SLACKER (1991)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Richard Linklater

Cast: Richard Linklater / Teresa Taylor / Jerry Delony

Plot

The college town of Austin, Texas is inhabited by various losers, wannabes, eccentrics, artists, loafers, jokesters, and others strange personalities.

What I Liked

A documentary series I’ve been watching on Netflix called “The Story of Film” mentions a Latin American film from the 1950s or so (directed by Luis Bunuel, I think, but I can’t remember the name) where the camera follows various people on the street and, as the people pass each other, the camera switches from one set of people to another, following the new people in a conversation already in progress.  “Slacker” works in much the same way, its only discernible plot being the narrative’s trading off from one character to another, usually prompted by the first character somehow encountering the second.  In fact, the movie feels as though it’s been captured all in one take.  It hasn’t.  There are plenty of cuts, but the script flows so well we hardly notice them.  This allows for an seamless, yet unpredictable, journey through an otherwise boring, uneventful day in an otherwise boring, uneventful town.

Its the characters and their conversations that transcend the boredom.  Austin was apparently teaming with conspiracy theorists, wannabe artists, and the ilk in the early 1990s, at least that’s how writer/director Richard Linklater portrays it.  The accuracy with which Linklater captures the neuroticism, casualness, and boredom of a stunning number of peculiar individuals really makes the film entertaining, plot or no plot.  Surely anyone can watch this movie and find more than one character that is all too familiar.  Linklater’s characters are so pathetic and/or silly one can’t help but laugh, especially because they’re frighteningly real.  The movie’s cast does a great job delivering the ranting dialogue in a conversational manner that feels authentic, as though the film is a documentary and not scripted.

What I Didn’t Like

My interest in the movie began to wane once the novelty of the filmmaking approach began to wear off.  I found many of the characters in the latter half of the movie were nowhere near as funny or zany as those in the first half.  A little less than an hour in, I was checking to see how much time was left.  I still had another forty-some minutes to go.

Most Memorable Scene

Linklater himself plays the first of the “slackers” we encounter in the movie.  He takes a cab ride into town from the bus station and tortures the driver with some rambling pseudo-philosophizing about dreams and choices that is one part Sartre and lots of parts bad comic books.  The basic gist is that every decision represents multiple possibilities, which in turn are potential realities. Ironically, this soliloquy of sorts sets up the whole movie, not just in tone but in premise.   Better yet, the opening scene ends with the best line of the film five minutes in.  Though there are other high points, it’s generally all downhill from there.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS (1949)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Robert Hamer

Cast: Dennis Price / Alec Guinness / Joan Greenwood

Plot

An impoverished member of the noble D’Ascoyne family goes about killing off all of the wealthy relatives who stand in the way of his becoming a Duke.

What I Liked

Dark, devious and snide comedies don’t come more dark, devious or snide than “Kind Hearts and Coronets,” a black comedy if there ever was one.  Its hero, the sociopathic Louis Mazzini would be downright contemptible if it weren’t for the fact that his victims are even more contemptible (and pathetic) in the aloofness and pomposity of their pretentions.  Dennis Price plays Mazzini with a cool arrogance that allows him to convincingly mix with his social betters, but the script gives him a sharp-tongued cleverness that shows us he is their intellectual superior. Thus we heartily root for the young man as he proceeds to bump off these inbred buffoons through a series of “accidents” that exploit their individual hypocrisies.  One doesn’t feel the least bit guilty delighting at his acerbic bragging through narration as he confesses the murders to his written memoirs.

A movie like this, overflowing with contempt and death, wouldn’t work as a comedy were it not for the characters and the performances.  Price is perfect as our proud protagonist, and Joan Greenwood brings a chilling heartlessness to the angelic-looking Sibella, the woman whose rejections spur Mazzini on his murderous quest.  But most impressive is Alec Guinness, who takes on the task of portraying each member of the D’Ascoyne family.  A great deal of credit should go to the makeup and costume department, but Guinness changes his body language and speech so well for each character that he is hardly recognizable from one scene to the next.  In each performance, he hilariously parodies the archaic and decrepit nobility.

What I Didn’t Like

It’s a dark comedy, which will mean it isn’t to everyone’s tastes, but I certainly enjoyed it.  In fact, I’m pretty sure this is a flawless movie.  Which isn’t to say it’s the best movie; but rather that it does exactly what it intends to do without a misstep.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert!*

My favorite death is the one in which Mazzini takes no part himself, that of Admiral D’Ascoyne, who goes down honorably with his ship after he makes the silliest of maritime blunders and refuses to correct it out of sheer principal.  He stands at attention on deck as he disappears beneath the water thinking his death a monument to honor but all the while dying for nothing other than pointless decorum.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

THE BAND WAGON (1953)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Musical

Director: Vincente Minelli

Cast: Fred Astaire / Cyd Charisse / Oscar Levant

Plot

Aging song-and-dance man Tony Hunter attempts a comeback as part of a new stage show.

What I Liked

All smiles and color, “The Band Wagon” exemplifies what passed for mass appeal entertainment in the early 1950s.  From the start, the movie declares its purpose to do nothing more than put on a great, escapist show.  By the early 1950s, the American movie industry was beginning to change; directors like Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock were exploring darker, psychological themes; Marlon Brando and other young actors were challenging themselves and audiences with new approaches to acting.  However, the majority of Americans still just wanted some great tunes, pretty faces, and beautiful costumes. By casting Fred Astaire as their lead, having him basically play himself (an aging performer of the old guard whose star had faded amid the new trends), and building around him a series of glittering song-and-dance numbers, the filmmakers made their purpose known.  Welles, Brando, subtlety, and darkness be damned; they were making a feel-good show stopper that appealed to nostalgia for the golden age of Hollywood.  Like the song says, “No death like you get in ‘Macbeth’ / No ordeal like the end of ‘Camille’ / This goodbye brings a tear to the eye / The world is a stage / The stage is the world of entertainment.”

Old-fashioned and outdated showbiz aside, some elements of “The Band Wagon” can still mesmerize today.  First and foremost is Fred Astaire, who still has enough pizazz, coolness, and athleticism to dazzle even the most cynical viewer, despite being in his fifties.  While several of the actors come off as disingenuous in their happy-go-lucky sappiness, Astaire never does.  He’s the epitome of confidence and swagger; hammy, yes, but majestically so.  His dance partner through most of the numbers is Cyd Charisse, who, for my money looks better than Ginger Rogers from any angle.  Of course, I prefer any angle that captures her incredible legs.  I can’t complain about any scene that features them.  Charisse provides the sex appeal for every taste.  At times she’s pristine and refined, at others slinky and seductive.  What’s more, she can keep up with Astaire’s effortless, gliding footwork, displaying some pretty stunning dance moves herself.

What I Didn’t Like

All that goofy, happy-go-lucky musical stuff just isn’t to my taste.  Several musical scenes just came off as stupid to me, in particularly “I Love Louisa” and “Louisiana Hayride.”  Not surprisingly, both feature Nanette Fabray prominently.  Her wide-eyed, silly faces just don’t work for me.  That said, I fully recognize that some people go for this sort of stuff – it was certainly popular back in the fifties! – and there is absolutely some fine talent and fabulous production values at work on this film.  So plenty of people will admire some of the scenes I could live without.

Most Memorable Scene

Well, there is a fantastic dance segment toward the end with some tremendous choreography and ambiance that clearly influenced more than one Michael Jackson video (Jackson was an admirer of Astaire, and vice versa).  Then there’s a scene earlier in the film where Astaire is bouncing and gliding with natural enthusiasm and coolness to a happy number called “Shine Your Shoes.”  Both stand out and I really can’t pick one.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE WEIRD (2008)

A.K.A.: Joheunnom Nabbeunnom Isanghannom

Country: South Korea

Genre(s): Action / Adventure / Comedy / Epic / Western

Director: Jee-woon Kim

Cast: Kang-ho Song / Byung-hun Lee / Woo-sung Jung

Plot

A mysterious treasure map leads an eccentric thief, a legendary bounty hunter, and a psychotic assassin on a violent race across war-torn 1930s Manchuria, with a motley gang of bandits and the Japanese Army in pursuit.

What I Liked

It’s been a long time since I watched a movie that was this much fun!  A genre-melding shoot-‘em-up that detonates the screen with tumultuous action sequences, mind-blowing cinematography, and outrageous characters, “The Good, the Bad, the Weird” has not one single dull moment.  Actually, it continually tops itself, scene after scene, with more action, more laughs, more corpses, and more craziness.  I spent its entire two-and-a-quarter hours of length either with my jaw dropped, laughing to the point of tears, or just shaking my head in disbelief.

For stylishness in an action film, I’d have to go back to “Kill Bill, Vol. 1” to remember an action film I’ve seen that so mesmerized me.  Like Tarrantino, director Jee-woon Kim brings a gorgeously post-modern slickness to a tumultuous brew of movie genres.  Also like Tarrantino, he takes a lot of his cues from Sergio Leone’s films (as can be inferred from the title, which, if it isn’t obvious, is a reference to Leone’s “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly). Like Leone, he reinterprets the conventions of classic American cinema with a foreign perspective and reinvigorates archetypical characters with addictive coolness.  In this film at least, he surpasses both Tarrantino and Leone for quality cinematography.  His cinematographers Mo-gae Lee and Seung-Chul Oh put together some fantastic camera movement that will have your eyes in shock while also featuring some of the best larger-than-life landscape shots I’ve seen in motion pictures.  On a simpler note, the picture constantly shimmers with crisp color.

On to the performances.  The film features three characters that are obviously inspired by the main three characters in “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”  In this version, it is the crazy bandit Yoon-tae Goo (“The Weird,” played by Kang-ho Song) that really stands out and ultimately proves to be the film’s main protagonist.  Song is hilariously goofy and quirky in the role, yet never so much so that we lose the ability to relate to the character.  Yoon-tae Goo is such a zany mix of likable qualities: childlike, violent, clumsy, and cool, that we can’t help but root for the lovable underdog the whole way through.  Almost as fascinating is the villain of the piece, Park Chang-yi (“The Bad,” played by Byung-hun Lee), a near-invincible ego-maniac whose unpredictability and blood-thirsty charisma hijack the audience’s attention any time he’s on screen.

What I Didn’t Like

I can’t say that I really disliked Woo-sung Jung’s performance of bounty hunter Park Do-won (“The Good”), who is ostensibly a copy of Clint Eastwood’s Man with No Name from “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” enhanced with the reflexes of a superhero.  But I will say he was nowhere near as menacing or convincing as Eastwood, who is admittedly a hard act to follow.  Part of it would be the fault of the costume design.  Do-won is always clean shaven, constantly garbed in immaculate clothing, and looks more like a pretty boy than a bad ass desert bounty hunter.

My only other complaint is that, at the film’s climax, the filmmakers attempt to throw in a twist involved with the Yoon-tae Goo’s past that basically falls flat.  I think it is meant to provide some meaning behind all the events we have just witnessed and up the ante for the showdown to come, but ultimately it just serves as a distraction from the otherwise flawless fun.

Most Memorable Scene

Wow, this is a tough one.  While a scene involving an old diving suit helmet still makes me chuckle, I have to say that the final chase through the desert, with all three main characters harried by a band or brigands and the Japanese army takes the cake for the most outrageously good action scene I’ve witnessed since “Kill Bill.”  From its opening montage, with a map tracing the movements of each faction to the same spot, to Park Do-won’s murderous ride head-on into through the ranks of the Army, the whole sequence entertains with mounting tension and a mounting body count.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1935)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Adventure / Drama

Director: Frank Lloyd

Cast: Charles Laughton / Clark Gable / Franchot Tone

Plot

Sent on a two-year voyage to Tahiti, the crew of the British ship Bounty suffers under the sadistic Captain Bligh.  When the torments become too much for officer Fletcher Christian, he leads a mutiny for control of the vessel.

What I Liked

It’s very easy to see why “Mutiny on the Bounty” set the standard for the many high-seas adventures that would follow through the next several years.  It preceded “Captain Blood” (a similarly themed classic which I have already reviewed) by just over a month and, while it doesn’t boast as much escapist action as the aforementioned picture, it outdoes the Errol Flynn vehicle for both production values and effective melodrama.  While “Captain Blood” did have some impressive sets, many of its battle scenes clearly relied upon miniatures.  If miniatures are used in “Mutiny on the Bounty,” they aren’t easy to pick out.  Much of the film is shot truly at sea, aboard a real ship patterned off of true nineteenth century vessels.  Though the storm scenes were shot on a set, the effects and camera work combine to convey the truly terrifying power of the ocean.  Much of the island scenes were shot on location, in the South Pacific.  While “Captain Blood” may display more swashbucklery, “Mutiny on the Bounty” has the riveting look and feel of authenticity.

While the dramatic episodes of “Captain Blood” are mere throwaway interludes, “Mutiny on the Bounty” boasts a moving human drama backed by historic events.  Those events are of course distorted and simplified, as is the Hollywood custom, but that doesn’t stop the clash of personalities between Captain Bligh and Officer Christian from generating as much gale-force energy as the waves that wash over the Bounty’s deck.  Like a lot of terrific movies, this film makes excellent use of having a variety of characters confined into a small area with the necessities of survival at a premium and the dangers of the outside world always looming.  The tension mounts until the people are a greater danger to each other than any outside threat.  Cut off from civilization, family, and law, the people are left only with the inescapable fact of desperation, making for a wonderful set of moral and personal conflicts.

What I Didn’t Like

The generally accepted word on this version of “Mutiny on the Bounty” is that Charles Laughton makes the movie, bringing all the requisite fire and brimstone to disciplinarian Captain Bligh.  While the character is indeed the center of the drama and the catalyst for all that happens in the movie, I personally think Laughton’s performance is overrated.  He merely waddles about the ship with a ridiculous frown always upon his face, mostly speaking in short, monotone sentences with a few bellowing rants thrown in.  The role of Bligh has been played by some of the most respected actors of all time; Marlon Brando, and Anthony Hopkins, to name a couple.  Laughton is also a highly-regarded actor, and rightly so.  It’s not that he does a poor job as Bligh; it’s just that I expected more from him, considering the praise that has been given to him for this performance.

Unfortunately, most of the acting in the film is too over-the-top to be taken seriously by modern filmgoers.  Clark Gable in particular is unbearably hammy in his puff-chested performance of Fletcher Christian.

As is the case with virtually all action and adventure films from the heyday of the Hollywood studio system, this movie is filled with stock characters that do bring some colorful energy to the film while watching, but are ultimately forgettable.  There’s the young, green, and idealistic officer; the wealthy snob; the lovable drunk;  the burly ruffian; the list goes on.  The problem is, I just finished watching this movie and I couldn’t tell you a single one of their names.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert!*

Bligh’s insistence on constantly proving his dominance over his men has tragic consequences on multiple occasions throughout the film.  The most compelling of these moments comes when the Captain orders the ship’s surgeon on deck, despite all of the officers telling him that the man is too stick to walk.  Rather than have one of the officers punished for his failure to show, the ailing surgeon makes his way to the deck just in time to keel over in front of Bligh and the entire crew.  Here Laughton indeed lives up to his reputation, conveying Bligh’s embarrassment and fear without a word as his eyes cast about for safe harbor in an ocean of murderous looks from his own crew.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

HOMBRE (1967)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Western

Director: Martin Ritt

Cast: Paul Newman / Diane Cilento / Richard Boone

Plot

A white man who grew up among Native Americans protects a group of white people stranded in the desert from a band of robbers.

What I Liked

By 1967, the American Western was finally beginning to grow up.  The bright-colored, impeccably clean, and entirely mythical West that had been the backdrop so many popular films, good and bad, from the 1930s to the 1950s was beginning to give way to a grimmer, dirtier, and more accurate (if only slightly) West.  “Hombre” and its title character are representative of the transition happening in the genre during this period.

In earlier decades, the white cowboy or lawman was almost always depicted as a morally upright man protecting the virginal women and lovable old folks from the wily and savage Indian marauders.  This happened so often in the Western that “cowboys and Indians” remains the quality most popularly associated with the genre to this day.  This film’s hero, alternately called John Russell or Hombre, defies those conventions because he is white by birth, but Native American by upbringing.  He seeks not to protect whites from Indians and is in fact disgusted by the behavior of whites.  The women are hardly virginal and the old man a traitorous thief.  They are all a burden to him and he treats them as such.  In truth, he doesn’t need to protect any whites from Indians; he winds up having to protect them from each other.  When one character says, “One thing you’ll learn about white people; we stick together,” the irony in the statement is so evident it’s not remotely funny.  Thus, thematically, “Hombre” takes its cues from more morally ambiguous American westerns like “The Searchers” and the so-called Spaghetti Westerns of Italy than from the Golden West of classic Hollywood.

What I Didn’t Like

With its hero being sympathetic to the Native American plight, “Hombre” also catered to the liberal, youth-culture tastes that were becoming increasingly popular and prevalent in American movies in this period.  While I don’t disagree with that sympathy, in this case it is so obvious that it lacks all subtlety.  It may defy the set conventions of the Western in this period, but it does so artlessly.  The characters are rather drab; the action doesn’t generate much tension; and the preaching is too heavy-handed.  The movie features several gratuitous scenes of Newman lecturing white people on how heartlessly they treat Indians.  Blue-eyed Paul Newman looked so out of place early on with long-hair that he just seemed silly.  Worst of all, for a movie that purports so clearly to respect Native Americans, it sure does ignore them.  Real Native Americans and their lifestyles are rarely seen.

Most Memorable Scene

When Richard Boone’s swarthy bad guy comes strolling into the same station where Newman’s character waits for a stage coach out of town, Boone makes himself known as the villain of the picture quickly.  He intimidates one guy out of his ticket and clearly sets himself up as Newman’s rival for control of the small group of people who will be traveling by coach for the rest of the movie.  While most of the movie is shot outdoors, this scene takes place inside.  The lighting is simple.  There is no music.  Just a simple scene where the movie’s two most important characters meet for the first time, which winds up being the standout moment of the film.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5

KLUTE (1971)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime / Drama

Director: Alan Pakula

Cast: Donald Sutherland / Jane Fonda / Charles Chioffi

Plot

Pennsylvania private detective John Klute travels to New York City to try and find a missing friend.  There he becomes involved with call girl Bree Daniels, who is being stalked by a man who holds the secret to the disappearance.

What I Liked

Honestly, I was surprised at the on screen chemistry between Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland.  I’m not sure why, but I never would have expected those two to be so believable together.  I haven’t seen too many movies with Fonda in them.  Really, I think “On Golden Pond” would be the only one I know I’ve seen the whole way through.  She does very well as hooker Bree Daniels, who – despite the title being the last name of Sutherland’s character – is really the center of the film’s plot.  The character is also impressively well written for the era, when prostitutes were either written as lovable harlots or pathetic victims.  Bree falls somewhere between the two and possesses an intelligence and psychological depth that makes her easily more interesting than straight-faced and straight-laced John Klute, the ostensible main character.  Not that Sutherland doesn’t do well playing the character.  His is a much more subdued performance, for a subdued character.

What I Didn’t Like

There’s a lot about this film that doesn’t work.  The music tries a little too hard to be eerie.  The whodunit suspense is ruined when the bad guy’s identity is revealed to the audience far too early.  And the relationship between Daniels and Klute – as well acted as it is – really only updates the old femme-fatale-meets-detective dynamic that has been a major staple in crime, detective, and noir movies since… well… since movies started having plots.

Most Memorable Scene

The film makes a great deal out of the fact that both Klute and the bad guy are recording Bree’s phone calls.  We are routinely see tape recorders and listen to her conversations.  Though her dialogue is no longer as shocking as it would have been back in the 1970s, what remains interesting is the concept of her privacy being invaded.  In today’s era of the internet, cell phones, satellites, and reality TV, you would think the idea of someone’s phone calls being recorded would have also lost its emotional sting.  Yet somehow the scenes where we watch tape rolling and hear Bree’s voice retain their original sense of discomfort and paranoia.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action

Director: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Christian Bale / Heath Ledger / Gary Oldman

Plot

In this sequel to the “Batman Begins” reboot, Batman battles the maniacal Joker and his plans to bring chaos to Gotham City.

What I Liked

Ambitious in multiple ways, “The Dark Knight” is the best sequel to come out of the increasingly popular superhero action subgenre.  Some say it’s the greatest superhero film, period.  While I don’t agree with that second assertion (the first “Superman,” which is disappointingly not listed in my source book, is my pick for the greatest), I must say Christopher Nolan deserves tremendous credit for expanding the thematic possibilities of superhero movies, and really, mainstream action films overall.  What he has created is a standard, good versus evil effects extravaganza that has all the necessities for escapist entertainment, yet which somehow also has a great deal of moral complexity and intellectual substance.

There is a fabulous scene rather early in the film, where secret vigilante Bruce Wayne, his ballerina date, district attorney Harvey Dent, and assistant D.A. Rachel Dawes all sit at a nice dinner together debating things like the difference between law and justice, the dichotomy of chaos and order, the fragile balance between safety and freedom, and the corrupting nature of power.  The entire conversation boils down to what makes a hero and what makes a villain.  For the rest of the film, Nolan – who also co-wrote the script – constantly puts these concepts to the test, often using these same characters as his unfortunate lab rats.  Rather than having Batman show his heroism only by bravely putting himself in harm’s way, Nolan (through the Joker) presents Batman with tougher choices.  It’s not always so simple as throwing yourself in front of a bullet to save another life.  What happens when saving that one person means the sacrifice of something greater than that one person’s life?

For those who really don’t care about the moral quandaries of it all, there’s plenty of stuff going boom, some truly shocking plot twists, and enough fight scenes to meet the necessary action film quota.  Even more thrilling, though, than the bombs and guns and fists and blood is the character of the Joker, creepily reimagined by Nolan, actor Heath Ledger, and certainly plenty of costume and makeup folks.  This Joker is far less cartoonish and absolutely more terrifying than any seen on the screen before, not only because of his disfigured look and demented behavior, but because he is a man who no one can reason with or intimidate.  To Batman, for whom putting himself on the line physically has always sufficed, the Joker presents a new kind of psychological and moral challenge.  Heath Ledger’s performance is riveting, making the character at times haunting, at times disgusting, and at others somehow likable, sometimes all within the space of a single scene.  His Joker is the most larger-than-life villain I’ve seen in movies in a long time.

What I Didn’t Like

The final fight scene, where Batman uses a kind of electro-magnetic vision to fight through several floors of an office building full of baddies just feels like a poor excuse for video game cross-marketing.  I would have preferred that the filmmakers rely less on the special effects gimmick and put in some more interesting fight choreography.  Something other than convoluted shadows bumping against each other.

Most Memorable Scene

One of the things I find most intriguing about really good movies is the choices in the creative process.  Very often these are choices made by the director, in this case a choice Nolan makes following the movie’s most devastating moment.  After several minutes of mounting anxiety, one of the movie’s main characters is blown to bits.  Nolan follows with a montage depicting the surviving characters.  The terrific choice Nolan makes is to include no sound.

Think to some of the moments in your life where you or someone you know has experienced an overwhelming amount of emotion.  Maybe they said or did nothing, but just stared.  Maybe they laughed or cried so hard that no sound came out.  Nolan was aware of this and, instead of taking the easy route of following the death with the sound of fire, crying, or dramatic music, we hear nothing.  We see Jim Gordon standing silently; Harvey Dent writhing in fiery agony; and the Joker joy riding through the streets of Gotham in a police car, his head out the window like a dog savoring the smell in the air.  Because Nolan allows this moment to transcend at least one of our senses, the audience experiences the same shocked disbelief of the characters and finally realizes what is at stake with an evil like the Joker's set loose.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

BATMAN (1989)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Michael Keaton / Jack Nicholson / Kim Basinger

Plot

Wealthy philanthropist Bruce Wayne spends his nights as the costumed vigilante Batman, protecting Gotham City from the psychotic mob kingpin known as the Joker.

What I Liked

Before this movie came out, most of the general public’s concept of Batman still rested firmly in the old 1960s television series, where Adam West engaged in all kind of campy wam-bam-thwack fun.  Though the character in the comics had gone through plenty of changes since his creation in 1939, he had always been one of comicdom’s most grim heroes.  It wasn’t until director Tim Burton’s take on Batman was released in 1989 that the character received the mature treatment he deserved on screen.

I still remember watching this one in the theaters.  My dad took me on my tenth birthday, July 8, 1989.  I thought it was great then and I still do today.  The fight sequences were thrilling for the time.  The sets were mind-blowingly huge and meticulously detailed.  Danny Elfman's score is a just-right mixture of bombast and gloom.  The script is strong with sharp dialogue and well-rendered characters.  And Burton brings his stylish darkness to all of the above, making Gotham City a fantasy city that is one part Depression-era gangster town, one part 1980s New York, and one part Fritz Lang’s futuristic Metropolis.

On the surface, Michael Keaton might seem like a poor choice to play the most formidable human without super powers in the DC Universe; he was primarily known as a comedic actor prior to this release and was not particularly tall, intimidating, or muscular.  Despite this, he brings an off-beat eccentricity to Batman’s alter ego, Bruce Wayne and is surprisingly convincing as the Caped Crusader as well.  I tried to think of another actor from that era who would have made a better Batman and I came up with no one.  For all that, Keaton is still shown up by Jack Nicholson, brilliantly cast as that merry maker of mayhem, the Joker.  Since “The Dark Knight” was released, I’ve had to listen to people saying that Heath Ledger’s performance outdid Nicholson’s.  That’s simply not true.  Granted, the Joker written and designed by others for Ledger was certainly more compelling than any earlier screen incarnation.  And, yes, Ledger was perfect in the role.  But Nicholson was just as good as the Joker that had been written and designed for him.  Before Nicholson, the Joker had been Cesar Romero’s goofball clown.  Quite simply, Nicholson destroyed that image and made the Joker the best super-villain in movie history to that point.  A great deal of what Ledger did in “The Dark Night” started with Nicholson’s being the first actor to make the Joker a truly frightening and believably psychotic bad guy.  He completely steals the movie from big time stars and talents like Keaton and Kim Basinger, none of them showing even a glimmer of the on-screen charisma Nicholson can generate with something as simple as a smirk.

Plus, the Batmobile in this film is still the coolest-looking of them all.

What I Didn’t Like

Unfortunately, the film has one badly-timed lull in action right as the drama is supposed to be reaching its apex.  After a blazing action sequence where the Joker confronts the Batman and his Bat-Wing head-on in the streets of Gotham City and Batman crashes on the steps of Gotham Cathedral, the Joker kidnaps perpetual damsel in distress Vicki Vale and begins to ascend the cathedral tower.  I suppose the villain’s slow rise up the steps and the hero’s unrelenting pursuit is supposed to also create a mounting tension in the audience.  It doesn't.  Instead, the heart-pounding intensity of the prior scene is followed by a mellow and terribly long climb up some steps.  I clearly remember one man near me falling asleep and snoring in the theater at this point and the ten year old me wanting to get back to the action.  Of course, everything does pick up and the film again reaches an appropriately thrilling crescendo.  Luckily this is the only moment of the film that features such bad timing, but because it occurs at such a key moment in the film it sticks out horribly.

And, as a comic nerd, I was always bothered by the fact that they have Jack Napier kill Bruce's parents.  Joe Chill killed the Waynes!

Most Memorable Scene

Jack Napier’s transformation into the Joker is revealed when he returns to crime boss Carl Grissom’s penthouse/office.  From his shadowy entrance to the scene’s close with a blood-spattered headline, it all points to just how amazing Nicholson is going to be as the film’s most interesting character.  “Wait’ll they get a load of me,” he muses.  Indeed.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

ZERO KELVIN (1995)

A.K.A.: Kjaerlighetens Kjotere

Country: Norway / Sweden

Genre(s): Adventure / Drama

Director: Hans Petter Moland

Cast: Gard Eidsvold / Stellan Skarsgard / Bjorn Sundquist

Plot

Idealistic poet Henrik Larsen accepts a contract to live as a hunter and trapper in the icy wilds of Greenland, where he stays in a secluded cabin with two other men.  He soon finds himself in a struggle with the group’s leader, Randbaek, an embittered man whose violent methods cause Larsen to fear for his life.

What I Liked

A character driven drama whose intensity is heightened by the dangers of its inhospitable setting, “Zero Kelvin” is capable of thrilling a wide ranging audience.  Really, the basis of the drama is one that filmmakers have been making use of for a long time.  A small group of people are confined in a small space to survive the dangers outside and wind up realizing that the real danger might be each other.  It’s a common theme in horror and thriller films.  However, the characters and dangers are rarely so effective as they are in “Zero Kelvin.”  The script is perfectly paced, the performances flawless, and the cinematography makes terrific use of the menacing landscape to bring a constant sense of foreboding.

Ultimately the true testament to the film’s strength is that all of these elements combine into a film that becomes ever more thrilling as it goes along, never letting go of the viewer’s attention.  The longer one watches, the more it works its magic until the audience is completely enthralled by this frost-bitten nightmare.

What I Didn’t Like

As mentioned earlier, the small-confined-group-turns-against-itself dynamic has been done countless times before.  This movie adds the extra contrived element of throwing together three men from very different backgrounds.  Randbaek is an old sea man, a grizzled killer (basically, Quint from “Jaws”); Larsen a love-struck poet; and Holm is the ultra-rational scientist.  One could read a lot into that.  For example, each character could be said to represent a different aspect of the human soul: hate, love, and thought.  That kind of easy simplicity makes the film open to interpretation and therefore likable for a broad audience (including this viewer).  But I must admit it did come off as over-simplified, the differences between the characters sometimes too cliché.  Thankfully, it all works so damn well that none of that really mattered to me until I had finished being mesmerized by every moment of the film (at least every moment after Larsen gets to Greenland) and went to write this entry.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

For much of the film, Holm does his best to remain neutral between Larsen and Randbaek.  When the hatred between the pair gets physical, Holm finally acts.  Those actions do not bring the peace he hopes for, but instead up the ante for the animosity inside the cabin.  Things are never again the same between the three of them and each man is now locked on the path to his destiny.  Holm’s finally taking action, then, is the true turning point of the film, taking things from a battle of wills to a life-and-death struggle.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

HENRY V (1944)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Drama / Epic / Propaganda / War

Director: Laurence Olivier

Cast: Laurence Olivier / Renee Asherson / Harcourt Williams

Plot

King Henry V of England heroically leads his army on the French battlefield of Agincourt.

What I Liked

Significant as the first movie adaptation of Shakespeare to incorporate a truly cinematic approach, “Henry V” was a colorful and eye-popping epic for British films of its time.  This was of course important for the filmmakers, who were essentially working for the British government to make a propaganda film in the midst of World War II.  What better inspiration for the British people than to witness a dazzling adventure about the single greatest victory the English people ever accomplished, that of Agincourt, where Henry V personally accompanied his outnumbered troops into battle and inflicted roughly 10,000 casualties on the enemy, while sustaining only 112 casualties of their own?

The film might be full of bright colors, finely decorated sets, and feature a historic battle, but the real reason for enjoying this film is Laurence Olivier in the title role.  Despite acting with all the loud bellows and flamboyant gesturing of a Shakespearean stage actor, he nonetheless possesses a natural star quality that overcomes his silly overacting.  He brings all the necessary charisma and confidence to embody a national icon like Henry convincingly.  Much of this film is now badly outdated, but a larger-than-life presence like Olivier’s never grows old.

What I Didn’t Like

As a director, Olivier made the interesting choice to present the first motion picture adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Henry V” to his audience as though they were sitting in the Globe Theater in Elizabethan times, witnessing the Globe’s players put on a live performance.  I’m still not sure how I feel about this approach.  On one hand, I think it’s an interesting statement of the film’s intent to remain as loyal to the source material (and the history of English drama) as possible.  On the other hand, if I wanted to watch a play, I’d have gone to a play.

Most of the scenes are shot in front of obviously painted backgrounds displaying rolling hills, towns, or castles.  These are so ridiculously obvious and ill-proportioned that I would almost have to respect them as artfully surreal, had this been intentional.  I was glad when the camera eventually passed through a curtain to take us out of the Globe sets and into a real field, where the battle scenes would eventually take place.  Unfortunately, after the battle is won, we return to the hokey and pathetically dated sets.

Most Memorable Scene

While the battle of Agincourt itself is the main focus of both the film’s drama and its action, as well as the centerpiece to the advertising for the film, these scenes no longer retain the adventurous appeal they once did.  They are simply too tame and bloodless to be believable, nor would they prove at all exciting for a modern viewer, except by comparison with the dialogue-heavy remainder of the movie.  Personally, I found the most interesting segment to now be the series of nighttime scenes where Henry, garbed as a common soldier, travels from one camp fire to the next to assess the minds of his men.  These moments humanize the otherwise bombastic King and also help build suspense for the fighting to come.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5

THE BIGAMIST (1953)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Ida Lupino

Cast: Edmund O’Brien / Joan Fontaine / Ida Lupino

Plot

A traveling salesman juggles two wives in two cities until an investigation by an adoption agency forces him to come clean.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert*

Another one of those deviously subversive jabs at the wholesome image of suburbia in 1950s America, “The Bigamist” dares to infiltrate the sacred confines of marriage with the seediness and distrust of film noir.  Directed by actress Ida Lupino (who also plays Phillys, the second wife) at a time when movies were creatively dominated by men, the movie provides a frank and rare portrait of the insecurities and hypocrisies of men, exemplified by Harry Graham, a husband so turned off by his wife’s becoming a career woman that he goes so far as to attempt to pick up strange women on tour busses.  Yet, even when he’s successful at this, he remains pathetically indecisive, reluctant to even kiss the other woman and yet also unwilling to quit seeing her and return to his wife.  When he finally does have sex with the other woman, he isn’t even man enough to break things off with his wife, or even tell her about the affair.  When Phyllis becomes pregnant, he marries her, without even letting on that he is already married.  As Harry recounts all of this to an adoption agency worker who has finally outed him, he comes off as a complete wimp, wallowing in self-pity and acting as though he never had any choice but to do exactly as he is.

The irony is that Harry’s plight is understandable for a man of his era, his decisions constantly guided by the conflicting values of a time when people were expected to strive for the utmost normalcy.  When the mask of that misguided concept of normalcy shows cracks (the inability to conceive a child; a career woman for a wife) begin to appear, Harry winds up betraying the charade altogether and loses his identity altogether.  In another interesting twist on the American dream, this time one constantly perpetuated by Hollywood in these days, the film ends not with a classic happy ending, but instead with a a musing by a judge on guilt and punishment.

The fact that Mr. Jordan so avidly pries into Graham’s private life based on nothing more than an uneasy feeling about Graham might have been an all-too-recognizable bit of political commentary might have been an all too familiar bit of political commentary during the height of McCarthyism.

What I Didn’t Like

My source book compares Lupino’s use of simplicity and understated acting (for example, the sideways glances and avoidance of eye contact between characters) to the work of innovative silent era director Carl Theodor Dreyer.  Honestly, I don’t see it.  Dreyer’s films have a much more intense emotionality matched with the cinematic style of a visionary.  Lupino’s film, while it has its moments of subtle moodiness, amounts to nothing more than a relationship drama draped with the compelling shadows of noir style and social relevance.  It never once approaches Dreyer.

Most Memorable Scene

The tour bus scene is a fascinating few minutes of both characterization and social commentary.  A man whose marriage has failed to attain the ideal he desires, also fails at flirting with another woman, all while they and others tour Beverly Hills, gawking at the homes of the very people whose on-screen perfection they have all failed to achieve (Jimmy Stewart, Barbara Stanwyck, Edmund Gwenn, etc.).

My Rating: 3 out of 5

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Epic

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis / Paul Dano / Dillon Freasier

Plot

Oil man Daniel Plainview and his adoptive son H.W. arrive in California rancher territory looking to exploit the area for its oil.  Daniel finds himself in a battle of wills with Eli Sunday, a self-promoting local preacher.

What I Liked

I suppose the greatest compliment I could pay “There Will Be Blood” is to start with saying that it serves as a very worthy (if entirely unofficial) companion piece to “Citizen Kane,” which is itself regarded as the greatest of all American films by a great many critics and filmgoers.  Thematically, the two movies are virtually inseparable; greed, success, failure, alienation, competition, ambition, capitalism, and corruption seep and ooze in and out of every scene of both films.  The obvious differences in time period and setting join differences in technical approach to separate the films creatively, but few if any movies have encompassed all of those aforementioned themes with such intelligence and depth of feeling since “Kane” as does Paul Thomas Anderson’s grim epic.

Like the earlier classic, “There Will Be Blood” features a titanic performance from a master actor, Daniel Day-Lewis giving Daniel Plainview all the imposing will and maniacal determination of Orson Welles’ Charles Foster Kane, and then some.  On a first viewing, Day-Lewis is what makes the picture, his performance simply so awe-inspiring it grabs the viewer’s consciousness and wrings from it every last drop of attention.  As was Kane, Plainview is one of the most compelling protagonists in the history of film.  However, multiple viewings allow the audience to take in a more well-rounded view of the movie as a whole and reveal there is much more to admire than one character and the man who plays him.

Though “There Will Be Blood” has an entirely different cinematic approach from “Kane,” it is nonetheless full of its own evocative visions.  The presence (or lack thereof) of God is another recurring theme of the movie, and Robert Elswit’s Academy Award winning cinematography captures the power of landscape in a way that implies that if God doesn’t stand always at the ready to wipe out everyone and everything, something unnamable and untouchable (nature?...fate?...Satan?) does.  The wide open shots of barren landscapes be speckled with tiny men and their fragile machines are as ominous as they are gorgeous.  Yet at the same time the camera somehow catches the minutiae of gestures and glances, nuts and bolts, capturing an authenticity and grittiness in the details.  Hardly a shot goes by that isn’t covered in either dust, blood, oil, or all three.  Their presence unnerves.

What I Didn’t Like

Much of the plot moves at a deliberate pace, almost as though Paul Thomas Anderson, who wrote the script as well as directed the film, wanted his film to be of an epic length to match its epic subject.  The performances, characters, and visuals of the movie are so mesmerizing that turning off the movie won’t even occur to most viewers, but those wanting action, flash, or melodrama will certainly find this movie tedious.

Most Memorable Scene

The movie ends with a scene of deviously absurd violence in a setting (a bowling alley inside of a mansion) that is as disorienting as the action on screen.  It all seems so far removed from the blackened foreboding of the oil fields, yet it is ironically here that we leave Daniel Plainview in the film’s bleakest moment.  Following the simple line, “I’m finished!,” the film cuts to credits, leaving the audience to wonder if Plainview has just secured his most personal victory or has just damned himself to unrecoverable defeat.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

THE THIN MAN (1934)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Crime

Director: W.S. Van Dyke

Cast: William Powell / Myrna Loy / Nat Pendleton

Plot

A former private detective is encouraged by his wealthy wife to get involved in a case involving a missing scientist and his murdered mistress.

What I Liked

Before the days when every movie that makes a buck spawned half a dozen sequels, “The Thin Man” unexpectedly kicked off one of the first successful non-serial movie franchises.  Featuring two thoroughly likable protagonists in married couple Nick and Nora Charles, “The Thin Man” clearly left audiences wanting more of the duo, resulting in five sequels.  Part-time sleuths and full-time partiers, Nick and Nora would have been the perfect anecdote for Depression-troubled audiences in the thirties.  The film’s melding of exciting mystery with witty characters makes for an irresistible charm that can still win over a modern viewer.  Without resorting to simple screwball antics or ugly put-downs, actors William Powell and Myrna Loy engage in some wickedly funny banter, snapping off sarcastic one-liners you’ll want to jot down for future use.

What I Didn’t Like

MGM did not expect the film to be the success it became, and so they did not give it the production resources other projects might have received.  Thus there is little in the way of action, stunts, or effects; nor is the murder plot all that intriguing.  While the screenwriters built up a complex-enough gauntlet of twists and turns for their heroes to navigate on their way to solving the mystery, the crime element of the film definitely feels like the hastily thrown-together plot that it indeed was.  However, it is still nonetheless fun to guess who among the film’s many quirky characters is responsible for the film’s murders, if only for the nostalgia of playing a good old fashioned game of “Clue.”  And really, Powell and Loy make for all the fun any film could need.

Most Memorable Scene

Any of the scenes where the crime solving couple are at home alone with each other are full of playful banter and antics that make the entire movie more than worthwhile.  Typically I despise the lovable lush in a movie (Anyone whose known a real alcoholic knows they usually aren’t so fun to be around).  But Powell’s childlike Nick Charles swallows down liquor like it’s the spinach to his Popeye and just gets all the more funny for it.  Loy’s Nora keeps up with him in the alcohol department but brings a sexy slyness that is equally irresistible.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

LOLITA (1962)

Country: U.K. / U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Drama

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Cast: James Mason / Sue Lyon / Shelley Winters

Plot

A literature professor becomes sexually obsessed with his landlady’s teenage daughter.

What I Liked

From what I’ve read, “Lolita” is one of the least admired films of director Stanley Kubrick.  While I haven’t yet seen all of Kubrick’s films, I’ve seen several and I have to say that it ranks up there with “The Shining” in my top two of those that I have seen.  Indeed, it’s one of my favorite films of the 1960s.

Taking on the shocking subject matter of Vladimir Nabokov’s novel and working from a script written by Nabokov himself, the film hardly skirts around the novel’s controversial sexuality.  As was the case with the novel, the film’s frankness and perversity was what made the film so outrageous for its time.  However, the shock value has very little to do with the true greatness of this movie.  The true source of the movie’s power is in what Nabokov, Kubrick, and crew do with their twisted tale, how they toy with the expectations of the audience.  The film works as well as a dark comedy as it does as a psychological thriller.  Where one would expect teenage Lolita to be the victim, accosted by middle-aged Professor Humbert, the reverse is just as true.  Most importantly, a squeamish disorientation of all of the wholesome Americana popularly associated with the film’s Mayberry-like setting pervades virtually every social interaction involving Humbert.  For 1960s audiences, things like this weren’t supposed to happen in small town America.  To the film’s credit, that unsettling discomfort can still tingle the spines of twenty-first century viewers.

The stand-out quality that makes “Lolita” so entertaining is its performances.  James Mason, Sue Lyon, Shelley Winters, and Peter Sellers all do an impeccable job of making absolutely despicable and pathetic individuals fascinating and engaging.  While we never actually like any one of their characters,  we cannot take our eyes off of any one of them.  Mason gives the best performance I’ve seen from him, one that almost single-handedly makes him one of my absolute favorites of the era.  Lyon is alluring enough to make the audience feel the guilt Humbert doesn’t, and keeps us guessing as to whether she is just a selfish teenager or an unscrupulous temptress.  Winters somehow gives a both hilarious and heartbreaking performances as a lonely widow whose desire to be the ideal wife and mother drives her to become the exact opposite.  And Sellers improvises brilliantly through a handful of appearances as the perverse playwright Clare Quilty, stealing the scene from anyone he shares it with (an impressive feat, since that is usually Mason).

What I Didn’t Like

Few movies from the 1960s are better.  I can’t think of anything.  It’s fascinating from start to finish.

Most Memorable Scene

The opening scene features a post-orgy ping pong game confrontation between drunken Clare Quilty and reluctant Professor Humbert.  Both actors are magnificent.  It’s an enthralling introduction to both characters and does a marvelous job of making the audience want more.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

THE MUPPET MOVIE (1979)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Musical

Director: James Frawley

Cast: Jim Henson / Frank Oz / Dave Goelz

Plot

Kermit the Frog and his merry band of misfits (Miss Piggy, Fozzy Bear, Gonzo, Animal, etc.) make their way across the country, bound for Hollywood and stardom.

What I Liked

Jim Henson’s charming oddball puppets are up to their usual television tricks (stirring up havoc, that is) throughout their debut feature film.  The difference here is that they’ve been removed from the confines of a television studio and are set loose upon the entire United States of America, allowing room for zaniness of a much larger scale.

Bustling with jokes so bad they’re cute and characters so strange they’re even cuter, “The Muppet Movie” will endear itself to anyone who has enjoyed the old TV show.  In fact, chances are, if you were a fan of the show when it still aired, or if you took the time to enjoy the show after its cancellation, you’ve probably already seen and thoroughly delighted at this movie.  I count myself mostly among the second group and I do remember watching this movie as a child.  The only memories I still retained of it over two decades later was the “Rainbow Connection” song and the cameo by Big Bird, who I would have thrilled at seeing because I grew up watching “Sesame Street.”

As an adult I most enjoyed the earnest, beleaguered Kermit the Frog’s refusal to reject or resent any of the trouble-making characters he comes across.  His simple dedication to friendship is absolutely corny, but that’s exactly what makes Kermit such an endearing character.

What I Didn’t Like

Earlier I mentioned that if you enjoyed the off-beat, cornball brand of humor of the original Muppets television show, you’ll enjoy the movie.  Well, conversely, if the Muppets were too off-beat or too cornball for you, you can expect more of the same from a movie bearing their name.  As for me, I found it a good time.

It is of course the now iconic characters that make “The Muppet Movie” so enjoyable.  The plot itself is a simpleton’s take on any Hollywood-or-bust movie plot ever made.  It’s a basic road movie constructed around gratuitous scenes that exist for no other reason than to conveniently throw in all of the show’s most popular characters by the time we reach the movie’s conclusion.  Not that anyone watching the movie will care.  Just as Kermit’s simple honesty is what we love about him, the plot’s simplicity allows us to enjoy the characters and humor all the more.

Most Memorable Scene

Just as was the case on TV, various celebrities have chuckle-inducing walk-on appearances (Dom DeLuise, James Coburn, Mel Brooks, Bob Hope, and Elliott Gould, for example).  I was pleasantly surprised to see my favorite comedic actor, Steve Martin, make a cameo as a sarcastic waiter for the romantic dinner between Kermit and Miss Piggy.  He only has a few minutes, but he’s terrific.

My Rating: 4 out of 5