Best of the Letter "J:" Jaws (1975)

For my previous full review of Jaws click here.

By any account, Jaws is a monster movie, a horror film that tries to scare the audience.  I fully believed it should not be a good movie.  And then I watched it.  Jaws is great.  Sure, there's a monster shark, but this is not a brainless film by any stretch.  It's a character drama as well, a tightly written and witty script that provides wonderful commentary on human fear, honor, and stupid politics.

Give Jaws a try.  You'll love it.

This is a great cast.  They are looking at a rather big fish.

Best moment: "You're gonna need a bigger boat."

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 8/10

Overall: 8/10

Runners up for the letter "J:"

• Jurassic Park
• The Jerk (I guess?  You come up with good runners up for "J.")

Best of the Letter "I:" Inception (2010)

I've already reviewed Inception at some length.  You can find that review here.  Read the review; I had tons of fun discussing how this movie made me ponder reality, our ability to perceive reality, and such.  I'll include my favorite line here: "In no other movie will you find the main characters involved in an 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!" 

Granted, looking back I may have been a tad over enthusiastic about Inception.  It's still a great film, and certainly the best of the letter "I," but I think anymore I'd probably tone it down to about a 8/10.  After all, there are some rather far-fetched concepts to accept for the plot to work at all.  But if you will simply accept the film as presented you'll have a grand time and get to think a lot to boot.  Thumbs up.

Runners up for the letter I:

• I Confess
• In the Heat of the Night
• The Incredibles 
• It's a Wonderful Life

The Best Christmas Movies Ever

Hollywood has long had a love affair with Christmas.  The "Christmas Movie" is a well-established genre, with more and more of these films running marathons and specials on tv every year, with more in theaters every year as well.  

What follows is my list of the best Christmas movies ever.  To qualify, a movie has to be: 1) about Christmas, or 2) involve Christmas as a major plot element or theme.  There are plenty of others, and many of them are great.  But these are the best, according to my opinionated (and thereby treated as correct in this forum) point of view.

#8: It's a Wonderful Life

Who can resist Jimmy Stewart at Christmas?  "Merry Christmas you old building and loan!"  Overall, not the best movie ever.  But certainly one of the most cheerful and sweetest.  

#7: A Christmas Story

Ralphie and his quest for a Red Rider BB gun are now legendary.  This is one of a very small selection of films that really gets little boys, and how they think, right.  "You'll shoot your eye out, kid."


#6:  Elf

Honestly, this is a modern classic.  This one is all about Will Ferrell, who proves he can carry a movie on his elfish optimism.  A great supporting cast and screenplay certainly also help.  "Buddy the elf, what's your favorite color?"


Hit the jump for the top 5.

Best of the Letter "H:" High Noon (1952)

We're going to get this out of the way right now: you will get utterly sick of the "High Noon Ballad (Do Not Forsake Me, O My Darling)".  This tune plays nearly incessantly throughout the full movie.  On top of being a bit dated, the tune is also rather out of date by today's standards, rating on the "cool song, bro" scale somewhere between "Buffalo Gals Won't You Come Out Tonight" and "The Ballad of Davy Crockett."

Aside from that song, this is a thoroughly wonderful, amazing, spectacular movie.  Few have been as influential on how we think of westerns, with the concept of the lone hero facing off with the gang of misanthropes at (you guessed it) High Noon.

Gary Cooper does his dead level best, starring as well as anyone could as Marshal Will Kane.  He grows increasingly distressed by how the town he protects refuses to help either him or themselves, and his fury is seen, yet remains below the surface.  This is also Grace Kelly's (that is princess Grace of Monaco to you) first starring role in a movie, and it becomes quite evident why she hit the big time after this one.

The themes established are poignant: pacifism vs protecting those you love; honor vs revenge; justice vs injustice; doing what is right even when everyone deserts you.  The themes are laid out, teased out, and the suspense builds.  By the time Frank Miller comes to town the suspense is high and the time is noon.  And then the classic showdown, well-planned action, and perfect denouement play out.

Westerns don't get much more classic or iconic than this, making High Noon the best film you can watch that begins with "H."

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic Value: 10/10
Technical Merit: 9/10

Overall: 8/10

Runners Up for the Letter "H:"

• Harvey
• Hoosiers
• The Hunt for Red October
• Hotel Rwanda

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

I have to admit something: I read the books and liked them.  I began them on a lark, sort of a "Let's see what all the kids these days are reading" motive, which then became "this author really knows how to tell a story!  ...even if her grammar is BAD!"  But of course I had seen the first movie prior to reading the book.  After loving the book I watched it again, just to see if my impressions had changed.  They had not.  I still thought the first movie was too safe, too formulaic, too by-the-numbers.  It seemed to lack a soul, the exciting edge the book has.

Catching Fire goes a long way toward fixing that.  The major issues in the first are made much better here in the sequel.  The result is a film that has excitement and yet takes the time for real plot development.  The actors do a fine job, though there is nothing too very worthy of mention.  Donald Sutherland's President Snow character is much better used here, becoming a vicious, cunning, despicable kind of guy who projects an image of benevolence.

I didn't find much to complain about (which for those of you who know me, you know how weird that is).  But one thing irritated me rather much.  At one point the director chose to utilize a rotating camera shot, where the audience point of view spins around the characters on screen while they dance.  Unfortunately, the scene is not shot in one take, and the editing of the scene together results in a choppy, jerky, distracting mess.  It just plain didn't work.  Now, if it had been done in one take it might have been great.  As it is, the scene is not very grand.

I still wish the story went in a different direction than it did, but I wished that about the book too.  All in all, this is a sequel that outshines the original.  Add to that the fact the third book seems to lend itself to being adapted to film and I think we've got a good little movie trilogy here.

Entertainment: 7/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 6/10

Best of the Letter "G:" The Godfather (1972)

Many people have described The Godfather as the best mob movie ever made.  I disagree.  At its heart, I don't believe The Godfather is about organized crime.  Distilled to its essence, this is a movie about a father and son; how their relationship is strained, tested and reconciled, with the transforming to become like his father.  It is about the effort to protect a family, to care for loved ones, and to make right certain wrongs.  Under normal circumstances these would be noble goals on a path of virtue.  But the circumstances of the Corleone family in The Godfather are anything but normal, which makes the character arch and journey of Michael Corleone one of the great tragedies of American cinema.  And this story -when combined with some of the best acting, writing, and deliberate pacing of all time -makes The Godfather one of the best and most perfect films ever.

Godfather and son

So yeah, it's a family movie.  It's about the mob, killing people, drugs, and very horse's head serious threats.  But at heart The Godfather is a movie about a family.  And this family has love and anger and issues just like any other family.  But this family also deals in death.

This is where The Godfather succeeds so masterfully.  The criminals here are not shallow black-hatted caricatures that simply act evil as a foil to showcase the pure motives of the good guy.  Here we have no "good guy" as we might have expected previously.  Instead, all the bad guys have good in them, while at the same time all of the "good guys" (well, the main characters anyway) have great capacity for evil.

This movie has it all, and does it all exceedingly well.  Never has a film done acting better, the direction is top-notch, and the screenplay is legendary.  The Godfather has very few, if any missteps, and the result is simply wonderful.  This is one of the great dramas and tragedies of our age, especially when combined with part 2.  Don't miss this one!

Entertainment:  9/10
Artistic Value: 10/10
Technical Merit: 10/10

Overall: 10/10


Runners Up:

• The Great Escape
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
• Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
• The Goonies (just kidding.  But seriously, goonies never say die.)

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Being a fan of action movies and comic books, I am predisposed to enjoy movies such as Thor 2.  So, naturally, I actually DID find myself enjoying Thor: The Dark World.  There is so much for a comic nerd to love here, and enough action to please those who are just along for the ride.

Of course, that's not to say this is a flawless or exceptional film in any sense.  Thor 2 suffers as a sequel, due to the first being much more well-crafted and executed.  The sequel just doesn't quite have the spark the first did, and the change in the director's chair clearly shows all the way through.

There are a few outright negatives I noticed.  Firstly, the movie was overall poorly edited.  Second, it had more than a tad bit of those "isn't THAT just a little convenient!" moments (such as the fact that it was Jane who finds the Aether by accident, or that the things Erik Selvig was working on could be easily adapted to save the day).  Third, I never quite understood why Thor's desperate plan was all that necessary.  I mean, the movie never convinced me that Asgard really was all that outmatched by the dark elves.  Finally, the end (and I won't spoil anything for you) tried to have a really strong punch, but seemed to lack coherency -raising many questions that contradict or defy explanation.

But hey, on the whole it was very enjoyable and well done.  It had a well-mined seam of humor and it certainly set up further development in the Marvel universe.  Where they are going with the overall story arc of these movies is hinted at throughout the movie, and it all looks to be quite epic.

Final thought: Loki rocks.  He's by far the most interesting character in the film.

Entertainment: 7/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 6/10

Best of the Letter "F:" Fiddler on the Roof (1971)

Charming, somber, grand and fun and full of greatness.  Fiddler on the Roof is one of the best musicals of all time, and a perfect adaption of a play for the silver screen.  Carried by the singularly brilliant and enormously entertaining performance of Topol as main character Tevye,  Fiddler is a great example of what can be done in the musical genre.

Depicting the plight of Jews in early 20th century Russia, Fiddler addresses the question of how the distinctive, chosen people maintain their identity in a changing world.  In one word?  "Tradition!"  "Without our traditions, we would be a shaky as a fiddler on the roof!"

Some of the best musical numbers of all time are found here: "If I Were a Rich Man," "Sunrise, Sunset," "Matchmaker," "To Life," "Do You Love Me?," and of course "Tradition!"  Combine these great musical pieces with great dancing, acting, and meaning, and you have the stuff of memories.

Even the part I can't stand is fitting.  Ever since my first viewing I have hated the song "Wonder of Wonders," as sung by the geeky tailor Motel.  Musically the song is a wreck, the choreography basically has him scampering through the woods in a completely awkward manner, even the cinematography changes style to something more jerky, so that everything adds up to a giant, glaring cancer of discomfort in the middle of an otherwise healthy and beautiful film.  And yet on further consideration, I have to admit that the song absolutely suits the character, and in his joy at that moment he doesn't care what I think of him.  That in itself is kinda beautiful, even if I still fast forward through the scene when I watch the movie.

The characters are memorable, the plot is full of beauty and heartache, the sets are wonderfully dirty, and the lighthearted moments are as frequent as the somber ones.  Fiddler is a film for the ages, a great performance by Topol, with some of the most iconic moments in musical history.

Watch it and enjoy.  It's the best film that begins with the letter "F."

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

Overall: 8.5/10

Honorable Mentions for the letter "F:" (and there are many)

• The French Connection
• Fight Club
• Fargo
• A Few Good Men
• Finding Nemo
• The Fugitive
• First Blood
• The Fifth Element  (for you, Dave)
• Fantastic Mr. Fox

Best of the Letter "E:" The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Here's just a bit of trivia about me: by the time I was 9 years old I could quote every line of the Star Wars trilogy.  I still can quote every line of all three Star Wars movies!  (And yes, there are only 3.  There are also a few hideous usurpers that deserve not the name, but there are only 3 Star Wars movies.)

Star Wars is why I originally fell in love with movies.  I had the toys, and I still play the video games.  I have so many fond memories about these films that re-watching one of the movies is like revisiting childhood lane.
But of course, films do not always age well.  Something you love as a child may not be as sparkling awesome as an adult.  Star Wars is really no exception.  What I thought was flawless as a child shows cracks when I grew up -cracks like bad acting, some examples of poor writing, and Ewoks.

Does it get more iconic than this?

And yet The Empire Strikes Back is different.  Episode V took the world of Episode IV and expanded on it and perfected it.  Somehow actors who had somewhat wooden deliveries in Episode IV became much better actors.  Somehow the writing became much more polished and smooth.  Things that were fun became phenomenal.  Special effects were kicked up a notch.  Icons became, well, more iconic.  Even the music improved with the addition of the Imperial March.  (It's might be noted that perhaps the reason it is the best of the series is that Lucas had the least control over it...)

Star Wars has never been better than The Empire Strikes Back.  Darth Vader has never been more ultimately evil, and his character still remains one of the best villains of all time.  Han Solo is the most lovable, heroic scoundrel of all time.  Yoda is the greatest bad-grammar-makes-you-seem-smarter pseudo philosophers of all time.  The action is fantastic, the themes are timeless, the story is somber, and the scope is epic.

Sure, the movies is not perfect.  But it does everything it needs to do perfectly.  It sparks the imagination, is undeniably entertaining, and develops a universe that fans still love to inhabit.

And it is the best movie you can watch that starts with the letter "E."

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic Value: 5/10
Technical Merit: 7/10

Overall: 8/10


Runners Up for the Letter "E:"

• Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
• Elf
• The Exorcist
• The Emperor's New Groove
• Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Best Movies from #-D

In case you missed them, here's a round-up of the best films from #-D:

Best Number:
12 Angry Men (1957)

Best "A:"
Alien (1979)

Best "B:"
Ben-Hur (1957)

Best "C:"
Casablanca (1942)

Best "D:"
Das Boot (1981)

So what's next?  What's the best film that starts with "E?"

Here's a hint: It's a sequel.

Best of the Letter "D:" Das Boot (1981)

Submarine movies tend to have a clausterphobic tenseness that is simply unlike other kinds of movies.  And of all submarine movies, Das Boot is king.  There had been submarine movies before, and lots since, but Das Boot was and remains the best.  And on top of it all, it is also a fantastic overall film

Director Wolfgang Peterson weaves together a magnificent tale of a German U-boat  and its adventures on a mission during world war 2.  What is immediately noticeable is that these are not evil men, nor Nazi robots.  They are not faceless or nameless or without basic qualities of human life.  They are men, no more so or less so than any of us.  For me this represents a "humanization" of the enemy.  I was raised a red-white-and-blue blooded American, and most of the movies about WW2 that I've seen present Germans as more or less stereotypical bad guys.  Germans of the 30's and 40's in film are typically wicked or simple nameless uniforms -an obstacle for the hero to overcome but certainly not people in their own right.  I mean, the Germans of WW2 couldn't have been caring or capable of heroics, could they?

We need movies like Das Boot to remind us what war makes us often forget: that people on the "other side" are still people.  And there is nobility and goodness possible in them.

Ok, let's get this out of the way: Das Boot is filmed entirely in German, which means I need English subtitles to understand it.  And I like it that way.  It means it is much more authentic and real.  Don't let the subtitles put you off or you will miss out on one of the most human war tales of all time.

And the realism stands out.  Other movies have imitated that tense wait for depth charges and the harrowing, violent chaos as the explosions come.  Yet none have ever done that experience as well.  Das Boot will bring the viewer into that confined space with those crewmen, and even for only a minute we feel part of that terror.

After a while we feel like we know these men.  We share with them the terror of the depth charge bombardment, the frustration of trying to make difficult repairs, the joys of wind in the face and the thrill of the hunt.  And we share in their humanity as they weep over having to leave stranded sailors from a torpedoed ship, knowing they will drown.  That scene is one of the most effective anti-war war scenes of all time.  They have rejoiced over hitting the ship with a torpedo a few hours previous, yet weep when they realize that the sailors on the now sinking ship will not be rescued and are doomed.  They killed them, yet did not want them to die.  It's an amazing and effective scene.

Anyway, watch Das Boot.  You'll cheer for the crew, then feel conflicted.  You'll see a great example of action film making.  And you'll be watching the best movie ever that begins with "D."

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 8/10
Technical Merit: 10/10

Overall: 10/10


Runners up for the letter "D:"

• Die Hard
• District 9
• The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)

And films worthy of mention: Deliverance, Dawn of the Dead, The Departed 

Gravity (2013)

Currently doing great at the box office, generating fantastic word of mouth, pleasing critics and crowds alike, and generating not a little pre-Oscar buzz, Gravity is the current "it" movie.  Telling a harrowing tale of astronauts stranded in space, Gravity is exciting and tense, an action packed tale of trying to survive in a quite inhospitable place.

And it works.  In so many ways, Gravity is a great movie.  It pushes the envelope of what can be accomplished in making a movie, to the point where you might be forgiven for thinking they really had filmed this movie in space.

It's the action, visuals, and special effects that shine the brightest in Gravity.  Everything looks absolutely stunning.  In some shots so much is happening at once on screen that it is impossible to keep track of everything in the chaos.  There are long character point-of-view sequences (where the audience sees out of the eyes of our protagonist) that are brilliantly done.  And there is a technically flawless shot that takes us from observing an astronaut tumbling through space, zoom in and into the helmet, shows us what she is seeing, then pulls outside again in one unbroken shot (stunning).  But what works better in some cases is the small stuff -the way fire behaves in zero gravity,  or the way a tear floats out from an eye rather than down the face.  Truly, Gravity makes all the space stuff in Apollo 13 seem crude and unpolished.  It just looks that good.

There are a few other things that stand out.  When Ryan (Sandra Bullock) establishes some contact after long radio silence she (and we) are elated to hear another voice.  The way she latches onto the smallest familiar sounds help us understand just how isolated and lonely she must be.

I also loved how space is treated the way space actually is -silent and completely hazardous.  If there is no air, no radio, and no physical contact, then there is no sound.  So space stations can explode only meters from Ryan, but there is no noise.  And if she is using a drill, we only hear a noise that travels through her glove and into the air of her suit.  It's all subtle and marvelous.  Honestly, there can be no other serious contender for Best Sound Mixing.  Come to think of it, Gravity should run the tables on most of the technical Oscar categories.  The only sad thing is that the movie had to open with a wall of text explaining that space is silent -I assume the average audience just wouldn't know this basic fact.

But let me tell you, all the good only heightens for me the unrealized possibilities (and downright drawbacks).  There are really only two characters in the film, played by Bullock and George Clooney.  Bullock plays her character with drive and some subtlety, leading many to think this might be her second Oscar performance.  However, her character simply isn't really developed all that much.  And George Clooney plays George Clooney.  Ok, SPOILER ALERT!!  SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW A RATHER BIG PLOT POINT!  Clooney's character is played as a professional, but rather self-absorbed.  But the self-absorption angle plays against the completely selfless sacrifice he makes to help Ryan.  His character is so flat, so nearly emotionless that it is hard to feel anything for him either.
SPOILERS END.

I didn't like the abundance of action.  In itself, action is not a bad thing.  However, Gravity tries to be reflective as well, attempting to address the big issues like "why try to live when everyone dies eventually?" and the precariousness of life as we tumble through space.  The action is so unrelenting that it tends to work against such reflections; spectacle substitutes for substance.  Eventually whatever points the movie is trying to make just feel shoehorned in and underdeveloped.

SPOILER ALERT AGAIN!  SKIP TO NEXT PARAGRAPH AGAIN TO KEEP AWAY FROM SPOILERS!  The way that things only blew up when Ryan was around also tended to frustrate me.  I mean, the debris plays havoc with the international space station, but there is hull integrity and such when she arrives.  But give it a few minutes and WHAMMO, everything's blowing up.  Then she gets to the Chinese station, it's rather intact still, then WHAMMO, everything's blowing up again.  Ryan is either serious bad luck to be around, or stuff was just waiting to explode until she got there.  Actually, it's all done in the name of plot convenience, a device I don't particularly like.
SPOILERS END.  IT'S THE LAST TIME, I PROMISE.

So yeah, there are things that definitely could have been improved.  But on the whole Gravity is fresh and fun.  It deals with space better than any movie since 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Though it fails to become the intellectual equal of 2001, still I found myself drawn to compare the two movies -which itself should tell you how good Gravity is.

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 9/10

Overall: 7.5/10

P.S. I'm conflicted about "artistic value."  I think Gravity opens the door on a number of good themes and artistic statements.  I'm just not convinced that it deals with them in any meaningful way.

A Short Thought on Something Wrong with Movies Today

Ok, so there's plenty wrong with "movies today."  Not enough brains.  Actors are not as good as they once were.  No singing and dancing.  They are too much "not Casablanca."

But there is one thing that needs to change.  Now.

I went to see a movie today.  I showed up 15 minutes late for the showing.  And I still got to see 3 previews.

Enough Hollywood!  The sheer number of previews before a movie is overwhelming!  There were at least 25 minutes of previews before the film started!

And you know what?  I'd already seen them all online!  So let's scale it back a bit, shall we?  Perhaps you could limit things to 2-3 previews.  Perhaps you could start showing them prior to the start time, and people who wish to see them could come early.  Perhaps you could simply stop saying "Thanks for coming to the movie!  COME SEE THESE OTHER 10!"

That's all.  Thanks for listening.

Oh, and Hollywood?  Lower ticket prices too, eh?

Best of the Letter "C:" Casablanca (1942)

Casablanca is the best movie that has ever been made.  There, I said it.  Films simply do not get more iconic, more influential, more perfect, nor more beloved than this.

I love movies and books that are written with wit, so it is natural that I should love this one.  Practically every line is quotable, yet none of the lines (aside from perhaps "Looks like destiny has taken a hand.") are delivered like they intend to be quoted.  The dialogue is sharp, yet natural.  The people act like people should, yet each one begins to symbolize large segments of humanity.  This is a masterfully written film.

By the way, Casablanca contains my favorite put-down of all time: Ugarte: "You despise me, don't you?" Rick: "If I gave you any thought I probably would."  (ouch!)

Never has a film had a better cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Claude Rains, Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre -we're talking an extravagance of acting riches here!  

The cinematography is perfection in black and white.  All black and white films should look to Casablanca for instruction on how to frame a shot, how to showcase an actor, and how to contrast shadow with light.

The story is perfection in simplicity.  Sure, there are the bad guys and good guys.  But in the midst and confusing everything are the politics of love and the question of remaining morally neutral.  Will Rick do what is right, or will he try to get revenge on the girl who jilted him -or will he try to steal her from her husband?  Will Louis carry out the evil desires of the Nazis by trying to keep somewhat neutral?  Or will he finally stand up for what is right?  By the end everything turns out the only way it can and truly be called a happy ending.  "We'll always have Paris," and "the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

How does a movie get better than this (aside from better model plan special effects)?  Equal parts charming, sweet, earnest, and important, Casablanca is the best movie you can see that starts with "C."

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

Overall: 10/10

Runners up for the letter "C:"

• Chariots of Fire
• Citizen Kane
• The Civil War -by Ken Burns (yes, a documentary)
• Chinatown

Best of the Letter "B:" Ben-Hur (1959)

One of the most celebrated films of all time, Ben-Hur is an epic masterpiece.  Charlton Heston stars as Judah Ben-Hur in this classic tale of friendship, betrayal, and revenge.  Betrayed by a close friend, Judah finds himself no longer rich and privileged in Jerusalem, but condemned and enslaved on a Roman galley.  But this is a hero's journey, so when Judah saves the Roman commander during a battle he gains wealth, status, and everything he needs to pursue his revenge upon his betrayer.

And that's the theme on which things get special.  You see, the subtitle of the film is "A Tale of the Christ."  The movie opens with the nativity, and Judah encounters Jesus on several occasions.  Never once do we see the face of Christ, nor do we hear his voice.  Yet the stamp of Christ is all over the course of Judah's life.  This film is as Christian as they come, and it is also one of the greatest stories written.  Judah is given every reason to hate, reason to strike out in war against his enemies.  Yet the person of Jesus calls to him, and the voice of Jesus instructs him.  There, on the hill of calvary, Judah witnesses the crucifixion and returns to his home a different man.  He speaks to Esther with wonder, telling her how even on the Cross Jesus prayed "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."  And then Judah tells her, "and I felt his voice take the sword out of my hand."

It is in forgiveness that Judah gains true victory over his enemies, and he also learns how God works in both subtle and miraculous ways.  It is a beautiful, wonderful story fully worthy of every accolade that might be given.

When it comes to production values, Ben-Hur still ranks among the top best movies ever made.  Granted, there are a few points where things break down a bit -the rather sad looking naval battle is the low point.  But overall there is no mistaking the grandeur of everything you see.  And in particular, the famed chariot race is still one of the most exciting and spectacularly filmed action sequences of all time.  The stunt work, camera work, and (of course) horsemanship, are all fantastic.

Listen, movies just do not get much bigger or better than this.  Ben-Hur is one for the ages, fully deserving the 11 Oscars it won.  And for the record, the other films that have since won 11 Oscars could not claim to deserve all of them.  Ben-Hur is in a league of its own.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic Value: 10/10
Technical Merit: 9.5/10

Overall: 10/10

Runners up for the letter "B:"

• Blade Runner
• Babette's Feast
• Brazil
• Braveheart

Best of the Letter "A:" Alien (1979)

Simultaneously one of the best horror and science fiction films of all time, Alien is simply good film making.  From the opening credits to the final moments, director Ridley Scott creates a terrifically tense, eerie and exciting tale of a voyage into the unknown.

It's hard to come up with anything that doesn't work in Alien.  The special effects are still great, the set design and art are simply perfect, the alien design is iconic, and the script is much better than you might give it credit for before viewing.  Even the poster is great, with that quite memorable tag-line, "In Space, No On Can Hear You Scream."

Basically, the plot is about a group of truckers exposed to a parasite by an evil corporation.  It's just that the truckers work in space and the parasite is, well, an alien.  But it is that simplicity in the plot that makes it work so well.  These are normal people in an abnormal situation.  Sure, it's hundreds of years in the future, but they are still normal people worried about normal things, like paychecks and bad food.  Oh, and they are also worried about whether the giant space monster will eat them before they can kill it.

Deride the choice all you will, Alien is a genuinely great film that deserves all the accolades it has received, along with many more.  And it fundamentally changed perceptions on what a science fiction movie could be.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical Merit: 9/10

Overall: 9/10

Runners up for the letter "A;"

• Amadeus
• Anatomy of a Murder
• Aliens 
• An American in Paris

Best Movie Beginning with a Numeral: 12 Angry Men (1957)

I've already reviewed 12 Angry Men.  But really, when it comes to movies that begin with numbers nothing else even comes close.  The movie explores the concepts of justice and reasonable doubt in a court of law, as well as the ways different people reason through the evidence they have been given.

Part thriller, part drama, and all brilliant, 12 Angry Men is the best movie you can watch that begins with a number.

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

Overall: 9/10

Runners up for the numbers:

• The 39 Steps
• 12 Monkeys
• 2001: A Space Odyssey 

27 of the Greatest Movies Ever

Today I'm starting a series on 27 of the greatest movies ever.  I'm beginning with titles that start with numbers, then progressing through the alphabet, picking a great film from every letter.

To be fair, there are often quite a few really great films for a single letter.  Other letters have rather few greats.  But we're going to have fun with it anyway.

Some of these I've already reviewed, others I'll need to do a much more full review for in the future.  But hey, I now begin to give to you my own personal list of the greatest movies ever in alphabetical order.

Dredd (2012)

Dredd is exactly the kind of movie a summer action film should be.  Based on comic book source material, Dredd is completely unapologetic for what it is: action, action, action, with very little of that pesky stuff that gets in the way such as "plot," "character development," and "acting."

Yet it works in a great way.  Many films try to accomplish too much, and end up collapsing under the weight of their own hubris.  Dredd simply says it is about bad guys and the good guys who kill them.  The simple plot works, allowing the action to continue without pause.

And the action is...extreme.  Extreme explosions, extreme carnage, extreme violence, you name it.

So if you're looking for booms and fast moving fun, Dredd is your film.  If you want to use your brain, look elsewhere.

Entertainment: 7/10
Artistic Value: 2/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 5/10

Sergeant York (1941)

Winning two Academy Awards (including Best Actor for Gary Cooper) and nominated for 9 others, Sergeant York is an acknowledged classic and overall fine movie.

It also happens to be a very timely movie, having been released only a little over 2 months before Pearl Harbor in 1941.  At that time America's foreign policy was still naively isolationist -the rest of the world was at war and we thought it could not affect us.  Pearl Harbor would wake us up from that slumber.  But Sergeant York had its own part to play as well, exploring the reasons not only for war itself, but how a good man might fight a just and honorable war.

Gary Cooper plays Alvin York, a simple country hillbilly from rural Tennessee.  This is a movie that deals with war, but it is not about the war.  The movie is about the man.  So most of the movie's run time deals with the life and changes of the title character, from his early days as a rough-and-tumble drunkard to his religious conversion to conservative evangelical Christianity.  He goes from bar fights to teaching Sunday School.  He changes from fighting all who stand in his way to humbly asking forgiveness.  He changes from a violent man to a pacifist, who believes that the Bible forbids all forms of violence.

So when the army comes along and drafts him for World War I, Alvin York has a dilemma.  How can a man dedicated to the Bible -which teaches, in his understanding, pacifism -go to war to kill for his country?  He fights the draft, debates with himself and his superior officers, and finally resolves to trust God and "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

He goes to war, and ends up one of the most highly decorated American soldiers in the conflict.  In the midst of a firefight, York single-handedly killed at least 28 German soldiers and captured 132.  Let me repeat that, lest we fail to be amazed at the feat: he killed 28 enemies on his own, and captured 132 by himself!  It is one of the most remarkable actions in war that I have ever heard of, one that earned York praise and adulation upon his return to America.

Yet Alvin York was not proud of the blood he spilled, nor did he capitalize on it for financial or other gain.  He did not revel in taking lives; he killed the enemy not because he hated them, but because he wanted to save the lives of his friends.  War, you see, might be necessary at times for justice to reign.  Lives might be saved, but only if men are willing to stand and fight for what is right.

America needed these reminders, and many others like them, at the dawn of our involvement in World War 2.  But even more we still today need the reminder that war is ultimately not the answer; the ways of God outlined in Scripture make for a much better foundation for a good life than violence.

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

Overall: 8/10

Blade Runner (1982)

Science fiction movies are often interesting, yet offer very unrealistic visions of the future.  Many times the future is some sterile, polished, Jetsons-like reality where everyone has moon boots and jet packs.  Other times the future is a tired and cliche post-apocalyptic, dystopian, Orwellian nightmare.  Very few project an image of the future that is advanced, yet believable.  A place where culture has evolved and technology has made great improvements, and yet people remain people and under the veneer of progress there is still poverty, filth, and decay.  Blade Runner is a movie that hits all the latter notes just right.

Two things impact the viewer of Blade Runner almost immediately upon beginning to watch: the scope of the world it creates, and the majestic style in which that world is filmed.  Blade Runner's Los Angeles of the future is a crowded, dirty, dark and industrial cesspool of a place to live.  It is constantly raining and nearly always dark, even somehow dark during the infrequent moments of the film that occur during daylight.  The sprawl of the city is huge, with a sea of fire in what can only be an industrial section, and with buildings that tower to great heights above the common refuse of the street.  The clothing styles are absurd, the amusements depraved, the conditions crowded and filthy, and a general feeling of rot settles over everything.

And yet in the midst of the sprawl of urban decay and ugly streets there is also the presence of beauty.  In one of the earliest images from Blade Runner we get a close up shot of a man's eye, and in his eye we see the reflection of thousands of lights.  It is the lights of Los Angeles at night looking like so many stars.  It's a remarkably beautiful shot.  This single shot also highlights the movie making prowess of director Ridley Scott as well as the art and cinematography departments.  Despite how close the camera appears to the eye, there is no reflection of the camera there.  It is gloriously great work.

Blade Runner is just filled with iconic images like that.  There's the wonderfully fabulous looking flying cars, made to fly with special effects that hold up flawlessly today.  There are the delightfully odd looking toys in Sebastian's house.  There's the live bug in Deckard's drink, the image of the dove flying away in the rain, and the airship broadcasting the amazing benefits of living off-world.  And, of course, there are the advertisements that take up the entire side of a skyscraper, and the iconic beam of light umbrellas.  Blade Runner is quite simply a visual treat, doing everything flawlessly.

You might expect that such a visual movie may simply be about action and little substance.  After all, most science fiction films today simply have advanced technology for the sole purpose of having advanced explosions and faster speeds.  But not Blade Runner.

Blade Runner is a science fiction story in the true, classic sense of the term.  It uses its fantastic and implausible setting to make a serious statement about life.  The fictional story in an imaginary world raises deep and important questions about the real world and actual human existence.  Blade Runner is great entertainment, but it also wants to make us think.

Deckard (the best role Harrison Ford has ever played) is a Blade Runner, a special kind of policeman.  He tracks down, identifies, and kills (it's called "retiring") replicants.  A replicant is an artificial person, what we might call an android, or even robot.  These are not metalic beings, but creatures of flesh and blood, genetically engineered for strength, beauty, or some other utilitarian purpose.

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...
...all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die."

Replicants are not allowed on Earth, they are to be hunted down and destroyed -which is where Deckard comes in.  The story itself is great, but the themes that it brings up are deep and profound.  If you make an artificial human who thinks and emotes and experiences life as you do, are they "real" or "artificial?"  Would a creation of your be your property, or would it have some right to its own life?  What does it meant to be real, to live, to have a soul?  Does a creator have the responsibility to act in the best interests of his/her creation, or is he/she permitted to create purely from pragmatic self-interest?  Of what use is a life, and all that life experiences, in view of the eventual and unavoidable reality of death?  What is right and wrong?  What, after all, is the point of existence?

"It's a shame she won't live!  But then again, who does?"

Bringing all the high-concept philosophy together is the writing (which is masterful), the direction (flawless), the art (already spoken highly about that), the acting (marvelous, especially Rutgar Hauer), and the action (exciting).  I can think of nothing in this movie that is not done well.  Extraordinary.

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic Value: 10/10
Technical Merit: 10/10

Overall: 10/10

P.S.  This review applies to the Final Cut of the film.  The theatrical and "directors" cuts are decidedly inferior, in my humble but correct opinion.

By the way, the movie is based on the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?  Now, we never get to see any electric sheep, but we do often wonder about the unicorn.  If replicants can have false memories, could they then logically dream of false creatures?  And if Gaff made Deckard an origami unicorn, could he be telling Deckard that he knows what he dreams -perhaps even knows his memories?  Is the blade runner actually a replicant?  Ultimately, what assurance do any of us have that we are "real?"

In defense of Batfleck

So the internet exploded yesterday.  Ben Affleck was announced to be cast as the next Batman, and most comic geeks had their predictable aneurysm at the news.  Predictable, I say, because comic geeks seem harder to please than any other fan group, screaming displeasure at nearly every turn.  Affleck, we are told, is too shallow, too poor an actor, too young, too old, too good looking, not good looking enough, already done a superhero and that movie was bad, too physical, a weakling, too established, not as established as (insert fan favorite here) -in short he's wrong for the role because he's Ben Affleck.

I'd like to defend the decision to make the powers of Batman and Affleck become "Batfleck."

Point #1: We've seen all this before.
Comic geeks went figuratively out of their collective gourds when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker for The Dark Knight.  They were screaming about all the same stuff then as they do again today for Affleck.  Geeks also hated the casting announcements of Michael Keaton as Batman in 1989 (he's a COMEDY actor!  Not serious enough!), Chris Evans as Captain America (he's disqualified!  He's already BEEN a superhero!), Christian Bale as Batman in 2005 (the singing kid from Newsies?), Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk (He's too much not Edward Norton!), and Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man (He's too much Robert Downey Jr!).  To summarize, we've seen all the kicking and screaming before, and more often than not it's worked out just fine.  Give the guy a chance.

Point #2: Affleck is not Daredevil.  Or Gigli.
At the beginning of his career Ben Affleck was regarded as little more than a pretty face.  Audiences either didn't know or didn't care that he co-wrote Good Will Hunting, which demonstrated a depth to him that had yet to be fully explored.  They just knew him as the guy in Armageddon  and Pearl Harbor.  I admit that if he had kept doing movies like those stinkers (as well as The Sum of All Fears and Gigli) I'd dismiss him out of hand also.  But Ben Affleck has worked hard to reinvent himself in the movie business.  He wrote and directed Gone Baby Gone and The Town, starring in the latter as well.  And audiences began to see a talent and depth to him they had not before.  Then he directed and starred in Argo, which is clearly his best film to date.  To summarize: Ben Affleck is not the actor he was ten years ago, and he is still improving.  Give the guy a chance.

Listen folks, I'm as big a Batman geek as you can get.  I've got a host of Batman graphic novels in my collection, action figures, a wealth of Batman trivia knowledge, a bunch of Batman video games, and all the movies (except Batman Returns, Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin.  Those don't count.).  I've even got the tshirt.  I'm a geek, and I freely admit it.  I'm also fine with Affleck being cast in the role.

Does it send shivers down my spine?  Yes.  I see all the potential downside that the vocal fanboys on the internet do.

But I also see the upside, and I know the lessons of history in these casting decisions.  With a good director (and Snyder is decent, whatever others think of him), a good script, and good support, Affleck could turn some heads in this role.  Without good direction, script, or the other technical aspects in support not even the "best" actor could make the role of Batman work.

I for one will wait to pass judgment on the final product.  Until then I'll give Batfleck a chance.

Stargate (1994)

At times a movie's premise is much better than the movie itself.  Perhaps that is why Stargate, which is at best an average movie, launched a long-running television show.  The premise is just so good, so fun to think about.  But the strength of the main plot element just isn't enough in this case to support in this case anything more than a lackluster final product.

Everyone does their best to produce something memorable, but in the final analysis none of the performances truly shine, and the special effects don't hold up under the weight of time.  But most crushingly, what really takes me out of the story is how the film treats the soldier characters.  They are supposed to be sympathetic, but it's hard to feel for one-note characters.  Further, the director needed to learn a few things about tactics and how a soldier acts (for example, the number of times these meat heads cock their guns is staggering).  I mean, did no one really plan out this expedition to the other side of the universe?  Did they not sit down and ask James Spader's character (the resident dweeb smart guy) "so exactly how do you intend on getting us home again?"  There's just a lot of loose ends, unanswered questions, and possible plot holes.

Oh, and that alien animal that looked like the mutant evil cross between a camel, goat, and bullfrog?  That thing simply looked terrible.  Quite obviously a bad prop.

Entertainment: 6/10
Artistic Value: 4/10
Technical Merit: 5/10

Overall: 5/10

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

Whoever first said "they don't make 'em like they used to" clearly did not have Manos: The Hands of Fate in mind when they said it.  Watching Manos is like the cinematic equivalent of eating a brick -it's not a good idea, it hurts while you do it, and you feel pretty terrible afterward.  Please believe me when I say that there is nothing redeemable about this movie.  "Atrocious" is too weak a word to describe it.  Absolutely no one involved in its making had even the slightest hint of competence.  It is by far the worst piece of film making I have ever watched.  On second thought, no one watches Manos.  One can only endure it.

Where to start?  The writing was so abysmal that I could only gape in horror at the extreme stupidity of everything I was seeing.  The entire movie starts off with a bang -a guy gets pulled over for a tail light issue.  The cop gives them a break and lets them go.  This has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the movie.

Seriously, look at those knees.

Moving on, the main characters (the dumbest married couple on earth along with their simpering daughter and pet poodle) run into Torgo while lost somewhere in the American southwest.  Now Torgo is one of the oddest dudes you will ever clap eyes on.  He mumbles all his words in a disjointed way, as though his mouth were not properly attached to his head.  And he has huge knees.

So our lost couple comes on our guy who is talking in a freakish way, with freakishly huge knees.  They ask a few questions, and Torgo answers them by talking about The Master.  As in "I'm Torgo, I look after the place while Master is away."  And "Oh, Master isn't dead, he's away.  Not dead as you would think of it."  He then acts upset that they have a child with them, because the Master wouldn't like it.  This causes our couple to do the most sensible thing imaginable -they ask if they can stay the night.

They decide to stay even when they see this picture that is a crime against film and art:

John Stossel, this is not a good look for you.

Notice the demon dog's glowing eyes.  When we later encounter the dog he is so pathetically unintimidating that we need to see the painting again to remember we're supposed to be scared.

I'd say things improved from there if I could, but then I'd be lying.  A woman looks frantically for her daughter by cracking a doorway about 1 inch,calling her name, then closing the door immediately (because obviously she just conducted a thorough search of the room, right?).  Our family runs from danger for approximately forty seconds before deciding that it's too hard to run for you life.  Say, why don't we go back to where the danger was, maybe everything will be all better now!

Did you notice the giant red hands?
 'Cause I'm trying to be subtle here.

Then there's the Master.  This is the worst bad guy of all time, wearing the worst costume of all time.  It's a sight to behold, to be sure.  He waves his arms around to show off the robe a lot, yells a lot, and fails to laugh in an evil manner.  Then he tells his harem of undead women to kill someone -which they attempt to do by giving him what appears to be a light massage.

It's hard to list all the mistakes made in the filming of Manos.  It's probably easier to list all the things they did right.  Let's see, they did...nothing.  Nothing right at all.

The editing is awful, worse than a third grader's attempt to make a video about his summer vacation.  Nothing fit together, and frequently a scene would simply have an editing break, with the result that characters would instantly move from one place in the shot to another.

Behold -Manos: The Hair of Fate

The camera work was the worst I've ever seen.  Nothing much was in focus, and some of the worst angles possible were chosen for the framing.  The result was that often one character would obscure another, action would be off-frame, or we'd simply get a camera full of hair.

There was no music to speak of.  What music there was, we will not speak of.

I usually rush to blame the director for travesties of this magnitude.  And believe me, the director has a lot to answer for (he makes Uwe Boll look brilliant).  But really everyone that worked on this movie ought to do jail time.  I just don't see how something this bad could be made without evil wicked crimes involved somehow.  This isn't "so bad it's good."  This is "so bad it will make your brain bleed."  Give a camera to an Australian bushman who's never seen an electric light and you'll end up with a better film than Manos.

This is it folks, the one that wins hands down when the question comes up, "What's the worst movie of all time?"

Entertainment: 0/10
Artistic Value: 0/10
Technical Merit: 0/10

Overall: 0/10

But on the flip side, if you see the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode with Manos you are in for a treat!

Red (2010)

Some movies are just plain fun.  Red is one of those movies.  It could have been an average to poor action movie.  It could have taken itself too seriously, and become a common, moderately interesting but ultimately forgettable flick.  Luckily, the director and actors decided not to take themselves too very seriously.  They planted their tongue firmly in their cheeks and simply had fun.

The result is just marvelous.  I won't bother you with the plot, the whole thing is unimportant really.  What is important is that we have a stellar cast enjoying themselves greatly.  Especially John Malkovich.  I love watching Malkovich work in anything, but here he steals the show in every scene in which he appears.  If the rest of the cast make the movie fun, Malkovich provides the glee.

The writing is great.  Again, not the plot, but the wit and way it is written.  Red pokes fun at all the conventions of action movies like James Bond in almost every line.  As an example, at one point two elderly spies are laughing about the "good old days" when they were commonly in action, and one laments "I haven't killed anyone in years!"  To this the other replies with a straight face and a touch of genuine sympathy, "that's sad." 

If you like action, and if you like to laugh, take a look.  This one is just plain fun.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 6/10
Technical merit: 5/10

Overall: 7/10

P.S.  I inflated the "artistic" category more than some might think on this one idea: perhaps there is a serious statement here about how absurd most action movies are.  Is it an artistic critique of the action genre?  Maybe.  Frankly, I just enjoy it.

Reflections on the 47 Ronin trailer

It's no secret now that I've become a rather big fan of Samurai movies.  Films like Yojimbo, Sanjuro, and others like The Hidden Fortress are bread and butter entertainment for me.  And Seven Samurai is among my favorite films of all time.

So when I heard there was a remake of the classic tale of the 47 Ronin in the works my inner Japanese geek's heart went all aflutter.  See, the history of the 47 Ronin is true, having happened in the early part of the 18th century.  The story is held in reverence in that culture, achieving a status similar to the legends of King Arthur in ours.  It is a story not only of battle and courage, but also of honor.  The 47 Ronin in question are Samurai servants of a liege-lord who is dishonored and forced to commit seppuku.  They bide their time, plan a well-thought out attack, and after a long wait strike hard and fast against the man who dishonored their master.  It is the ultimate example of the bushido code at work.  What's more, while the story has been told in Japanese television and film many times, there is no single definitive version nor a single film that is well known to Western audiences.  In other words, this is a great story with a fantastic pedigree that is simply begging to be well made again today.

Needless to say, I got excited about the prospect of 47 Ronin, releasing this Christmas.  I was even cautiously excited still when I learned it would star Keanu Reeves.

Our favorite Japanese actor, Keanu Reeves

Then I saw the trailer, and all hope died.

Remember the key concepts that make the story so legendary: 1) it's true.  and 2) It is about honor and loyalty (bushido).

What I immediately noticed about the trailer is that there is an abundance of people throwing fireballs with their hands, turning into dragons, and evidently floating upside-down while making spiders.  A lot of weird, unreal fantasy nonsense.  They've taken a true story and made it something that seems more at home in middle earth, or in dungeons and dragons.  Color me flabbergasted.

Then of course they've taken out the emphasis on honor and loyalty and made the emphasis action.  I can't be entirely sure based on this trailer, but it even seems the 47 hire or persuade an outsider to join or lead them in their battle.  This entire concept is so anti-bushido that I don't know what to do with it.

What we're left with is a movie that seems to want to be Pirates of the Caribbean, The Matrix, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Hobbit, and Mortal Kombat all rolled into one.  It's inexplicable, obviously derivative, cheesy, and hopelessly muddled.  This movie could have been great.  Instead, I've seen two minutes of clips and I'm utterly disappointed.

What was the "creative" thought process that could have led to this point?  Perhaps someone says, "Let's make a film about this true story of honor."  Then someone else says "Yeah!  And let's change everything so it's fake and is about sword fighting dragons!"

It's as insulting as if someone were to make Abraham Lincoln into some supernatural vampire hunter.

Top Gun (1986)

This week I made up for a blind spot in my cinematic history.  I saw Top Gun for the first time.  Yes, I think I'm the only child of the 80's who hadn't seen it yet.  Oh, I knew all about it.  I knew Goose died.  I knew that it was packed with terrible 80's music.  I knew he traveled the highway to the dangerzone.  And I'd seen practically every scene at some time in my life.  But I had never actually seen the whole thing from start to finish.

And now that I have I feel confident in saying this: Top Gun is a fairly bad movie.  The story is forgettable, giving no real reason to care about either the characters or the "Top Gun" competition.  The music is horrible and dates the film rather badly.  The editing is among the worst ever, as the film makers tried to use stock footage of the jets to fit their story, with the result that often an F14 that is supposed to be behind the MIG is for a moment pictured in front of it.  And there are plenty of little editing issues like that.

But the biggest issue by far is the acting.  I swear, when Tom Cruise was acting all broken up that Goose had died I thought I'd have to fast forward.  Either that, or use a spoon to induce vomiting.  Honestly, I have no idea why Cruise made such a big splash about that era in Hollywood -the man had as much talent for acting as a cat has talent for singing (thankfully he has improved at least a bit).

So what we are left with is bluster, posture, and a bit of awkward charm, all set to music we'd prefer to forget ever existed.  Oh, and those actors had NO idea how to play volleyball.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic value: 3/10
Technical merit: 4/10

Overall: 4/10

P.S. I wonder how many young men signed up for the navy thinking they'd be in Top Gun, and ended up swabbing the deck for 4 years?

The Expendables 2 (2012)

The premise of The Expendables (and thus also the sequel) is get as big a cast together of the greatest action stars of the last 30 years and have fun.  Plot is non-existent and acting is clearly not a priority.  Everything is secondary to the cast, and having the cast blow things up spectacularly.

The Expendables was fun.  Stupid fun, but fun.  The Expendables 2 on the other hand, is stupid and boring, with little to recommend it.  It ought to be great, but the cast is reduced to bad and tired one-liners that reference their glory days, and the action is simply "hero shots" of our cast as they fire heavy weapons and kill the bad guys.  Explosions are frequent, the body count is huge, but the action is simply dull.  Without a plot to care about, tons of action simply becomes mindless drivel.

The idea of having an action movie not take itself seriously is great.  The execution on this one is terrible.  The word "Expendable" means superfluous, something that can be destroyed without loss.  Nothing could be a better description of this movie.

Entertainment: 4/10
Artistic value: 2/10
Technical merit: 3/10

Overall: 4/10