains us not to trust our eyes; there is always violence and evil waiting to come to the surface.  If such a thing can happen in Marseille, how much more so in New York!

The plot picks up tempo from there.  Gene Hackman plays Popeye Doyle, a New York narcotics detective who knows his business.  He stumbles upon a ring of drug dealers and smugglers who seem about to bring in a large shipment from somewhere.  There is (of course!) a French connection, since the drugs are being smuggled in from Marseille.  So the whole of the plot is Popeye trying to discover when and where the buy will take place and trying to intercept it and arrest the whole smuggling ring, especially the Frenchman Popeye affectionately calls "Frog One."  The plot moves quickly where it should and purposefully drags where it needs to.  Police stakeouts must be mind-numbingly boring, and the movie communicates that to us quite well.

The characters are what sell the movie.  They are wonderfully human and realistic.  You care for them, feel their passions, and understand their motives.  Much of the credit for such wonderful characters goes to the writer, but of course the actors should receive their proper applause.  This is one of the best acted movies of its era.  As an interesting bit of trivia, a man named Al Copeland loved Hackman's character so much he named his restaurant after him, Popeye's Mighty Good Fried Chicken. The chain still exists today as Popeye's Famous Fried Chicken.  

The dialogue is quite memorable.  I continue to hear certain lines ring in my head, simply because of the way they are delivered.  Even simple lines like, "Gimme a grape drink" resonate simply because Gene Hackman says it.  "That car is dirty!"  "Alright, Popeye's here!" "I tore everything out of that car except the rocker panels."  And of course the immortal "Do you pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?"   That's right, pickin' your feet in Poughkeepsie is far and away the best line from The French Connection.  I use it myself quite often, but only with those who know what I'm talking about.  It's a genius line really, used quite well by Popeye in the interrogation of a suspect.  See, Cloudy (the partner, played by Roy Scheider) will ask the questions that make sense -"where'd you get the stuff?  Who's been buying?  Who do you work for?"  All the while Popeye will ask the questions that make no sense -such as "Ever been to Poughkeepsie?  You were, weren't you?  You sat on the bed, took off your socks, and picked your feet!  Didn't you!?"  And of course, the suspect is so rattled by the nonsensical line of questioning that he answers the questions that make sense, thus incriminating himself.  Memorable.  And extremely funny.

The French Connection is a study in contrasts.  Marseille in contrasted with New York, as I've already mentioned.  Marseille is so beautiful and clean, and New York so filthy and ugly you can't miss the fact that if evil is in Marseille, New York must be 10 times worse.  But the contrasts don't stop there.
Frog One is the sophisticated gentleman; he dresses well, is a family man, and is extremely likable.  He just happens to be a criminal, smuggling a huge amount of heroin into the city.  Contrasted with him is Popeye.  Popeye is an incorruptible cop, and thus the good guy.  But he is also a rude, racist, alcoholic, crass, rough womanizing bachelor.  He may even wreck your car.
By far my favorite contrast takes place over lunch.  Popeye and Cloudy are tailing the Frenchmen, who go into a restaurant.  Inside it is comfortable and warm.  Outside Popeye is freezing in the chill, standing on unforgiving concrete.  Inside they are eating roast beef (prime rib?  not sure.).  Outside Popeye and Cloudy eat cheap pizza.  Inside they are drinking wine and fine, gourmet coffee.  Outside we see Popeye pour out his cheap corner store coffee because it is so terrible.  The "bad guys" wallow in luxury.  The "good guys" endure discomfort.  All without a word of dialogue.  It is a brilliant scene.

In every way New York City is presented in an unromantic way.  The French Connection steers far from the heights of the skyscrapers so celebrated in other movies.  Instead, we spend our time in the projects, down near the river, and at the seedy, even less reputable places.  If the movie had called the city "Sodom" or "Babylon" instead of New York we would have believed it.  Here again is another way that The French Connection shines.  It has held up a mirror to our culture, and exposed the filth we tolerate in our most celebrated city.

And of course, no review of The French Connection could be complete without mentioning the car chase.  Popeye has to commandeer a car to chase a train, elevated on the track above him.  The chase is long, without a note of music.  It has been called, quite properly, one of the greatest chase sequences in movie history.  It has great stunt work, great driving, great filming and editing, and one unplanned wreck that they kept in the film because it looked so good.

The last shot of the film is ambiguous and worth discussion.  It leads into discussion of the film's ultimate message -is the war on drugs really effective?  Drugs kill people, but trying to stop the flow of drugs also kills people.  Is it worth all this?  These questions are all worth asking.  So what is the bottom line?  The movie shows us an accurate picture of a world messed up by sin.  We have a desire for "good guys" and "bad guys," but the movie shows us that the bad guys are also human and the good guys are deeply flawed.  Like I said, The French Connection is not a happy film, but one well worth seeing.  Ultimately, in real life, the world needs a better hero than Popeye Doyle, and a better solution to its pain than the scourge of drugs.

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

Overall: 7/10