KIPPUR (2000)

Country: Israel

Genre(s): War

Director: Amos Gitai

Cast: Liron Levo / Tomer Russo / Uri Klauzner

Plot

A helicopter rescue team spends the Yom Kippur War transporting the dead and wounded, witnessing first-hand the horrors of war.

What I Liked

Apparently director Amos Gitai got his start as a documentary filmmaker.  Watching “Kippur,” that does not surprise me at all.  A dramatized film based on his own experiences in the Yom Kippur war, the film’s greatness lies in the utterly convincing realism Gitai brings to it. Watching it, there is definitely the sense that the characters, places, and events not only did happen but are happening in real time before your eyes.  The clothing, the hair styles, the military paraphernalia, the characters, even the film it is shot on, feel flawlessly authentic to the time, place, and situation.

That the film feels like a matter-of-fact documentary is not to say that it doesn’t have a very clear sense of style and art behind it.  Gitai makes sparing use of the musical soundtrack, heightening the intimacy and documentary-like feel of the film.  Most of the background sound is pure noise: engines, gunfire, bombs, helicopters.  However, when he does use the music, it comes with a subtle yet important emotional effect.  With an eerie, atonal sound, the music brings an otherworldly feel to some of the happenings on screen, particularly toward the end as the helicopter crew fly above the wartorn, lifeless landscape of their homeland.  It’s a foreboding depiction of war’s inhumanity and certainly one of the film’s most memorable moments.  Throughout the film, Gitai brilliantly captures the claustrophobia and dehumanization of the war, as bodies are stacked upon bodies, living and dead in the helicopters, transports, and in the camera.  Even the opening and closing sex scenes, are just a lot of grinding flesh pressed upon more grinding flesh.  It ain’t pretty, but that’s the point.

What I Didn’t Like

 Definitely not the feel good movie of any year, “Kippur” is certainly not meant to be.  Don’t come into to this movie looking to feel inspired or thrilled with adventure and heroism.  In fact there’s very little of traditional action fare here.  Through most of the movie, the main characters are driving around in a car, talking, flying around in a helicopter, or collecting casualties from battles that have already happened.  For some, this film will be either a downer or a snoozer or both, but, as someone who truly went through the things we see on the screen, I’m sure part of Gitai’s goal was not to glorify war or make it seem exciting at all.

Most Memorable Scene

Surely the most emotionally effective scene of the whole thing takes place as the rescue crew find themselves trying to pull a dying soldier out of the mire of a horribly torn up battlefield.  With tanks prowling the background like mammoth demons, the crew becomes immersed in a pit of mud.  In as real and frightening a depiction of Sisyphean hell as you will ever see, they continually falter and drop the injured man back into the quagmire until it is they who need to be rescued both physically and mentally.  Devoid of gore or flash, it is nonetheless one of the most horrific and emotionally torturous war scenes you will ever see.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

MY FAIR LADY (1964)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Musical / Romance

Director: George Cukor

Cast: Audrey Hepburn / Rex Harrison / Stanley Holloway

Plot
Wealthy Professor Higgins takes in poor Eliza Doolittle from the streets, intending to teach her to speak proper English, and become a renowned English lady.

What I Liked

“My Fair Lady” melds the sentimentality of Hollywood musicals, the charm of stage plays, and the amazement of the best motion picture epics into an impressive treat for the senses.  There are the requisite memorable melodies and several entertaining performances, but the real stars of the show are the sets and costumes.  Shot nearly half a century ago, the colors remain potent, the costumes iconic, and the many sets as impressive as any sound stage production I’ve ever seen.  Whether we’re in the bustling, dingy streets, the immaculate well-to-do neighborhoods, or a majestic ballroom, the craftsmanship and artistry invested in the settings are on a level usually reserved for the most extravagant of historical epics.  They turn turn-of-the-century London into a delightful and romantic fantasy land that would make Walt Disney jealous.

Speaking of animated, outdoing stars Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison for charm is Stanley Holloway as Hepburn’s drunken father, Alfred Doolittle.  Typically I’m not one for the entirely unrealistic portrayals of alcoholics as lovable scamps, which is exactly what happens here.  That’s one cliché that can’t have based on any truth at all.  However, Holloway is just so damn irresistible in his vivacity and bravado.  He steals every scene he’s in, makes amusing use of the sets he performs in, and generally pulls out all the stops in bringing fun to a movie that needs it.

Compared to co-stars Hepburn and Holloway, Rex Harrison turns in a decidedly understated performance with a subdued but very present charm of his own.  Almost speaking rather than singing his songs, his performance is more natural and believable than anyone else in the film.  He is convincing as self-centered Professor Higgins, and his awestruck perplexity at Eliza’s behavior provides a great deal of the movie’s comedic strength.

What I Didn’t Like

As for Audrey Hepburn herself... well, she was simply okay.  Of course she is lovely and her look in the film is as iconic as looks get.  But beyond her pretty face, she didn’t have much here.  Early on she’s annoyingly over-the-top with her bestial screaming.  We get it, you lack manners.  That doesn’t mean you have to be a harpy with a Cockney accent.  When she is finally tamed by Higgins (not really a spoiler, is it?) she’s just plain boring.  Hepburn never seemed to find a likable middle for her character, or maybe it just wasn’t written.  Regardless, I thought her male counterparts outshined her, in performance if not looks.

Beautiful the film may be, but the fact is that, generally speaking, I am just not a fan of musicals.  At nearly three hours in length, this one in particular was hard to get through.  I don’t know how many starts and stops it took me to get through this one.  Unfortunately I just find nearly ever movie of this genre boring, even the best of them.

It might have helped if, for all of its production values, the film had a little more complex choreography.  When combined with effective camera use, intricate and interesting movements is one thing I admire about a good musical.  There wasn’t much of any of that here.

Most Memorable Scene

“Get Me to the Church on Time” is one of two musical numbers where Holloway is allowed to shine and the one where he is the most brilliant.  The lovable drunk character is turned into something of a Bacchus, a resplendent god of debauchery, glowing with joy.  Mr. Doolittle lives the life he loves and loves the life he lives and those of us watching have a great time doing that.  It's not the best song of the lot ("The Street Where You Live" is) and I may not like the concept of a drunk being vivacious and charismatic, but Holloway and filmmakers make me forget all criticism and just enjoy the entertainment.  I find that extremely rare in a musical.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

LAST TANGO IN PARIS (1972)

A.K.A.: Ultimo tango a Parigi

Country: France

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Bernardo Bertolucci

Cast: Marlon Brando / Maria Schneider / Jean-Pierre Leaud

 

Plot

Weary of the superficial world around them, two lonely people begin an anonymous and loveless sexual affair hidden away in an abandoned apartment to which they both have a key.

What I Liked

Given its reputation for pushing the boundaries of sex scenes in a major motion picture, “Last Tango in Paris” is surprisingly un-erotic; and that’s clearly intentional.   The scenes are shot very matter-of-factly.  There’s no sexy lighting, coloring, or camera angles, no outlandish locales, positions, or scenarios.  Just very straight-forward shots of people fucking on the floor of a mostly empty apartment.  It is not the director’s intention to make the viewer feel like a participant in the sex, nor to make him want to be.  Instead the sex is presented as though it were part of a documentary, or a medical or psychological study.  So if the sex isn't used to titilate, it's used to invoke something else entirely.

More loathing than lust, the sex here is done as part of a cycle of personal turmoil and anger in which both participants were trapped long before they met.  In the case of the female participant, Jeanne, portrayed with finesse and believability by relative upstart Maria Schneider, the relationship offers the closest thing to truth and honesty she knows, which ends up being why she cannot seem to break herself of the habit.  Her fiancé, obsessed with making a film and with becoming what society expects of him, wants to make her part of his artificial world but has no clue what she wants or who she is, nor does he care.  So she fancies herself in love with Marlon Brando’s male lead, Paul, who really is nothing more than a lonely misogynist.  Eventually his capacity for hate and violence destroys all that’s good in her.  Sexy but vulnerable, Schneider plays this role with the subtlety and art that co-star Brando lacks.

What I Didn’t Like

Much has been made of Marlon Brando’s performance.  Apparently he improvised a great deal in this film, something he did with greater frequency as he got older, more egotistical, and lazier.   Brando was a magnificent, groundbreaking actor, it’s true.  But I found that in “Last Tango in Paris” he overindulges himself in playing the depressed, sadistic, and contempt-filled Paul.  The character has been called misogynistic, but I feel this is a misnomer.  Paul hates everyone, male or female, and Brando portrays this part well, effectively coming off as a hulking, demonic beast, a permanent Mr. Hyde.  The problem is that the character just isn’t believable as a real human being.  If you ask me, Brando may have had the more interesting character, but it was Schneider who stole the movie from him with her down-to-earth performance.

Beyond that, watching two people engage in a self-destructive relationship seems to be the only point of the film.  True, it explores the self-destructive nature of people in general, but it does so in a way that is neither interesting or engaging.  I just didn’t feel like I had learned, gained, or enjoyed anything (aside from Schneider’s looks) by watching this movie.  Even Paris, universally regarded as one of the most beautiful and erotic cities in the world, is rendered lifeless and boring (intentionally) by Bertolucci.

Most Memorable Scene

The finger-in-the-ass and the butter-rape scenes are the most notorious moments of “Last Tango in Paris,” but for me the most interesting scenes were those Schneider shared with Jean-Pierre Leaud in the role of her fiancé, Tom.  Tom’s insistence on building a world of lifeless artifice around himself and Jeanne and her hesitation to break out of that mold is the cause of her obsession with being violated and degraded by Paul.  From a psychological standpoint, the Jeanne-Tom relationship brings a depth to the film that fleshes out the otherwise pointless victimization that goes on between Paul and Jeanne.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5

REDS (1981)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Epic / Romance

Director: Warren Beatty

Cast: Warren Beatty / Diane Keaton / Jack Nicholson

Plot

Leftist journalists Jack Reed and Louise Bryant live out a tumultuous romance while documenting and participating in the political turmoil surrounding World War I, the Russian Revolution, and the rise of the U.S.S.R.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert*

The history of motion pictures reflects a fascination with the Russian Revolution, and certainly obsession with the subjects of communism, patriotism, and capitalism.  Since the development of the movies as an art form and industry happened in the same years as the Revolution and the consequent decades of socialist vs. capitalist struggle, it’s not surprising that motion pictures are drawn to these issues.  Some of these films are quality, some are shit, but nearly all make a clear and definitive stand on one side of the argument or the other.  From “Battleship Potemkin”  to “Animal Farm” to “Red Dawn,” filmmakers have used the same political struggle to create rallying cries for their chosen side and one-sided indictments of the opposition.  Warren Beatty’s “Reds” is likely the best movie I’ve seen to take on these themes simply for showing the failures of both systems.

Of course the title and the fact that its main characters are leftists would have one who has never seen the film think that it is yet another one-sided piece of propaganda, idealizing communism and making martyrs out of radicals.  Certainly the film is sympathetic to its heroes and their cause.  However, “Reds” also has plenty of criticism for the Soviets and their government.  Some might be surprised to see that John Reed’s transformation from journalist to politician to propagandist is portrayed not as ideal but as tragedy, as his hopes for the burgeoning U.S.S.R. are dashed and his passion for change betrays him.  Ultimately, the film is about two staunch individualists trying to get along not only with one another but with a world that despises individualism.

The politics of the film aside, “Reds” is really magnificent storytelling and engaging entertainment at its best.  Some of the finest and most charismatic actors ever to grace a movie screen work together here to bring us likeable, interesting, and believable characters.  They are brilliant and romantic but never idealized, never above selfishness, hypocrisy, and hurting one another.  They are beautifully blemished souls populating a huge and fascinating historical backdrop.  Peppering this tale are real life interviews with the men and women who knew Reed and Bryant.  These interviews are woven seamlessly into the story, sometimes anecdotal, other times charming, and always thought-provoking in their assessment of the real people as well as of the subjectivity of human memory.  Epic in scale, energized with passion, and honest in vision, “Reds” is as satisfying as the movies get.

What I Didn’t Like

Truly, I can’t find a flaw with this movie.  I suppose it isn’t exactly revolutionary in execution, breaking no new ground in technique or art, but it is nonetheless impeccably executed.  Some may find its more than three hours in length daunting, but not me.  The time flew by.  Indeed I never felt like I was a viewer of a movie, but rather a witness to fascinating people and events.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

Interestingly, no one moment sticks out above the others for me.  They were all intriguing and entertaining.  However, in the interest of continuing to pick a scene, I’ll go with the moment capture in the film’s poster, the reunion of Jack and Louise after spending years questing after one another and being forbidden each other’s company because of the paranoia and bureaucracy of competing nations.  Betrayed by the world around them and ignoring the constant threats to their lives, they refuse to abandon each other and, when they do eventually find each other again, all of the film’s emotions culminate in an exhausted but adoring embrace.  You'll either be fighting back tears or outright bawling.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

WITHIN OUR GATES (1920)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Oscar Micheaux

Cast: Evelyn Preer / Flo Clements / Charles Lucas

Plot

Coming to the North from the segregated rural south, an African American woman looks for funding for a Southern school for black children.

What I Liked

When one considers that “Within Our Gates” is the oldest surviving example of a feature-length film directed by an African American, it should come as no surprise that the entire movie is a condemnation of Jim Crow America.  In fact, one could see it as the direct antithesis of D.W. Griffith’s more renowned epic “The Birth of a Nation,” released to great acclaim just five years earlier.  Where Griffith’s movie portrayed black people as slovenly, traitorous, lecherous buffoons and the Ku Klux Klan as heroic enforcers of peace and order, director Oscar Micheaux and the cast of “Within Our Gates” go to great lengths to dispel such misconceptions.  To his credit, Micheaux does not play into the same racist hatemongering of Griffith by portraying all whites as idiots and savages, but rather take a peacemaker’s approach to race by presenting race as a more complex issue than the simpleton’s view found in “The Birth of a Nation.”

The film’s portrayal of race issues in 1920 is the most interesting aspect of “Within Our Gates” for a viewer separated from the time by almost a century.  Clearly the intention of Micheaux was to display the various facets of American life that racial injustice effects as well as the wide variety of people, black and white, involved.  From the bowing and scraping of the “Uncle Tom” preachers and house negros, to the wealthy old white women, to black intellectuals, to ignorant hillbillies, to street hustlers, to poor black sharecroppers, to white landowners, each plays a role in or is effected by the struggle of blacks for equality in modern America.  Amazingly, the film uses this wide variety of characters to take on an even wider (and shocking for 1920) variety of topics: religion, poverty, sharecropping, miscegenation, education, crime, patriotism, lynching, rape, and incest.

What I Disliked

Unfortunately, outside of its historic relevance as a portrait of its times, “Within our Gates” has little to hold the modern viewer’s attention.  It is a silent film, and a low budget one at that.  The surviving picture is so faded that at times its impossible to make out what is happening on screen.  Not that if you could see what was happening, you would understand the events any better.  Micheaux’s insistence on showing racism from so many perspectives seems to have gotten in the way of his creating a coherent and enjoyable movie.  The plot structure is peppered with frame stories, dream sequences, and flashbacks, further disorienting the viewer by making it difficult to keep track of where in the overall timeline of events the action on screen is taking place.  When the action taking place involves the not-so-riveting account of someone searching for school funding, we're not exactly talking about edge-of-your-seat excitement here to begin with.  Ultimately, though this film lasts only one hour and seventeen minutes, it took me four sittings to get through.

Most Memorable Scene

When watching the scene depicting the lynching of a black man wrongly accused of killing a wealthy white landowner (the condemned man’s wife, whose only crime was apparently fleeing with her husband and, of course, being black, is also lynched) I assumed that scene would end up as the most memorable scene when it came time to write this entry.  However the lynching is followed immediately by an attempted interracial rape which ultimately turns out to be incestuous.  The pair of actors do a fine job here of depicting all the brutality, fear, and desperation involved in such a moment.  Nearly a hundred years later it still makes for a visceral and disturbing scene and is easily the most reproving of the film's many condemnations of the horrors of racism.

My Rating: 2 out of 5

EUROPA EUROPA (1990)

A.K.A.: Hitlerjunge Salomon

Country: Germany

Genre(s): Adventure / Drama / War

Director: Agnieszka Holland

Cast: Marco Hofschneider / Julie Delpy / Andre Wilms

Plot

The true story of Solomon Perel, a German Jew whose life was turned upside down by the events of World War II, forcing him to adopt new identities, even joining the Hitler Youth and fighting alongside the Nazis, to survive.

What I Liked

Is it better to die for a cause or, in the face of death, abandon the cause in order to live?  Clearly, for many it would depend on the cause.  In Solomon Perel’s case, neither his Jewish heritage, nor German nationalism, nor Communist education were worth sacrificing his life.  Thus “Europa Europa,” the film that dramatizes Perel’s dangerous adventures during the second World War, becomes a morally conflicting experience.  While one viewer might walk away from the film seeing Perel as a heroic survivor, another might see him as an unscrupulous coward.

It is precisely this dichotomy, constant throughout the film, that makes “Europa Europa” so poignant.  Perel certainly behaves cowardly on a number of occasions, switching loyalties and identities any time he finds himself in danger.  He flees battle on more than one occasion and betrays those who would help him in order to save himself.  Yet, Perel’s boyhood might offer him a moral pass, at least in the eyes of some viewers.  At an age when most boys are preoccupied with the awkwardness of adolescence and relationships with girls, Perel, through no fault of his own, is caught up in a firestorm of fanaticism and bloodshed.  Looking at the war from Perel’s perspective, it’s easy to see why he would view everything happening around him as incomprehensible insanity.  Adherents to the various parties involved in the war behave irrationally, screaming and ranting, killing and destroying in the name of ideals and belief systems that, so far as a lone teenage boy can see, serve no purpose but to set people and nations against one another.

Perel’s story is filled with so many near-death experiences and coincidental escapes that the apparently true story is difficult to believe; doubtless the filmmakers took some liberties for dramatic effect and to keep the story moving along.  But what is quite believable are the characters involved in Perel’s journey.  Even peripheral characters are wonderfully developed and capably acted, making the plot as much about the fascinating people Perel meets along the way as it is about the events he survives.  With a few exceptions, the supporting characters are all fanatics of one kind or another, yet they also possess interesting personalities beyond their fanaticism, making it easy to see how Perel could befriend some of them, even a few Nazis.

What I Disliked

As I mentioned above, the frequency and ease with which Perel escapes so many near-death experiences casts doubt onto the authenticity of his story, at least for this viewer.  Too often I found myself wondering if anyone else could verify Perel’s story, or if the filmmakers just took him at his word.  Regardless, these unbelievable moments of survival weaken the film, as they just seem too convenient to be part of the reality of wartorn Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

Marco Hofschneider’s performance as Perel is another aspect I found troubling.  He does bring a certain adolescent awkwardness and naturally goofy charm to the character, but I never really saw the character develop.  He pretty much spends the entire film with a perplexed look on his face, appropriate for the moments when the chaos of war is shoving him from one danger toward another.  However, at times I felt like Hofschneider could affect no other emotion; perhaps he himself was perplexed on how to actually act in some of the scenes that demanded a little more emotional variety.  More disappointing, the film covers maybe seven or so years and yet Hofschneider’s Perel never seems any older, still clumsy and boyish.  If this was supposed to be a coming of age film, as the story and dialogue would suggest, Hofschneider’s performance made sure that aspect of the film failed.

Most Memorable Scene

Circumcision is a recurring theme throughout “Europa Europa,” for reasons that should be obvious in a film about a young Jew hiding amongst Nazis.  For years Perel hides the physical evidence of his ethnicity from his peers, but it is romantic and sexual desire that eventually push him to an extreme measure that had me cringing through multiple scenes.  When we finally do see just exactly what Perel has done to himself, the result is not only physical disgust but pity for the boy who, after years of hiding, is doing this in order to finally achieve some kind of intimacy with another human being.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

DANCE, GIRL, DANCE (1940)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Dorothy Arzner

Cast: Maureen O’Hara / Lucille Ball / Louis Hayward

Plot

Classically trained dancer Judy and raunchy burlesque star Bubbles becomes rivals for stardom and the affections of a millionaire playboy.

What I Liked

 “Dance, Girl, Dance” puts a shameless spotlight on a good, old-fashioned showbiz rivalry, complete with gratuitous song and dance numbers, bared knees, and backstage catfights.  Stock genre characters crowd nearly every scene of this silly melodrama, characters who will be as beloved as they are familiar to fans of such movies.  At the center of the story is Maureen O’Hara as wide-eyed and chaste Judy O’Brien, whose dreams of becoming a respected ballet dancer are literally run over in the street along with her dance instructor.   Yet the center of the audience’s attention is stolen and locked up for good by Lucille Ball as bawdy and brazen Bubbles, Judy’s co-star and sometime nemesis.  Anyone who has ever seen even one scene from Lucy’s fifties television sitcom knows that the woman was a natural-born, almost peerless entertainer (How many other shows of that era can you name still run regularly on TV?).  Her irresistible star power provides one or two dazzling moments for this otherwise trashy spectacle.

What I Disliked

As engaging as she may be, even Lucy’s talent can’t hide the fact that there isn’t much to “Dance, Girl, Dance.”  She brings life to a story that had already been beaten to death in movies even in 1940, but even her character ultimately lacks depth underneath the skimpy outfits and risque moves.  She’s loud, vulgar, and charismatic, but, much like this movie, Bubbles lacks any underlying complexity to satisfy the more discerning viewer.  When it comes to burlesque stars of early cinema, give me Lola from the “Blue Angel” over Bubbles any day.

The filmmakers hit all the right marks, as if following a manual on how to make a good-girl-makes-good showbiz drama.  Tragic missed opportunities; hand-holding, eye-gazing romance; sassy one-liners and moralizing soliloquies; they’re all here.  Yet, for the most part, the film does not pack the punch it might have in 1940.  As is the case with so many films that rely on salaciousness as a selling point, this movie does not age well and now induces more yawns than it does shock or awe.  "Not Suitable for General Exhibition," read the movie posters.  Indeed.

Most  Memorable Scene

Maureen O’Hara and Lucille Ball are such icons of classic Hollywood, revered as exemplars of bygone class and glamour that it is surreal to see the two ladies literally tear into each other as their rivalry reaches its inevitable conclusion.  Their fight is viscous, chaotic, believable, and yet bizarre to behold.  And, for those who want to know, (*spoiler alert*) Maureen kicks the living shit out of Lucy.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5

THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Adventure / Sci-Fi

Director: Jack Arnold

Cast: Grant Williams / Randy Stuart / Paul Langton

Plot

Overcome suddenly by a mysterious cloud while on vacation, Scott Carey finds that he begins to shrink with each passing day.  Eventually reduced to the size of an insect, he finds everyday life a grim struggle for survival.

What I Liked

Honestly, I am astonished by how good this movie actually was.  It is a well-known film but not one I had ever seen and until today I lumped it in with the rest of the preposterous science fiction films made in the 1950s.  Kitschy, I assumed, but not relevant.  Its premise does of course make it a member of the spate of ridiculous “horrors of atomic power and radioactivity” films to come out of that decade.  However, “The Incredible Shrinking Man” also has the added dimension of being timeless because of its thoughtful, if none-too-subtle, study of the value of life and man’s relationship with existence.

Exploitative and simple though it may be, the movie’s premise of a man continually shrinking provides the opportunity for the writers and filmmakers to dwell upon concepts that have been plaguing mankind for centuries as well as those that are particularly poignant in the modern world.  As Scott shrinks, he finds himself overcome with the insecurities of powerlessness and insignificance.  This leads him on a quest to reconcile his new concept of himself with some sense of purpose and meaning not only for his life but for the universe, not unlike the use of religion by many to reconcile a similar need.  Considering that this film was part of the post-war era, coming along after the power and the importance of the individual in society had been trivialized by war, genocide, and two atomic bombs in the 1940s, Carey’s struggles have a timely significance that still resonates today.

The film also takes an interesting look, though perhaps unintentionally, at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, for as Carey continues to shrink his needs become ever more primitive.  Initially, Scott loses his confidence and self-esteem.  Before long his struggle becomes one of finding understanding and companionship in others.  Soon enough his problem leads him to the more basic challenges of maintaining proper shelter and clothing.  Finally, his daily life becomes dominated by the constant struggle for food, water, and basic survival.  This final stage, constituting the entire second half of the film, makes for some surprisingly impressive special effects and some wonderfully intense action scenes.

What I Didn’t Like

As much as I was impressed by the movie’s more philosophical elements, screenwriter Richard Matheson (who also wrote the novel that inspired the film) was too heavy-handed for me in his use of second-rate poetics and melodramatic descriptions in the main character’s narration.  One horribly cliché and over-the-top musing follows the other, each more embarrassing than the last.  If it weren't for it being the middle of the night and my not wanting to wake my wife, I probably would have shouted "Oh shut up!" at the screen.  The dialogue was just horribly written overall, with all the naturalism of a bad comic book and never once giving the sense that the characters are real people.  

Most Memorable Scene

What surprised me the most about “The Incredible Shrinking Man” was that I actually found it frightening.  The scenes where Carey, about the size of an ant, is forced to fend for himself against a tarantula (not Claymation or stop motion, but the real deal) that is comparatively about the size of an SUV proved the most distressing, as the effects are still good enough to fool the brain into recoiling in horror.  I wish I could think of a more creative way to put it, but that thing just plain freaked me out.  By the film’s climax, I was writhing uncomfortably on the sofa, unable to contain my anxiety.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

ANVIL: THE STORY OF ANVIL (2008)

Country: Canada

Genre(s): Documentary

Director: Sacha Gervasi

Cast: Steve Kudlow / Robb Reiner / Glenn Five

Plot

Now in their fifties, the members of the long-forgotten Canadian heavy metal band Anvil give one last go at rock stardom, persevering through a constant cycle of opportunity and disappointment.

What I Liked

This is a movie I’ve been meaning to watch for a while.  I consider myself a metal fan but I must be honest, until I’d heard about this movie a couple of years ago I’d never heard of Anvil.  Once I saw the trailer for the documentary, though, I learned a little more about the group yet never did get around to seeing the film.  I knew it would be about an underrated, down-and-out, aging rock band going on a tour and searching for the stardom that has eluded them for decades.  When I finally did sit down to watch it today, I really expected more comedy than anything else, one of those documentaries that mocks its subjects as much as it pays tribute to them.  I definitely did not the emotional ride that “Anvil: The Story of Anvil” took me on.  I certainly didn’t expect to find myself fighting back tears on more than one occasion.

Look through a list of Anvil song titles and you’ll come across one shallow subject after another: “Toe Jam,” “Pussy Poison,” “Blood on the Playground,” “Cramps,” “Holy Wood,” “Mattress Mambo,” “Show Me Your Tits,” the list goes on.  Yet the film made about the band is anything but shallow.  In fact, it serves as an unforgettable portrait of love, of all things.  The love that Steve Kudlow and Robb Reiner, Anvil’s founding members, have for one another.  The love that their respective family members have for them, patiently putting up with their absurd pursuit of stardom.  The love for making music shared by Kudlow and Reiner.  And the die-hard love that Anvil’s ever shrinking fan base continues to have for this ultimate underdog of rock bands.  In the face of all the evidence to the contrary and one disappointment after another, these people all cling to their love to keep them dedicated to Anvil and what it has come to represent for them: faith in pursuing one’s dreams, no matter what.

As I watched it all, I found myself at first just thinking how pathetic these guys were.  Their music sounds dated, their clothing is even more dated, some of their fans are numbskulls, and yet they seem completely oblivious to all of the signs that the world has passed them by.  But it doesn’t take long to really find these men not only likable but admirable and inspiring.  Their passion for what they do and their refusal to accept any obstacle that gets in the way of what makes life valuable for them is a lesson for anyone to take to heart.  A lot of movies (most of them fictional) present the idea that if you follow your dreams you will achieve success.  “Anvil: The Story of Anvil,” presents a different idea; that following the dream is in itself the success, regardless of the outcome.

What I Didn’t Like

The members of Anvil and their supporters would have you believe that this band was every bit as good as their more financially successful U.S. contemporaries like Metallica and Anthrax.  Anyone who compares their music with those of the other bands I’ve listed won’t take long to see that this is not true.  Anvil certainly had some technical ability and infectious riffs to their credit.  Yet their music lacks both the serious approach and creativity that the more successful metal bands of their era displayed.  Anvil and their supporters act like the band’s lack of success is purely because of bad management and even worse luck.  While these things certainly didn’t help, the reasons they didn’t “make it big” are plain to see.  They aren’t good looking.  None of them are particularly brilliant or charismatic.  They fight with each other a lot.  Their lyrics are trite.  Their stage show relied on cheap and unentertaining gimmicks.  They never changed or developed their musical approach.  They’re from Canada.  And they constantly wear fanny packs.  But to focus on all these things would of course miss the point of the film.  In their own minds, Anvil are destined for stardom.  And it is that passion and determination which ultimately won them international acclaim through this documentary.

Most Memorable Scene

Apparently Kudlow and Reiner have a pretty tenuous friendship, one that has resulted in violence on more than one occasion and glimpses of that tension are caught in this documentary.  Yet their love for one another is evident in every single scene, never more so than when, after a rant about the pressure he feels to achieve success for his bandmates and family, Kudlow makes an offhand reference to suicide.  Reiner jumps right in, saying “I''ll stop you.”  It’s really a simple statement, but the moment is clearly filled with emotional turmoil between the two of them.  The dedication of these two to each other, even as one man considers ending it all, is profoundly touching.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

WEST SIDE STORY (1961)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Musical / Romance

Director: Jerome Robbins / Robert Wise

Cast: Natalie Wood / Richard Beymer / Russ Tamblyn

Plot

In this modernization of Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet,” young lovers Maria and Tony fall in love, despite both being from different ethnic backgrounds and a gang rivalry that threatens to tear the couple apart.

What I Liked

More than a half a century of hindsight gives some perspective on just how influential “West Side Story” would be in terms of influencing trends in future American filmmaking.  Its direct impact can be seen in two ways, historically.  Certainly the concept of modernizing classic literature to make it more relatable for a teen audience has proven to be a successful formula repeatedly since 1961.  Also successful has been the concept of a dance-oriented drama marketed toward teenagers.  So “West Side Story” could be seen as the grandparent of everything from “Clueless” to, unfortunately, “Step Up Revolution.”

Aside from historic relevance, “West Side Story” does have some impressive elements.  Most outstanding are those associated with the film’s production values.  The cinematography brings an epic scale to the petty dramas of teenage street gangs and, when required, the camerawork matches the smoothness of the expertly choreographed dance scenes.

Much of the film was shot on location in New York’s streets but even on the constructed sets the filmmakers create the feel of an endless and labyrinthine urban wilderness, fraught with possibilities both violent and romantic.  Contrasting that vastness is the insular world created by the characters themselves, filled with limitations, rivalries, and passions that are completely ignorant of a world outside of the city streets.

What I Disliked

Despite these strengths, “West Side Story” is still a musical.  A musical about impoverished street thugs.  It just doesn’t work.  I don’t like musicals to begin with, so doubtless my personal prejudices are coloring my description here, but knife-wielding gangs prancing about on their toes and singing “I just met a girl named Maria” neither makes sense nor entertains.  I will fully admit that on a technical level the music and dance scenes are marvelously executed.  It’s the scenarios that don’t make sense.  Of course I’ve always had this problem with musicals in general.  Someone in the middle of a conversation or dramatic moment just suddenly breaking into a song only serves to rip this viewer clean out of the moment.  Instead of feeling like part of the action on screen, suddenly I’m an observer emotionally detached from what I am witnessing.

Ultimately, it took me four viewings to get through “West Side Story,” a chore I will not repeat, despite the film’s redeeming qualities.

Most Memorable Scene

The most beautiful and dazzling of all of the movie’s classic musical moments takes place on the tenement roof tops as the Puerto Rican Sharks and their women debate the pros and cons of living in an America full of both opportunity and racism.  The song “America” and the Latin American influenced dance moves make for the most interesting and entertaining moment of a film that I found dull otherwise.

My Rating: 2 out of 5