Showing posts with label Notes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Notes. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Best of the Alphabet Roundup: #-R

In case you missed them, here's a round-up of the best films from #-R.  The reviews themselves can by found by selecting the label "27 Titles" on the left.

Best Number:
12 Angry Men (1957)


Best "A:"
Alien (1979)


Best "B:"
Ben-Hur (1957)


Best "C:"
Casablanca (1942)


Best "D:"
Das Boot (1981)


Best "E:"
The Empire Strikes Back (1980)


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


Best "G:"
The Godfather (1972)


Best "H:"
High Noon (1952)


Best "I:"
Inception (2010)


Best "J:"
Jaws (1975)


Best "K:"
The King's Speech (2010)


Best "L:"
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)


Best "M:"
My Fair Lady (1964)


Best "N:"
North By Northwest (1959)


Best "O:"
On the Waterfront (1954)


Best "P:"
The Princess Bride (1987)


Best "Q:"
The Quiet Man (1952)


Best "R:"
Rear Window (1954)


So what's next?  What's the best of the letter "S"?

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Should I watch Noah?

Today I read this article, in which radio talk show personality Glenn Beck is quoted as hoping Noah, releasing next week, is a massive failure.  Understand, Beck has not seen the film.  Nevertheless, he believes -upon the basis of a single review in The Hollywood Reporter -that the film not only takes creative liberties, but actually perverts and upends the Biblical story.  He proceeds -again, not having seen the film himself -to call the movie "dangerous" and advises people not to see it.

I've also read the Hollywood Reporter review of Noah.  I also have some reservations about the film, based upon some of the information that the review contains.

But I have some serious problems with Glenn Beck's position; three of them in fact.

First, the review itself was largely in praise of the film.  It found much -though not everything -to be good.  And it pointed out some of the areas that did tend to stray from what the Bible actually says.  But it was not very long, or very detailed.  To use that review as a way to condemn the entire film would be like saying no one should ever go anyplace in New Jersey because you once saw an unflattering photograph of one street in Newark.

Second, there are a number of rather prominent Christian authors and leaders who actually have seen the film and who do recommend it.  The Hollywood Reporter notes that both Rev. Samuel Rodreguez (a pastor/author I have heard and enjoyed) and Jim Daly (president of Focus on the Family) support Noah.  Others have also come out in favor.  Of course, simply because these guys like the movie does not make it biblical.  But at least they are Christian leaders who fight for the cause of Jesus, they've seen it, and give it a thumbs up.

And this leads to my third problem I have with Glenn Beck's position.  Glenn Beck is an outspoken, practicing, devout Mormon.  Mormonism is -by its very nature and definition -a perversion of true Christianity.  It is unbiblical, heretical, contrary to history and reason.  Mormonism teaches falsehoods about God, Jesus Christ, and humanity.  Basically what I'm saying is this: a Mormon with only second-hand knowledge is not an authority on what is actually Biblical.  And I simply do not trust his judgement especially since -and I repeat myself for emphasis -HE HAS NOT SEEN THE MOVIE!

Could Noah be a dangerous, subversive film that twists the Bible's message and leads people to believe things about God and Scripture that are not true?  Absolutely, I acknowledge the possibility.  Could it remain faithful to the message and theme of the Scripture, while adding extra stuff for the sake of drama?  Sure.  But I'll need to see it to decide for myself.

So I think I will go see it.  I'm still hopeful for a good, solid film.  Sure, I don't expect it to be exactly what I would make, should I have been a movie director.  Sure, I fully expect there to be stuff added in that puzzles me, or even to which I take great exception.  But I hope that it inspires further discussion in our society on faith and Scripture.  I hope it leads a great many people to read the Biblical story in Genesis for the first time.

And I hope that Hollywood hears a loud message from all of us that if they will make Biblical films that respect the Source Material we will support it.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Happily Ever After...?

I was thinking about love this past week.  See, love -as defined and demonstrated by Hollywood -is often an emaciated and sickly thing, a mere shadow of its real self.  Love in the movies is reduced to lust, to an animal desire that excuses rebellion against parents and shirking of responsibilities.  To believe what we watch, love means "never having to say you're sorry."  Love is what you feel when someone makes you feel good.

Love, in the movies, is usually selfish.  Love is about using the other person to feel good and pleasant, and if someone else comes along to make you feel even better, then Hollywood teaches us the virtue of "following your heart" (or as they call it in other places, "being unfaithful.").

We are told that love is to be sought above all else, and that finding "true love" will conquer all odds and result in "happily ever after."

My friends, we're being sold a bill of goods by the Walt Disney Company et al.  This love that is peddled to us might sell well, but it is not real.  It is not lasting.  It does not persevere through trial, because it is at heart self-seeking.

I believe that true love is best exemplified in Jesus Christ, and the way of the Cross.  Love is sacrificial.  Love is for the benefit of the beloved.  Love climbs the heights and endures all things because real love is not about me and what I want, but the other and what he/she needs most.  Real, true, love is a beautiful thing, something that triumphs over all adversity even in the midst of despair.  There may be no "happily ever after" with true love, but all the same "love never fails."

This past week I saw another glimpse of incarnate real love, a love like that love with which God loved us.  Last Wednesday a young woman of my acquaintance passed away after a long fight with cancer.  She was only 23.

She was an amazing young lady.  She became quite the speaker, telling the story of her fight against cancer and testifying to the hope she had in Jesus Christ.  She went on missions trips, she wrote, she sang, she generally was a great influence on all the people around her.  I'd say somewhere around 2,000 people showed up at either the viewing yesterday or funeral today to pay their respects to her -some standing in line for hours to do so.  Her story is remarkable.

But really I want us to know about her husband.

You see, this young woman had been dating a young man rather seriously prior to her cancer diagnosis.  Can you imagine that situation?  What do you do when your girlfriend drops the news on you that she has cancer?  How do you respond when the treatment plan is laid out, and the prognosis is given, and nothing is good news?

There must have been rocky times.  There must have been doubts. There must have been tears and desperation and, above all, temptation to turn away and run.  After all, can you make that choice to love when there is little possibility of "happily ever after?"  How do you, as a young man, make that decision that could potentially make you a caregiver for a long time rather early in life?

How does anyone -in our culture of self-love -so willingly offer his heart with the very real knowledge that it could be broken, and broken very soon?

But that is the decision this young man made.  He proposed in spite of her sickness.  He married her.  He gave her the wedding of her dreams, then he cared for her and gave everything he had for her.

And last week, less than a year since the wedding, she passed away.

The world calls it a tragedy.  They see the devastation of the family and the anguish of her husband and pities them.  I also hurt for them.  I long to bring some word of comfort to this young man's heart, who is far too young to be a widower.

However, I cannot say I pity him.  No, you see, he inspires me.  I hurt for him, but I admire him!  Most of us experience pain because we live in a broken, sinful world.  Life happens, and sooner or later the pain of life is visited upon our own doorstep.  But few of us willingly choose to enter a situation that will likely break our hearts.  We usually shun pain, and insulate ourselves away from it as long as possible.  Yet for the sake of his beloved, this young husband chose the pain.  He embraced the potential of a broken heart for the sake of love.  As I have considered his example over this last week, I realized just how profoundly he exemplifies the way of the Cross.

Is there a "happily ever after?"  Is there a happy ending, as Hollywood would celebrate?  Well, no.

Instead, I see a quieter kind of victory.  I see the triumph of real love over all the hurts and pains of this world.  I see a heroic stand against the narcissistic hedonism our world promotes as the answer.

I see loss and pain willingly taken on, borne for the sake of another.  I see hope in the middle of hurt.  I see a reflection of a love that Hollywood will seemingly never understand.

And there is simply something beautiful, something triumphal, about that.


Thursday, March 6, 2014

A Few Random Thoughts on Movies


  1. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a simply wonderful, visually beautiful film.
  2. All things being equal, the Oscar usually goes to the most melodramatic, politically correct film.
  3. Superhero movies are getting better, but a few things still hold them back from being truly great.  One of those things holding them back is called in other places "writing."
  4. I still think that Moriarty is too sniveling in the series Sherlock.
  5. Movie trailers before about 1989 are truly awful.
  6. Every time I read a news article about the decline of Detroit I always hope for the following line: "And that is why we are introducing the future of crimefighting: Robocop!"
  7. The new trailer for the fourth Transformers movie looks terribly wretched.
  8. If I sat down to watch my entire collection of movies it would take me about a full month of continuous, non-stop viewing.  That's crazy.
  9. If I could chose a winner, I'd want The Grand Budapest Hotel to be at the top of the box office this weekend.  Unfortunately, people generally want to see rubbish like 300:Rise of an Empire more than something that looks genuinely original, quirky, and funny.
  10. Noah is probably not biblically accurate.  It is worth checking out with an open mind anyway.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

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.


Thursday, October 10, 2013

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.

Sunday, October 6, 2013

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?

Monday, September 30, 2013

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.

Saturday, August 24, 2013

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.

Saturday, July 27, 2013

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.

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Sharknado (2013)

This post is dedicated to Matt.  Thank you for drawing my attention to this "movie," and thus "enriching" my life.

"You know, I have one simple request.  And that is to have sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!"  So said Dr. Evil, and we all laughed, because such a thing was clearly ludicrous and stupid.  It was funny.

Now the entire concept of stupid has a movie.  That movie is Sharknado.

From the people that brought us such stellar and cerebral films as Sharktopus (it's a shark!  It's an octopus!  It's both!) and Dinoshark comes Sharknado, the latest travesty to challenge Plan 9 from Outer Space for the honor of being Worst Movie Ever.

It's a tornado!  It's sharks!  It's a sharknado!
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I did not watch Sharknado.  I did, however, watch a few clips and read a summary.  The clips were pretty much all the action stuff with the titular tornado-composed-of sharks.  From what I saw I'm fairly confident that I don't want to injure my brain by watching the "plot development" or "character development" parts.

This then is what I saw:

  • A guy was skeetshooting sharks out of the air with a pistol.  100 pound sharks, knocked out of the air because they were hit by a pistol round.  Not anything about the previous two sentences makes the least bit of sense.
  • There was a shark biting through the roof of a car to get at the people inside.  As though a shark's first thought wouldn't be "how can I get back in the water?"  No, of course if a shark was yanked out of the water by a tornado and thrown on a moving car it's immediate reaction would be "I need to get to the chewy center of this Chevy."
  • A guy used a chainsaw to slice a shark in half lengthwise instead of being eaten.  Giant shark, hurled at 100 mph at some dude, but because he held a chainsaw it was instantly sliced in half.  Cool?  No.
  • Once on land, the sharks were crawling toward people.  I'm not even kidding.  Those same people were seemingly powerless to get away.
  • If someone fell down, sharks would land on top of them to eat them.
  • Sharks in the tornado could control their movement and fly.
  • Sharks exploding when contacting a powerline.
  • Sharks roared like lions.  'Cause sharks have lungs to do that.
Somewhere out there a guy wrote this mess.  Then some other guy decided to spend money to make it.  Actors destroyed their career by being in it (not that they had any ability anyway, as this movie ably demonstrates).  And now people everywhere are passing up the opportunity to see good movies to watch this stupidity instead.  That's just sad to me.

And they are making a sequel.  Sharknado 2.  Evidently it gets sharknadoier.  Perhaps it could have ninja sharks or something.  Inevitably there will be the spin offs Earthquack (an earthquake causes the ground to become ducks!) TigerWave (a tsunami carries a ship full of deadly tigers into the heart of the city!  Splash Roar Argh!) and Volecano (it's an eruption of lava!  No, it's an eruption of small rodents that will ruin our lawns!  Oh the humanity!)


Entertainment: no.
Artistic Value: sharknado. (that means none)
Technical merit: they should be ashamed.

Overall: j out of pink.  (meaning: there is no way to give a serious rating to this.  Avoid at all costs.)

P.S. The question of the day: if movies have to compete to be the dumbest just to get people to like them, have we concluded that our culture is bankrupt and decadent?  Is art dead?

Thursday, April 18, 2013

There's a Blu Ray waiting for me on July 23!

On July 23 of this year the Criterion Collection is going to release a Blu Ray edition of Babette's Feast (1987).  I am more than thrilled at this, as I've been wanting to own a great release of this film for the past several years, and have been to this point unable to find one.

It's a story of a French housekeeper in Denmark (the dialogue is in Danish) who puts on an amazing meal that revolutionizes how many of the people in the village view life.  It's a fantastic tale about hospitality, gourmet food, faith, love, sacrifice, and the miraculous ability for people to have fellowship.

I'm sure I'll do a review in July, after I get my copy!  Until then, here's the appetizer cover art!
(As you can tell, I'm a bit excited.  I've been waiting for this one a long time.)

Saturday, February 9, 2013

The Best Trains of Alfred Hitchcock

Alfred Hitchcock and trains go together like Michelangelo and a marble slab.  Trains are for Hitchcock a medium and a metaphor, a plot element and a character at the same time.  He used trains in his films in amazingly memorable ways, and he uses them with remarkable frequency.  In fact, if you randomly choose to watch a Hitchcock film tonight, chances are it will feature at least one train.  This post is a celebration of some of his best uses of this romantic, bygone method of transportation.  There are other trains in Hitchcock films, but these are my favorites.


Suspicion (1941)
Perhaps not the best on this list, Suspicion has nonetheless a place in my heart.  It's a story of two very different people who meet, fall in love, marry, and then go through the hard times that come when you don't communicate very well prior to marriage.  For example: should the man work?  How should money be spent?  Should you sell off family heirlooms to pay gambling debts?  Is he trying to kill me?  You know, questions all married couples ask.

But it all begins on a train.  Here, in close quarters, our lovable characters are introduced to each other in intimate ways that only a train can force.  And it sets the tone of the film.  He's the cad, helping himself to money that isn't his ("legal tender my good man, legal tender.") and she's the shy one, going along with it.


Strangers on a Train (1951)

You knew this one had to be on the list.  After all, it's the only Hitchcock with the word "train" actually in the title!

Unfortunately, the train itself is not as memorable as what happens on the train.  Just like anyone, you probably speak with those you randomly meet in places where you are stuck together for a bit.  I mean, it's only polite to have a conversation with the guy next to you on a plane, or someone riding with you on the elevator, right?  So when Guy talks for a while with Bruno, we think nothing of it.  It's normal -we're together a few hours, let's chat.

And chat they do, as the countryside rolls by.  They chat about normal everyday stuff.  Like the perfect way to exchange murders.  Only one of them doesn't think it's a joke...so when the train ride is over, the consequences still follow.

Perhaps you'll think twice before chatting again with a stranger on a train.


The 39 Steps (1935)
Escaping from London, Richard Hannay must get to Scotland to pursue the only lead he has that can prove his innocence.  So he boards the "Flying Scotsman," the famous express train.  There he learns of the police manhunt chasing him, and to elude them he breaks into a private compartment, passionately kissing the girl he finds there (after all, no policeman would ever break up such an embrace to look for a fugitive, right?).  He then doubles back, pulls the emergency cord, and jumps off the train as it comes to a bridge.  It's thrilling, it's fun, and it is classic.  Wonderful use of trains to inspire that claustrophobic feeling of "nowhere to go, even though we are going somewhere."


Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Hitchcock always called this one his favorite film.  So he put two train scenes in it.  The first is great, with the fugitive from justice hiding out as though sick, while others ask questions and play spades.  And by the way, that's Hitchcock with the flush.  Then when the train comes to a stop in the sleepy town, Uncle Charlie hobbles out, looking infirm, then makes a miraculous recovery.  He's arrived, and nothing will be the same.

The second scene is the more memorable though, as it comes at the film's climax.  Uncle Charlie is leaving, the family is seeing him off.  He manages to delay young Charlie, they go to the space between the cars, the door is open.  Then the shoving starts...




Uncle Charlie wanted to see the train.







North by Northwest (1959)
Carey Grant and Eva Marie Saint share a moment over a meal on the train.

I love North By Northwest.  It is fun, action packed, exciting, humorous, witty, lively, and a host of other pleasant adjectives.  It is the most perfect of all Hitchcock's movies about mistaken identity, with a good guy on the run accused of being the bad guy.  To prove his innocence, Roger Thornhill must get from New York to Chicago.  

So he takes the train.  Without a ticket.  With cops dogging his every move.  And with a mysterious blonde suddenly quite interested in his well-being.  Cat-and-mouse, intrigue, romance, and some of Hitchcock's most daring dialogue follow.  What's the best form of travel?  Well, in North By Northwest the answer is most definitely train.

It even ends on the train, with Thornhill and his new wife becoming better acquainted while the train rolls on. The train has almost become a character in the film, and most certainly is a metaphor.


The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Almost the whole of The Lady Vanishes takes place on a train.  It provides the central mystery: where could Miss Froy have gone, given that we are in a confined space on this train?  She is nowhere to be found?  The Lady Vanishes has everything good that a movie can possibly mine from trains: the claustrophobia, the false intimacy of being put in close proximity with strangers, the feeling of movement, the class distinctions between those traveling first class and those in third, and so much more.  At various times the train in The Lady Vanishes symbolizes freedom and confinement.  It represents the dangerous world, while England and home at the same time.  There are friends to be made, but enemies at hand.  We travel the way to safety, but never have been more in danger.  Our characters move through the compartments and on the outside of the train, exploring nearly every inch of it.

This train, above all others, is the greatest in Hitchcock history.  It is setting, plot, theme, symbol, character, hope, and danger all rolled into one.  Those who ride these rails will not emerge the same on the other side.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Short Reviews

You know, not every movie deserves a sweeping review.  Not every movie needs a ton of ink spilled to explain just how wonderful, terrible, or awesomely average it is.

And I just don't have time to write full-scale reviews of every film I want to review.  Thus, to solve the issue, many of the reviews I will write from here out may be shorter, pithy, and straight to the point.

Of course, the films that are truly exceptional need a full review to explain just how they do things right.  And the really bad ones need a lot of ridicule to show how they fail (those are fun to write anyway).  It's just that in the grand scope of things, there are a lot of good and not-as-good average films that simply beg for a rating.  They need to have their chance to be viewed, discussed, and judged.

So I introduce the "Short Reviews" label.  These are the brief "what might be good and bad and memorable" reviews with a verdict at the end.  Enjoy.  And if you think a film I give a short review to needs a fuller treatment, shoot me a comment and tell me why.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Revising my Reviews

Just as an FYI for anyone who happens to read my blog (hi mom!), I'll be going back through all the reviews I've done over the next few days and revising my ratings.  I feel that I've painted myself into a bit of a corner, giving slightly higher ratings to some than I should have.

So here then is an indication of what my scores will mean from here on out:

  • A score of between 1-3 is a terrible review.  The film maker did little that was right or good.
  • Between 4-6 is average to good.  The main bulk of movies fit in this range.
  • 7-8 is well above average.  These will be standout movies, well-worth seeing and re-watching.  A movie in this range is much rarer.
  • And then of course, 9-10 is the exceptional movie, one that I would consider to be at the top of the class. A 10 means that I believe improvement to be almost an impossibility.
So that means I need to lower some scores and be a bit tougher and more stingy with the higher numbers.  But that does not mean I like the film less, just that my ratings scale has changed.  

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Favorite Directors: Akira Kurosawa

So how do you choose what movies to watch?  Typically there are at least five major influences that convince me to watch a film:
  1. I'm interested in the topic (AKA -"wow, that looks like something I'd enjoy!")
  2. I'm a fan of the major actors (AKA -"Jimmy Stewart is in this!  Squeeeee!")
  3. I'm with a group of friends, and they all insist on watching some terrible movie against my opinionated, yet correct, urging. (and that is how I was forced to watch the horrendous Wild Wild West more than once.)
  4. It is made by a great director. (and thus I will watch anything that Christopher Nolan has made.)
We all have favorite directors.  My all time favorite has always been Alfred Hitchcock.  I've loved Alfred the Great since I first really encountered his work in high school.  

But right now I want to talk about a director that I've only recently discovered that has simply amazed me with his work.  I'm speaking of Akira Kurosawa.

I discovered Kurosawa in watching his magnificent epic Seven Samurai.  I'd long heard of SS, knowing how influential it was and how it was remade in America as the western The Magnificent Seven.  If you've heard of Seven Samurai and have not seen it, forget everything you have ever been told -it is far better than you could imagine.  It really deserves its own review sometime, but now suffice to say this; it is more magnificent than any remake.

Of course, one great film does not mean that a director is great.  Even bad directors sometimes strike gold, or as they say, even a blind squirrel can find a nut.  That is why I decided to check out more of Kurosawa's work.  Thus I watched Ran (the character "ran" in Japanese means something like "rebellion" or "betrayal"), Kurosawa's Japanese Samurai adaptation of Shakespeare's King Lear.  If you're thinking that Samurai King Lear sounds awesome, that's because it is (and again, the sweepingly brilliant Ran deserves its own review).  Then I bought and watched The Hidden Fortress, a film that had strong influence over George Lucas as he wrote Star Wars.  There I marveled at Kurosawa's ability to develop strong characters and slowly ramp up action, then bring together action and tension in completely stunning ways.

It hit me sometime after watching The Hidden Fortress that I was becoming an enormous fan of Akira Kurosawa.  Clearly he had a pattern of greatness, evident even in the three that I saw at first.  If you think of great film making, nobody thinks of Japanese flicks from the 50's.  Yet in that period Kurosawa was making films that were not just better than what Hollywood was producing, they profoudly changed movie making itself.  The preeminent example is 1950's Rashomon, which was the single most influential film in bringing Japanese cinema to the West.

Kurosawa became friends with the American western director John Ford.  He was highly influenced by Ford's work, and then Kurosawa's work highly influenced Ford (and everyone else).  For myself, I know that my appreciation of good film has been enhanced since running into Kurosawa's work.  He was a genius, far ahead of his time, who made films that have simply made me sit back in wonder.

Watch out Hitchcock, Akira is gunning for your spot on my favorites list.


Monday, December 3, 2012

Life is busy

So it's been a while since I've posted.  Of course, I've had vacation, work, and a family with kids.  That means far too little time that you might describe in any charitable way as "free."  So when it comes to "how do I spend that free time?" the answer is more frequently "watch movies" rather than "write about movies I've watched."

So enough excuses.  I'll be writing, just about as often as I can.  Which is to say, infrequently and in spurts.

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Dreams of Star Wars 7: Thoughts on the Disney/Lucas Deal

As you may have heard by now, Disney will be buying Lucasfilm for 4.05 billion dollars.  And as part of the news release about the deal they revealed plans to release Star Wars Episode 7 in 2015.

So what does this mean for the future of Star Wars?  Is this an indication that Star Wars will Return to Strike Back with a New Hope?  Or will we see the Revenge of a Menace of idiot Clones?

To be very clear, I hope the new movie(s) are like episodes 4-6, not like episodes 1-3.  Because 1-3 were painfully bad.  Episode 1 was boring with horrible child acting and juvenile writing and directing.  Episode 2 made little sense, had a convoluted "plot," but much more satisfying action.  Episode 3 was decent in many respects, though still weak on the writing and direction.  Each film got progressively better, so the trend might lead us to Star Wars movies that are once again worthy of the name.  But of course, all our worse fears might be realized if Disney decides to continue Star Wars along the same lines as the prequel trilogy.  I'm not sure my childhood memories could take another assault like that.  I mean, could you imagine another Jar Jar, endless senate political discussion on whether to table the motion to amend the amendment, and (shudder) more horrible child actors?

So how do we make Star Wars good again?  What will it take to make the Sequel trilogy (or wherever it goes) better than the Prequel trilogy?  I mean, aside from the obvious observation that not much could be worse than the Prequel trilogy?  Fear not, dear reader!  For I am here with my opinionated ideas for how to save Star Wars!

1.  Get George Repellent
We must acknowledge, of course, the great debt we who love Star Wars owe to Lucas.  He came up with the whole idea, sold it to studios, pulled off Episode 4 with greatness, and built the empire (pun intended) of toys, games, and collectibles we all love to pay tons of money for.  In gratitude, we've made him extraordinarily rich and still give him applause for everything he does.

But it has to stop.

Honestly, he may be the reason Star Wars got started, but he is also responsible for how far it has run off the rails.  Lucas had a visionary idea, but he really needed to surround himself with people who would be honest with him and tell him what a horrible script he had for Episode 1.  He needed people to tell him that the entire idea of Jar Jar was a terrible mistake.  He needed people to tell him that Jake Lloyd couldn't act.  Most of all, he needed people to tell him that HE was not the right person to direct.

Therefore, the Sequel trilogy would benefit greatly from an investment in George repellent.  The less Lucas has to do with the direct production of any future Star Wars, the better.  Boy, that's hard for me to say, having grown up enjoying Star Wars as I did -but hey, sometimes the truth hurts.

2. Find the Right Director
(A guy can dream, right?)
Whoever the producers end up being need to find a director who is up to a real challenge.  The director needs to come with a vision for how to make the new films his very own, yet still retaining the spirit of Star Wars (to clarify, episodes 4-6).  This vision must be clear, understandable, and doable.

What simply cannot be allowed to happen is for a committee to come up with a list of things that must be done, then hire a director to bring it all together.  Story by committee rarely ends up well.

So get someone who has passion for Star Wars please.  Someone with backbone.  Not just someone who will put out whatever will make the studio execs happy.  I want a real Star Wars movie again, not a two hour commercial for Lego toys.

Oh, and please, not Spielberg.  I like him and all, but it's time for fresh blood and new ideas.

3. Get the Plot Right
I have dreams in my head of an aged Master Luke and his Jedi Academy, with a young apprentice who is dabbling in things he shouldn't...

I don't know what really could be done with the plot.  Perhaps some variant adaption of the Timothy Zahn books, with the resurgence of the Empire.  Perhaps some new threat could rear its head in the galaxy far, far away.

Whatever is done, please, for the love of all things cute and cuddly, make the plot more like episodes 4-6 and less like 1-3!  Make the plot simple.  You know, like there's this Evil Empire and a rebellion against it, so let's save the Princess and blow up the Death Star.  Make it something we care about again.

And along those lines...
4. Get a Wicked-Cool Bad Guy
See this?  That's wicked-cool.  Let's have a memorable bad guy like that, someone we want to dislike, someone we know is gonna do all kinds of evil things if he's not defeated.

Grand Admiral Thrawn would be a great candidate.  I mean look at this guy...
That's wicked-cool.

Wicked-cool means unique look, genuinely evil actions, and poses a serious threat to the good guys.  Having dark side force powers and having great lightsaber skills a plus, but not necessary.

Characters who have names that effectively translate to Count Poop?  Not wicked-cool.
Characters who are asthmatic robots and have names that effectively translate to General Bad Guy?  Not wicked-cool.

5. Get John Williams
Without the music, it's not Star Wars.  'nuff said.


In conclusion, there is no single thing that can be done to guarantee that the Sequels will be better than the Prequels.  In fact, I'm sure that no matter how well done they are there will still be fans who are disappointed with something.  But if they will just get some of these main things done right, everything else will fall into place.  And hey, who knows?  Maybe Star Wars will come roaring back!

Friday, September 7, 2012

Really?

My Opinion: The fact that there is a movie called Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters makes us all a bit dumber.  That is all.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Fond Memories of Childhood Movies

Some movies do not age well.  They seem fine for their time, but after a while they become horribly dated.  After all, everything that was cool and trendy in the 80's is universally regarded to be terribly bad.  So there are some movies that were cool or on the cutting edge then, but now are as wonderful as leg warmers.

And then there are movies that have never been good, but that I loved when I was a child.  Let's be frank, shall we?  We all loved some really awful things as children.  In my childhood things like Care Bears and He-Man were popular.  He-Man is about a guy who lives in a technologically advanced world but fights with swords, who wields space magic to be immensely strong and explore the cosmos.  Basically, it is Conan the Barbarian meets Buck Rodgers.  Terrible idea.  And yet every boy of my generation thought it was the greatest thing ever.

Here's the issue: I have so many wonderful memories from my childhood.  Included in those memories are favorite movies that I would repeatedly watch over and over.  I loved those movies.  Yet looking back through the murky fog of my memory I wonder about the quality of those films.  I mean, did you ever get the opportunity to watch a movie you simply loved as a kid, only to spend your time aghast, wondering how this movie got to be so bad?

I had that experience with Superman II.  I adored all the Superman movies as a kid (except #4, I think I knew how terrible that one was even as a child) and would watch them countless times.  I remember loving especially #2, with the epic showdown between Supes and General Zod.  Then I watched it again when I was about 24.  Somehow, Superman II became full of terrible dialogue, questionable acting, poor pacing, and bad overall direction (I know now the powers-that-be replaced Richard Donner before he had a chance even to finish filming).  Someone replaced the dreaded bad guys from my memory of the movie with guys who just posed a lot and told us they were bad guys.  Something about my childhood died the day I rewatched Superman II.

With such a bad experience I am absolutely loath to watch more of my favorites from my younger years.  I'm staying away from Superman III.  I loved Transformers: The Movie (the animated one).  I hear some people say it's not that bad, but do I risk it?  There was another that I loved called The Last Electric Knight (I think that was the full title).  It was some kung fu kid beating up bad guys.  THAT one I'm positive would be painful to watch now.

But my absolute favorite movie as a kid was called Ewoks: The Battle for Endor.  I loved it.  It was a straight-to-TV movie in 1985 about a kid, an old guy, some Ewoks, an alien army with their witch, and some cross between The Flash and an Ewok.

In other words, this movie has "annoying" written all over it.  How bad is it?  I point to exhibit A, the poster for the movie:



Just look at this horrible, horrible artwork.  Look at that.  You can never un-see something that bad.



This is a movie that forgets that the Ewoks don't even live on Endor -they live on the forest moon of Endor.  EVERYONE knows this!




The plot, so far as I can remember, is that the kid is stranded on Endor (really the forest moon) after his parents are killed by bad guys.  The kid is helped by Ewoks and some old dude and the aforementioned giant speedy rodent.  They steal a power source that the bad guys think is magic, fix a broken ship and have a happy ending after a brutal final "defend the alamo" type of showdown.

Of course, I'm sure that none of those elements are nearly so good as they are in my memory.  If I think hard enough I can almost discern very terribly awful acting.  I also seem to remember the Ewoks talking, which simply cannot be a good sign.

I remember enjoying this show so much it still brings happy feelings.  Why should I spoil that by watching this abomination again today?  I think I'll just keep the good memories and stay away.