The Rock (1996)

The Rock does have a plot.  Y'see, there's this general who thinks his men have been treated badly, so he takes over Alcatraz and holds San Francisco hostage with chemical weapons.  The only hope we have is a guy who's been in prison for decades and some geek who...

Oh forget it.  The plot is absurd.  But who cares?  This isn't a fine drama or a believable character study.  This movie exists for one purpose: loud, high-speed action and explosions.  The Rock thus is the penultimate '90's action film.

It was directed by Michael Bay.  This would usually be a loud, obnoxious point against the film.  However, this is one of the two or three films that Bay's done that actually works.  It works for several reasons: it doesn't take itself too seriously, the actors are of fine quality (excepting Nicholas Cage), and the screenplay is phenomenal.  The script is full of wit and humor, with one-liners and zingers that help keep the movie feeling light and fun, while at the same time keeping it out of the realm of camp.  (for example, when told there is a "situation" that Mason -Sean Connery's character -might help with, he replies, "And what might that be?  I've been in jail longer than Nelson Mandela, so maybe you want me to run for President.")  I must warn you though; this movie has quite a bit of the "colorful" language.

Sean Connery carries the film, basically reprising his role as James Bond (a much older, much more foul-mouthed Bond).  Nicholas Cage is his usual, "shouldn't be working as an actor" self, but he does seem to be having fun.  And Ed Harris is a great conflicted bad guy/good guy, trying desperately to achieve his good ends through bad means without losing control of the situation.

But of course the real star is the action.  And there is lots of it.  There's the unforgettable Hummer vs Ferrari chase through the streets of San Francisco, and the many shootouts and explosions on Alcatraz itself.  It's all done well, and makes for a very exciting, very fun flick.

So ignore the plot holes.  Ignore Nicholas Cage.  Disregard the cheesy moments or the over-the-top and unbelievable elements.  Just enjoy The Rock.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic Value: 2/10
Technical Merit: 6/10

Overall: 6/10

P.S. Content warning: lots of death, mayhem, and violence.  Grizzly deaths abound, and strong language ensues.

An American in Paris (1951)

For clarity's sake, I'm allowed to like both Alien and An American in Paris.  Both are fantastic at what they do.  They just do very different things.  One scares the daylights out of you, the other will invariably make you smile anytime.

Gene Kelly was at the peak of his game with An American in Paris.  He's witty, charming, bombastic, free-spirited, and contagiously happy.  He's after one girl, while another girl is after him.  The girl he wants is the fiancee of a friend, while the girl who wants him happens to be his patron (he's an artist).

But the movie isn't about the plot.  This movie works because of three things: 1) The music is entirely Gershwin, and the use of his music is inspired.  2) The dancing, especially during the ballet piece, which is by far the best dancing sequence ever put on film.  3) Gene Kelly.  Honestly, I'd watch Gene Kelly work in anything, even in his garden.  I know that sounds all stalker-ish, and I'm willing to accept such accusations.  Kelly simply was a master on film.  He knew how to act, how to sing, and how to dance -the Hollywood triple threat.  And he does all three with a seemingly effortless precision; I say "seemingly," because I know that he worked dog hard and was a notorious perfectionist.

An American in Paris is the feel-good, happy, all-singing, all-dancing great film that won Best Picture.  Watch it.  's wonderful. 's marvelous.

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

Overall: 7/10

The Departed (2006)

Never have I disagreed more with the Academy than when The Departed won four Oscars.  Truth be told, 2006 was not a very fabulous year for really fantastic film (there were a few, but not many).  However, none of the best films of that year were even nominated for Best Picture.  So instead of something good winning, we got The Departed instead.

Ok, to be fair it wasn't bad.  In fact, as a movie it worked on many levels.  It was fun to see such a great cast working together, and the last little bit at the end with Mark Wahlberg made the whole film worthwhile.  But the errors started piling up, from writing shortcomings to massive continuity goofs.  The sheer amount of filthy language (including every possible racial slur) and intense violence is enough to put anyone off.  To be honest, some things were so bad (perhaps "lazy" is a better word) in the technical aspects of the movie that the awards for best editing and direction completely baffled me.  "Oscar," I started to think, "must be in on the take."

The 79th Academy Awards was such a joke, and the punchline was The Departed.  So many better movies were available: Pan's Labyrinth, The Prestige, Cars, and Blood Diamond all come to mind (ok, so I'd have been just as upset at a Blood Diamond win, but hey, it WAS a better movie than The Departed.).

Bottom line: Not a bad movie, but should never have been Best Picture of any year.

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

Overall: 5/10

Hoosiers (1986)

This little gem starring Gene Hackman is hands down the best basketball film ever, and perhaps the best sports film ever.  Also, it has fantabulous '80's synthesized music.

About an underdog tiny high school basketball team in Indiana that makes it to the State Finals, Hoosiers is everything you could hope from a sports film.  The actors clearly know the sport and actually play it, so nothing looks "wrong."  You care about the characters, and each is developed in individual ways.  Plus, the film does a great job exploring both small town politics and how a sport can become so important to people that it overwhelms tiny, insignificant things like truth and justice.

Hackman brings his usual firebrand style of acting, and it fits his character perfectly.  He has many great lines, and forms the heart of the film.  As Hackman shines, so also does Hoosiers.  But unfortunately, we also see why Hackman plays so few romantic roles in film.  His kissing scene is painful in a "slobber all over her" kind of way.  The other standout is of course Dennis Hopper, who plays the town drunk who is given a second chance.

Hoosiers has heart.  It's often overlooked, but hey, Goliath might have overlooked David too.

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical Merit: 6/10 (loses a whole point for the music!)

Overall: 7/10

P.S.  As a sports movie, and not compared to other films outside the genre, Hoosiers might score a 9/10.

The Dark Knight Rises (additional thoughts)

I recently broke down and bought The Dark Knight Rises on bluray.  I'm just such a sucker for Batman that I chose to overlook all the flaws that I remembered and give it another try.  I'm glad I did, but boy I need to revisit a few things.  Specifically, I'm gonna need to revisit the score I gave it.

So this is not a second review.  But rather just a few extra thoughts to add to the original review.

First: I'm confused by the airjacking/kidnapping scene at the beginning.  The whole point was to abduct the Russian scientist, right?  So to do that, Bane gets himself turned over to the CIA at the same time the scientist is so he can break out and capture the guy.  Straightforward, right?  Well, not exactly.  Here's my problem: the only way for Bane to be turned over to the CIA without the CIA knowing it was actually Bane they were getting is to have the guy who turned the captives over to the CIA actually work for Bane.  Follow?  The guy delivering the captives (and the scientist) to the CIA had to work for Bane, otherwise the whole scheme wouldn't work.  CONCLUSION: Bane's big plot to kidnap the scientist involves three steps: 1) kidnap the scientist. 2) turn him over to the CIA, along with Bane himself. 3) attempt a daring and risky mid-air second kidnapping.  So tell me, why was the whole plane kidnapping thing necessary at all?

Second, I hated the second-in-command of the GCPD.  You know, the guy who lets Bane get away so he can try to capture Batman.  His character is one note, and that note is "try to be as wrong as possible all the time, and annoying to boot."  He's not quite as bad as the guy in Iron Man 2, but he's trying.

Third: The Dark Knight Rises has very few standout, just plain excellent moments.  Most of it is just plain ordinary.  The best part is when the gangsters try to cheat catwoman; Anne Hathaway simply steals the scene.

Overall, the movie is an exercise in adequacy pretending to be excellence.  How does Batman find Catwoman when she's being attacked?  Pure luck?  Why does every fight feel so over-choreographed, and un-exciting?  How does the fact that an autopilot is fixed allow Batman to teleport instantly out of the blast range of a nuclear bomb?  Why does the end turn Bane into a puppy dog, and then dispose of him without fanfare?  Why is John's real name Robin?

Repeat viewings of The Dark Knight continue to elevate that film.  It will go down in the books as the best Batman film yet, and perhaps the best that ever will be made.  The Dark Knight Rises just plain isn't on the same level.

Therefore, here are my new ratings for the movie:

Entertainment: Old score -5    New score -4
Artistic Value: Old score -6    New score -3 (what was I thinking before?)
Technical Merit: Old score -6    New score -5

Overall: Old score -5/10    New score -4/10

The Sandlot (1993)

Little boys, baseball, and a great big dog.  This is the movie that gets all three very right.

Now, there are lots of movies about baseball.  And lots of movies about growing up, and even a few about dogs.  But this is the one where all three come together in a parfait of perfection.  You see, Smalls is a kid out of his element.  He's just moved to a new town and has a new step dad.  He has no friends and no interests outside of his engineering tinker toys.

But then he's noticed by Benny, the leader of the gang of kids that play ball down at the sandlot.  We all need a friend like Benny, someone who will help us, teach us new things, stick up for us, and genuinely take an interest in us.  And Smalls simply flourishes because of Benny's friendship, and all the other friends he makes because of him.

And then Smalls does something monumentally stupid, and the gang spends the rest of the film trying to get a baseball back from the Beast, the neighborhood "gorilla-dog-thing" that is the stuff of legend.

Oh, this is a gem of a film.  Granted, the acting at times is stilted.  Sure, not every line is fantastic -some are straight out corny.  But this is a movie that understands how a little boy thinks.  It understands a little boy's first crush (Wendy Peffercorn!) and how a boy can become obsessed over a game or a project (like a baseball recovery).  It understands how boys can do stupid things like think chewing tobacco makes them macho, then go on fast rides (Tequila!).  It understands how boys have an imagination to make a big dog into a Beast, how they wonder at fireworks, how they boast and brag and exagerate, and how they simply desire with a deep earnest longing to be accepted.

The interactions of the boys themselves are what really lifts this movie.  Never again will you have a Smore without thinking of The Sandlot.  Never again will you be able to go to a public pool without thinking of the line "I have swum here every summer of my adult life!"  Because of The Sandlot you will know what an "L7 Weenie" is, you will know that PF Flyers are the only shoe guaranteed to make a boy run faster and jump higher, and you will know that there is no greater insult than "you play ball like a GIRL!"

It's a sweet movie.  It's funny.  It won't win awards, but it will win your heart.

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

Overall: 7/10

Foreign Correspondent (1940)

There is sometimes a fine line between movie and propaganda.  Anyone who tells you that film producers do not have an agenda to promote, that they just want to "entertain," needs to have a head readjustment.  And they need to see Alfred Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent.

Released in 1940, Foreign Correspondent is Hitchcock's argument that America should get involved in World War 2.  At that time we had the policy that the war was Europe's problem.  Hitchcock saw things differently; he was after all a British citizen who was only recently come to America to make movies.  He had a personal motivation to see help come to England, and he couldn't quite understand why America was dragging its feet on what seemed to be a problem for all people everywhere.

So Foreign Correspondent was made, a simple film with a simple message.  As a film, it is one of the most streamlined of Hitchcock's works.  It progresses rapidly, following the exploits of a newly commissioned newspaper correspondent.  He travels from America to Europe, where war is brewing.  There he meets a girl in a peace charity and falls in love, notices windmills in Holland that spin the wrong way, witnesses an assassination, finds out the dead man is actually alive, and generally makes himself a thorn in the side of a group of German spies.  Oh, and he discovers that the ringleader of the group is really...oh, but I can't spoil every twist in a Hitchcock film for you, can I?

Simply put, the plot is rather straightforward and understandable.  The action is fun and exciting, full of chases, tension, and even a plane crash, and the movie is genuinely entertaining.  But as in any well-directed film, it's the little things that stand out.  For example, our hero, while traveling from one window to the next on the roof of the "Hotel Europe" accidentally breaks the neon in the sign, making the words now read "Hot Europe."  Very appropriate.

The use of humor is also quite well done.  Our hero's name is Johnny Jones -a perfectly normal American name.  However, the newspaper boss things such a name would not stand out, and thus gives his reporter a new handle: Humphry Haverstock.  This of course becomes a running gag.  Further, when declaring their love for each other, the main characters seem almost to realize they are in a movie: him "I'm in love with you, and I want to marry you."  Her: "I'm in love with you, and I want to marry you."  Him: "Hmm, that cuts down our love scene quite a bit, doesn't it?"  The whole relationship is almost a parody of Hollywood insta-love, as though Hitchcock was required to have a love story in the movie but wanted to get it out of the way as quickly as possible to focus on his theme.

There is also some genuinely good and clever writing, decent acting, and a plane crash effect that -while rather tame by today's standards -was revolutionary then.

I would say that the biggest flaw in the film is also its most memorable part, and it happens right at the end.  Johnny (sorry, Humphry Haverstock) has earned notoriety for his reporting, but is trapped in London during the Blitz.  He is in the middle of a radio report going live to America when the lights go out and the bombs start dropping again from German planes.  So Johnny, knowing America can probably still hear him, begins to talk off the cuff: "All that noise you hear isn't static, it's death coming to London.  Yes, they're coming here now.  You can hear the bombs falling on the street and the homes.  Don't tune me out, hang on a while -this is a big story and you're part of it.  It's too late to do anything here now except stand in the dark and let them come... as if the lights were all out everywhere, except in America.  Keep those lights burning, cover them with steel, ring them with guns, build a canopy of battleships and bombing planes around them.  Hello America!  Hang on to your lights: they're the only lights left in the world."

And then the movie ends to a patriotic rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner."  I kid you not, the whole thing is as patriotic at the end as Sam the Eagle, and I can't help but think "Hello Hitchcock, your propaganda is showing!"  The message is clear: Europe waited too long, listening to evil men who cried "peace, peace" when they only ever worked toward war.  Now the inaction of the past has reduced England to standing in the dark and waiting for bombs to fall.  America can't do that; they need to wake up and get ready for a fight, or the whole world will plunge into darkness.

This ending to the film is all very stirring and a fitting finale.  However, I still regard it as a moviemaking error, because it just seems like an overreach.  But I then try to put myself in Hitchcock's shoes in 1940, and I see the world falling apart, and America asleep.  And you know, I'd try as hard as possible to wake them up too!

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

Overall: 7/10