The Normal Critic

Lawman

2011-02-17T16:59:00.000-05:00

Although this film was an imperfect one for a couple of reasons, it was nevertheless a noble effort of producer/director Michael Winner's to present a thought-provoking Western in his 1971 film Lawman.

After seven cowboys shoot up the town of Bannock and unwittingly kill a resident, Marshal Jered Maddox travels to the nearby town of Sabbath to bring in the guilty parties. Despite the efforts of the town's sheriff to convince Maddox to drop his pursuit, even with the circumstances of the charges and the likelihood of light punishment for the perpetrators, Maddox insists on bringing them in one way or another, regardless of the pressure imposed upon him by residents of the town.

The thing about Lawman which is most striking is the fact it is a thoughtful Western. It looks at characters driven by circumstances or pride, who are forced to face the consequences of their actions and how they face it, characters who are driven to do their job to the fullest extent and characters who become complacent in their lives. It also looks at how easy it is for us to want justice, but challenges us to ponder if we'd be willing to want justice even if it affect us in a negative manner.

Burt Lancaster, as Maddox, did a masterful job of portraying a marshal determined to fulfill the tasks required of his job, no matter the scope of the crime, and no matter the cost to himself or to others. In addition to Lancaster, Lawman also features several well-known actors giving superb performances, such as Robert Ryan in the role of the complacent sheriff of Sabbath, Lee J. Cobb as the cattle baron who doesn't want violence (but would rather not go back), and Robert Duvall as another of the targeted cowboys compelled to not go back due to the cost it would take upon his family and his land.

As I wrote already, I see Lawman as an imperfect film for a couple of reasons: while the script by Gerry Wilson is a fine, thought-provoking story, I came away with the opinion the film could have been better served had it been longer than 99 minutes, and I regarded the numerous occasions where the cameras zoom in and zoom out as largely unnecessary. In what was otherwise a well-written and well-acted Western, I give Lawman two and a half (of four) stars.

Killers

2011-02-16T12:05:00.002-05:00

I had no interest in seeing it when it hit theaters, and I had no interest in seeing it when it came out on DVD, but against my better judgment, I watched the 2010 film Killers with my family, and I have nobody to blame but myself for wasting ninety minutes which I'll never get back.

The gist of the film involves a woman named Jennifer, vacationing in France with her parents to move forward from a bad breakup, where she meets Spencer, who is, unbeknownst to Jennifer, a CIA assassin. They fall in love and Spencer leaves his job for a new life with Jennifer. Three years later, comfortably settled in their life, Spencer's past comes back to haunt him when he discovers a bounty has been put on his head, and everybody (particularly his neighbors and perceived friends) is after him.

Well, where to begin with my beef about this film? For starters, the script. The plot is fine, but the way the story unfolds is borderline ridiculous. It's one thing to feature characters who turn out to be sleeper agents, but to the extent Killers goes with some of these characters, it becomes absurd. Also, the reaction from the character of Jennifer to her husband's secret life doesn't help; it's just plain silly!

The fact Ashton Kutcher plays the role of Spencer makes the film worse. He has comic talent, sure, but he's playing a CIA assassin; he does not come across as believable at all. Katherine Heigl has some funny moments as Jennifer, but more silly moments sadly. The bright spots in Killers are Jennifer's parents, played by Tom Selleck and Catherine O'Hara. Their performances are hilarious, making it a shame the script was so lousy in the first place.

I give this film one and a half (of four) stars.

Iron Man 2

2011-02-16T11:18:00.001-05:00

If you thought Tony Stark revealing who he is to the world in Iron Man was something, what follows in the much-anticipated sequel from last year, Iron Man 2, makes his revelation look like a mere footnote in a newspaper.

Six months after revealing he is Iron Man, Tony Stark has new problems, ranging from a U.S. Senator wanting to confiscate his technology for military purposes, a rival defense contractor seeking to one-up him, and the arc reactor which has been keeping Stark alive is slowly poisoning him. On top of that, a man connected to his father's past enters the scene with only one purpose in mind: revenge against the Stark family. Well, it could be worse!

Some sequels are as not as good as their predecessors, and a few surpass them, but Iron Man 2 is as equally good as Iron Man. The cast, which featured quite a few familiar faces, carried the film well. As expected, Robert Downey, Jr. delivered once again as Tony Stark, as did other standouts like Mickey Rourke as the film's villain, Ivan Vanko, and Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer, the complete antithesis of Tony Stark.

Scarlett Johansson, as Natasha Romanoff, only got to shine towards the end of the film, while Samuel L. Jackson, as Nick Fury, is there to primarily help move the story along, but director Jon Favreau, who also reprised his role as Stark's chauffeur, provides quite a bit of the comic relief in an enlarged part. And, of course, the face of Marvel Comics himself, Stan Lee, makes a cameo appearance as Larry King (you need to watch the film to get it).

I enjoyed watching Iron Man when it came out, and I enjoyed watching Iron Man 2; I knew I should've seen it in theaters! I give it three (of four) stars.

Inception

2011-02-14T13:41:00.000-05:00

When I saw Batman Begins, I saw a good film. When I saw The Prestige, I was impressed. When I saw The Dark Knight, I was blown away. But when I saw Christopher Nolan's latest film, the science fiction thriller Inception, I knew I should have seen it in theaters last year.

An exiled industrial spy who specializes in obtaining secrets through dreams is given the chance to return home, by an industrialist he has just extracted secrets from, if he undertakes the task of inserting a thought into the mind of a rival, a process known as inception. With his team assembled, he sets about on his task, but must confront the guilt of his past, which manifests itself in his dreams and sabotages his efforts.

To say the least, this was one amazing film. The credit belongs primarily to Christopher Nolan, for writing a story unlike anything I've ever seen before and directing a film which raises the bar for superb filmmaking to a higher level. Throughout the film, I was never confused as the story unfolded, nor did I find myself ever having to suspend disbelief as I continued watching. The dream sequences featured in Inception were nothing short of mind-blowing.

Not only was Nolan's presentation of the story flawless in my opinion, his direction also resulted in mature and solidly good performances from cast members Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Ellen Page; I didn't expect such good acting from any of them. DiCaprio, in particular, has been cast in numerous roles where he is unable to convince me he is the character, whether it's Howard Hughes or a Rhodesian soldier of fortune. With Inception, DiCaprio gives arguably his best performance as an actor in 12 years.

Intelligent writing, superb directing, excellent cinematography and visual effects, and mature acting from a great cast including DiCaprio, Levitt, Page, Marion Cotillard, Cillian Murphy and the one and only Michael Caine, Inception gets a full four stars from me.

Vampires Suck

2011-02-03T17:44:00.000-05:00

Have you grown tired of the fervor over the Twilight films? Would love it if you never heard of Team Edward and Team Jacob ever again? Well, thanks to two filmmakers, a film aimed at you and me came out in theaters last year, the Twilight spoof Vampires Suck.

Like the Twilight series, you see a young woman (in this film, named Becca) moving to a gothic-looking town in the Pacific Northwest, meets two young guys, discovers one of them is a vampire and the other a werewolf (sorta), has to choose between them, and blah, blah, blah, blah...you know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, Vampires Suck is not only a spoof of Twilight, but also of vampire movies of recent and just about any and all movie and television program popular with teenage audiences. And while it's refreshing to see a film which mocks one of the more overrated films I have seen, it is unfortunate that Vampires Suck, for the most part, sucks.

Much like all of the recent spoof films to come out in the last decade or so, the comedy in Vampires Suck includes some truly hilarious gags and jokes, but it's far too littered with over the top gags so painful to watch, it's not funny. I mean, using a baby in a juggling scene? Who thought that was funny?

While this was a film not worth paying the $5 to see in theaters (and I'm glad I didn't see it in theaters last year), I'd prefer to see this one to any of the Twilight films any day of the week, and it is worth watching at least once; just get it on Netflix or wait for it to appear on cable. I give Vampires Suck two (of five) stars.

Knight And Day

2011-02-02T19:12:00.000-05:00

There are several films I wanted to see last year, but for one reason or another (usually, it was preserving my piggy bank), I couldn't go to see them. Now that I can see them, it drives me nuts to see how good these films were; if only I could've been in theaters when they came out!

The Expendables was one such film; another was the action-packed adventure Knight And Day.

On her way to Boston, June meets a total stranger named Roy, and in no time at all, is thrust into a whirlwind adventure as she reluctantly accompanies Roy throughout America and Europe, encountering along the way government agents, a crime lord and his soldiers, and a potential weapon worth killing for. Sounds like quite the rollercoaster ride, doesn't it?

Without doubt, Tom Cruise was the primary reason this film is as good as it is. He handled himself well in all of the action scenes as a secret agent who must stay one step ahead of both his bosses and his enemies to stay alive, but the casualness he shows throughout the film as Roy in doing his job made me laugh hard. I haven't laughed that hard at anything he's done since his performance in Tropic Thunder. The other important role in the film, the character of June, was played well by Cameron Diaz, who provided quite a few laughs in her own right as the woman who winds up tagging along with the secret agent who's “got it”.

Some of the action scenes require a little suspension of disbelief, but it's not a big deal, as the story itself comes across as well-grounded (thanks to the script by Patrick O'Neill), and director James Mangold does a great job of presenting the story in a way that didn't confuse me as it unfolded. A fun film with plenty of action and plenty of laughs, I give Knight And Day three (of four) stars.

The Expendables

2011-01-14T09:16:00.000-05:00

The task seems simple enough: go to an island nation (after getting half of the promised money), kill their dictator, come back home and get the rest of the cash. What could possibly be wrong with this picture? In the case of the 2010 action film, The Expendables, everything.

A band of mercenaries, led by a man known as Barney Ross, look into a simple, yet challenging job: to kill a Latin American dictator. only to realize the real target is an ex-government operative seeking to make money from the illegal drug trade, but personal complications challenge Ross (and his teammates) to question what he must do now.

This is a film I've been wanting to see made for quite some time. The major appeal of The Expendables is not the film itself, but the cast; it features a Who's Who of action stars led by director/star Sylvester Stallone and includes Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren and (in cameo appearances) Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

What makes The Expendables a wonderful film to watch is to see the camaraderie between the mercenaries, much like what is seen in other great films such as The Magnificent Seven, The Dirty Dozen and Tears Of The Sun. The characters are all unique, with their own issues and (in some cases) quirks, are humorous at times, characters I came to like as the film went on, and of course, individuals you never, ever want to mess with!

Acting-wise, everybody delivers, with standouts including Mickey Rourke as Tool and Eric Roberts as the villainous James Munroe. The action is excellent, with a good amount of time given not only to Stallone, but also to co-stars Statham and Li (and boy, do these guys kick butt!). Stallone's great achievement is as the film's director, presenting an exciting action tale and keeping it balanced between himself and the rest of the stellar cast (and also between the action and the story).

This was definitely a film I should have seen in theaters last year! I give The Expendables three (of four) stars.

The Wolfman

2010-08-06T11:01:00.000-04:00

When I saw the trailers for this film, I was less than impressed. It looked like it had the makings of a lousy remake of a great classic, but after having seen this year's The Wolfman, I have to say it was better than I expected.

Much like the basic story of the original film The Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot returns to his family's estate in England after so many years upon the death of his brother, and no sooner than he returns, he comes into contact with what turns out to be a werewolf and is bitten by it. Sure enough, it takes only a matter of time before Lawrence becomes one himself.

What surprised me about The Wolfman is the fact that for a remake, there's very little to connect it to the original film. The names of several characters and the basic (and I mean basic) outline of the story remain. Also of notice was the appearance of the film; it had a gothic look to it, which I liked.

The best part of the film is the story; there's actually a backstory which serves the main story very well (the original film never really had a backstory at all). I certainly didn't expect to see the plot twists I saw, or, for that matter, the insertion of a “Ripper angle” in the story (you have to see the film to know what I'm talking about).

As for the acting, especially of Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, it was better than I expected. In fact, at times, I must say Del Toro somewhat like Lon Chaney, Jr. when he played the same role in the original film. Anthony Hopkins, as Sir John Talbot, gave a solidly good performance, as I've come to expect from such a reliably good actor. And in addition, there were good performances from the supporting cast, which included Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving, Art Malik and Geraldine Chaplin.

The one downside of The Wolfman was the narrative pace. There were two stretches of the film in which the narration was more slowly-paced than the rest of the film. Considering it was directed by Joe Johnston, a director known for fast-paced movies (like Jurassic Park III), it was a little disappointing. Otherwise, Johnston did a good job of presenting the film.

A better-than-I-expected remake with a well-told story served well by its backstory, good performances and a wonderfully gothic musical score from Danny Elfman, I give The Wolfman three (of four) stars.

Manhattan

2010-03-12T14:12:00.000-05:00

Based on the fact this has been to date Woody Allen's most commercially successful film, I think it's fair to say his 1979 comedy Manhattan is his most popular film to date. However surprising that might be to Woody Allen himself, I can certainly see why.

Isaac, a twice-divorced, 42 year old television writer, who is working on a book and trying to get out of a relationship with Tracy, a sweet girl who happens to be 17 years old, quits his job, meets (and ultimately falls for) Mary, a journalist who also happens to be his friend's mistress.

For me, what makes Manhattan stands out, not only as a Woody Allen film, but as a film in its own right, is its cinematography and music. Shot in black-and-white, Manhattan reminded me of the old classic films from the 30's and 40's. The music, from the great composer George Gershwin, gives the film its sentimentality. It also gives New York City an appeal only a film can give.

As a romantic comedy, Manhattan was undeniably funny and, at times, melodramatic as any other romantic comedy. The four main performances, given by Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, Michael Murphy and Mariel Hemingway, were convincingly good. Watching Allen as Isaac going through the mine field that is his romantic relationships makes me laugh sometimes, but also makes me sympathize with him as well. Same also with Mariel Hemingway as Tracy, even though she's far too young for Isaac, she's no less sympathetic at times. The one surprising thing I noticed in the film was how young Meryl Streep (as one of Isaac's two ex-wives) was; I'm used to seeing her in more recent films.

A sentimental, nostalgic, sympathetic, funny, enjoyable and rather light-hearted look at people and relationships, I give Manhattan three (of four) stars.

Crimes And Misdemeanors

2010-03-08T12:35:00.001-05:00

Perhaps of all the films Woody Allen has made, his films on relationships and human nature may be regarded as his best, and perhaps if not at the top of the list, his film from 1989, Crimes And Misdemeanors, could be considered among the top three.

The film centers on two characters and the directions they take in their lives: an ophthalmologist named Judah and a documentary filmmaker named Cliff. Judah's life (and his marriage) is on the verge of going upside down because of a two year long affair with another woman, and Cliff, unhappily married himself, falls for a producer he meets while working on a documentary about his brother-in-law, a successful television producer he hates.

What I saw in Crimes And Misdemeanors was a dichotic presentation of individuals faced with problems in their relationships with others, their outlook on life, the decisions they take and how they deal with the consequences of their actions. What made the film dichotic in its presentation was the general atmosphere; one story was told as a dark drama and the other as a lighthearted comedy.

One thing I've noticed in Woody Allen films is that few members of the cast really stand out in their performances. The performances are usually adequate on the whole, and the films themselves fall squarely upon Allen himself as writer and director in order to succeed as films. With Crimes And Misdemeanors, the standout performances included Martin Landau as Judah, in one of his best performances as an actor, Woody Allen as Cliff, Sam Waterston as Ben, a rabbi who counsels Judah on his problems, and to a lesser extent, Alan Alda as Lester, the successful television producer, and Mia Farrow as Halley, the producer Cliff falls for.

Both Allen's writing and direction in this film were superb; the way he told and presented both stories, leaving me in stitches one minute and deeply meditative the next, was done smoothly. There was nothing awkward in the presentation, and the ending sums up best what the film is all about. A film that definitely gets better with each viewing, I give Crimes And Misdemeanors three and a half (of four) stars.

Love And Death

2010-03-03T15:20:00.001-05:00

With Sleeper, it was science fiction and futuristic films that were the target. With his follow up effort as writer/director/star, Woody Allen targeted Russian literature in his classic from 1975, Love And Death.

A Russian pacifist in love with his cousin is swept up into the Napoleonic Wars and, through no part on his own, becomes a hero. Marrying his cousin, things are great until Napoleon invades Russia, and he decides to leave until his wife convinces him that they must assassinate Napoleon himself.

As I said earlier, Love And Death is a parody on Russian literature; in this case, the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. As a parody, it has a plethora of hilarious jokes and gags, especially in scenes where the characters go into philosophical discussions. As for the story itself, it's adequate enough and that's about it.

The strength of the film lies with the writing; being a parody, it's the jokes which are more important than the story (although an adequate story would be nice). The acting, like the story, is adequately done, with Allen as Boris (the pacifist), Diane Keaton as Sonja (the cousin), and James Tolkan as Napoleon (and his double) being the sole standouts. As for the directing, Allen did a good job of presenting the film (jokes and all), but I suspect in Love And Death, early signs of the kind of films he would make and what made him a celebrated writer/director can be seen in the film.

A final standout in the film was the music. Woody Allen always has an ear for music, and in his films, the music not only fits his films well, it also heightens the narration, the presentation, and the overall experience. With Love And Death, the music of Sergei Prokofiev does just that. I couldn't imagine another work of music that could possibly fit the film as well as Prokofiev's.

On the whole, I found Love And Death to be as hilarious as Sleeper, but the story was a little bit better told and no particularly weak points. Nothing but laughs throughout, I give this film three (of four) stars.

Note (Mar. 4th, 2:09 PM EST): I added a paragraph in my initial review that I had intended to write but forgot. The addition deals with the film's musical score.

Sleeper

2010-02-26T10:32:00.000-05:00

Woody Allen's early films could best be described, I suspect, as parodies, and with his considered classic from 1973, Sleeper, I don't believe my contention can be refuted.

A health store owner from 1973 is revived two hundred years later from cryogenic freezing to discover he is in a dystopian society with robots, orbs, “Orgasmatrons”, and all the healthy things in life, like steak, pork fat, hot fudge (and don't forget tobacco!). And as if discovering he has been asleep for two hundred years isn't a big enough shock, he discovers he is the key to stopping an oppressive government. And to think all this started with a routine surgery!

Although Sleeper is considered a classic Woody Allen film, I found it a bit overrated. The film is loaded with hilarious (in some cases, hysterical) jokes and gags, but it seemed to be at the expense of the story, almost as if the story itself were just one big MacGuffin. The ending of the story, in particular, was the one weak point of the entire film; it didn't make much sense. Nevertheless, as a parody, Sleeper is a hilarious one.

Woody Allen, who co-wrote, directed and starred, was particularly funny, especially in the scenes where he's in a wheelchair, or is “Miss Montana” or Blanche DuBois, and Diane Keaton also delivered in laughs, especially when she imitates Marlon Brando. There's also several memorable moments, such as figuring out the purpose behind Howard Cosell speaking on television, meeting a pair of robotic tailors and Woody Allen, disguised as a robot, doing battle with a growing batch of instant pudding.

A futuristic sci-fi parody with hilarious moments and, sadly, a rather weak ending, I give Sleeper two and a half (of four) stars.

An announcement from the guy running things around here

2010-02-25T09:39:00.000-05:00

I'll be starting a series of reviews of Woody Allen films in the very near future. I'm not sure how many I'll be doing immediately, but I will be watching a large number of his films (some of them for the very first time, in fact). I hope you enjoy them when they come.

Without A Clue

2010-02-13T17:45:00.001-05:00

One of the things I'm forever thankful to my brother for was introducing me to a Sherlock Holmes film both original in its take and hilarious throughout, the 1988 comedy Without A Clue.

Unlike in other films about Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, Without A Clue features Watson as the real sleuth and Holmes as a fictional character created by the doctor for the sake of his career, but whose creation becomes so popular that he must hire a second-rate actor to play the part. When Watson decides he can live without “Holmes” and go out on his own as a detective, he finds it's not so easy to do so, and with a major case at stake, he must rely on “Holmes” to solve the case.

Definitely the most important aspect of Without A Clue was the casting of Holmes and Watson (or is it Watson and Holmes? no matter), and in the casting of Michael Caine as “Holmes” and Ben Kingsley (in a rare comic performance) as Watson, the right actors were found. Caine is hilarious throughout, both as the drinking, womanizing, gambling second-rate actor and “in character” as Sherlock Holmes, and Kingsley as Watson succeeds as both the foil for Caine's “Holmes” and in providing laughs of his own as a frustrated sleuth living in the shadow of his own literary creation.

In addition, laughs are also provided by performances from the supporting cast, including Jeffrey Jones as Inspector Lestrade, Nigel Davenport as Lord Smithwick and Peter Cook as the editor of the Strand magazine. Paul Freeman, of Raiders Of The Lost Ark fame, played Professor Moriarty and gave the film much of its seriousness.

The most interesting thing about Without A Clue is the parallel in the relationship between Holmes and Watson in the film and the real life relationship between Holmes and his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. As much as both Watson (in the film) and Doyle (in real life) wanted to be known for more than being the creator of Sherlock Holmes, the public would never let them be apart from each other.

A wonderful story, borrowed from a combination of Sherlock Holmes adventures, filled with hilarious nuggets of comedy and plenty of mystery and adventure to boot, Without A Clue is more than worth the price of a DVD copy. I give it a full four stars.

Righteous Kill

2010-02-05T05:23:00.001-05:00

It's not one of those films that blows you away, like The Dark Knight, nor is it one of those films intended to win Oscar gold. Little about this film can be called original, but it doesn't matter in the least. With film legends like Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, it's worth watching the 2008 police drama/thriller Righteous Kill.

Very simply put, the film centers on two veteran NYPD detectives who investigate a string of vigilante murders, and the deeper they dig, the closer it comes to home.

From the beginning, Righteous Kill is fairly predictable; I myself figured out early on who the killer was (and I don't usually catch on to things like that in movies, let alone so early). By itself, the film doesn't stand out in any special way (except for the structure of the script), but because Robert De Niro and Al Pacino lead the cast as the two veteran detectives, they make it a better film. The supporting cast, which includes Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson, Carla Gugino, Brian Dennehy and John Leguizamo, backed up the leads well, although their talent in some cases was underused.

Director Jon Avnet did a noticeably good job of presenting the story, because even though I knew who the killer was, it still somewhat surprised me when everything in the story came together. The strong point in the film is the relationship between the detectives, who are not only partners but also friends, brothers-in-arms, and seeing how that relationship is affected as the story unfolds.

A watchable film, made better because of its cast, I give Righteous Kill two and a half (of four) stars.

Sherlock Holmes

2010-01-31T20:09:00.001-05:00

When I read that Robert Downey, Jr. had been cast to play Tony Stark in Iron Man, I was surprised. He was the one actor I least imagined to play the comic book character. When I saw Iron Man, however, I was completely surprised at how well-fitting a role it was for him, how good a performance he gave. So, when I read that this same actor would be playing arguably the greatest fictional detective of all time, I was again surprised, not imagining him at all in the role. And when I finally saw this film, I was once again completely surprised at his performance. The film is none other than last year's Sherlock Holmes.

The film starts with the master detective and his equally legendary partner, Dr. Watson, stopping a serial killer from committing another murder, and who is promptly executed. When it looks like the same killer is back from the dead and killing again, however, Holmes and a reluctant Watson are on the case. Add in an elusive woman from Holmes' past, a unknown and sinister individual, a secret organization involved in sorcery and a conspiracy of national proportions, and you have a mystery only one man could possibly solve.

The most obvious thing about Sherlock Holmes is that from the beginning, it is unlike every other production done about the master detective. In Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance, Holmes is quirky, offbeat, eccentric, but no less a keen observer and a brilliant detective. Jude Law delivers as Dr. Watson, who seeks to move on from his work as the sidekick of the world's greatest detective. Together, Downey and Law work well together, making a good team in the roles of the legendary characters. Rachel McAdams, in the role of Irene Adler, is sexy and alluring in her performance (I will admit I have a soft spot for Rachel McAdams and regard her as sexy and alluring already, but it doesn't matter since this is my review and I'm writing it the way I want!) and Mark Strong is convincing as the film's villain, Lord Blackwell.

Guy Ritchie, the film's director, presents the story in a way that's truly original, as offbeat and quirky as Holmes himself, not at all confusing when showing the conclusions Holmes reaches, and sets up the ending of the film nicely for a sequel. Filled with mystery, suspense, action and plenty of lighthearted moments, Sherlock Holmes is certainly worth the price of admission. I give it three (of four) stars.

The High Commissioner

2010-01-03T16:32:00.001-05:00

It's one of those hidden gems a person finds where he least expects it, a film you've never heard of before, not sure if it's a good film, but worth trying out and realizing you invested well. Coming across a DVD copy of it last November at a dollar store, and never having heard of it before, I found such a gem, the 1968 film The High Commissioner.

An Australian policeman is given an assignment to go to London and arrest a man for a long ago murder, yet this is no ordinary man he must arrest; the man is one of Australia's leading diplomats. Complicating the policeman's job are two things: the diplomat is in the middle of an important conference, and he is the target of unknown assassins, forcing the policeman to go the extra mile if he is to carry out his assignment.

An international thriller filled with mystery, intrigue, action and suspicious characters, The High Commissioner unfolds at a fairly fast pace, with twists and turns abounding, plenty of moments of comic relief and an ending I didn't expect. It doesn't stand out in any way among thrillers; at times, in fact, it's pretty predictable, but remains enjoyable throughout.

Both Rod Taylor and Christopher Plummer gave good, intriguing performances; Taylor as the policeman conflicted over the details of the case and doing his duty, and Plummer as the diplomat determined to continue with the conference despite knowing he has to go back to Australia, and even at the risk of his own life. It's fascinating to watch the two in character as they engage in a battle of wills, both determined to accomplish what they set out to do.

In addition, The High Commissioner also features a number of familiar faces, such as Lilli Palmer (The Boys From Brazil), Clive Revill (Robin Hood: Men In Tights), Bert Kwouk (the Pink Panther series) and, surprisingly to me, Leo McKern (The Adventure Of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother) in an unbilled appearance as the Premier of New South Wales. A worthwhile investment of my time and money (I only paid a dollar, but it's more than worth it), I give The High Commissioner three (of four) stars.

A Christmas Story

2009-12-20T16:35:00.001-05:00

If this film is not the best Christmas film ever made, it's definitely the funniest. I've seen this film every year during the Christmas season for as long as I can remember, and it's easy to see how it has become such a perennial favorite in so many households across America: the 1983 classic A Christmas Story.

For those who don't know anything about the film (and that's gotta be a real minority), it centers on nine year old Ralphie, who, more than anything, wants a BB gun for Christmas despite what just about everybody says (“You'll shoot your eye out!”).

Directed by the late Bob Clark (well known for directing films like Black Christmas, Murder By Decree & especially Porky's), A Christmas Story was a huge hit upon arriving in theaters, garnering a loyal following overnight and becoming one of the most memorable films ever made. Not only is the film itself memorable, but so are the individual moments in it. If you're a fan, I'd bet you can recite at least ten hilarious moments (I can probably recite twenty myself); it's not even beyond imagination if one can remember and recite the entire film verbatim (I don't know if I can do it myself).

Definitely one of the major reasons this film is truly memorable is because of the cast, including Melinda Dillon as Ralphie's mom, who wages daily battles in trying to take care of her family (as well as a short war with “a major award”), the late great Darren McGavin as The Old Man, “one of the most feared furnace fighters in northern Indiana”, and especially Peter Billingsley as Ralphie, the nine year old underdog who seeks “the Holy Grail of Christmas gifts”.

Another major reason was the narration provided by the late humorist (and fellow Hoosier) Jean Shepherd, whose work was the basis for the film, and whose narration is not only hilarious, but also nostalgic and at times touching. The story itself is the most appealing part of the film, because there are many things in the story anybody can relate to, whether it's Ralphie trying to get a Red Ryder BB gun or having parents like The Old Man or dealing with bullies like Scut Farkas among other things.

A warm, nostalgic, hilarious film featuring a time from yesteryear and characters we all can relate to, A Christmas Story is one of the greatest and best loved Christmas films of all time (it's the greatest, as far as I'm concerned). I give this classic a full four stars.

The Nativity Story

2009-12-08T09:01:00.005-05:00

Many films over the years have featured the birth of Jesus Christ; some of them animated, some of them live action, some of them epic productions, some of them short films. Very few of them have ever been done exclusively about the birth of Christ, and the best of them, as far as I'm concerned, is from 2006: The Nativity Story.

Beginning roughly one year before the birth of Christ, the film starts with the announcement of the birth of John the Baptist and then shows the lives of Mary and Joseph, from just before their marriage, to the visit from Gabriel telling Mary (and later Joseph) of the expected birth, their travel to Bethlehem, the travels of the wise men, the plans of King Herod to retain his power no matter what, and ultimately the birth of Christ and their journey to Egypt.

Definitely the two standouts in the acting department are the portrayals of Mary and Joseph, given by Keisha Castle-Hughes and Oscar Isaac. Mary comes across as a complete human being, initially like any other girl of her age and time, but upon learning of Christ's birth, is concerned with what will happen (in more ways than one) and despite her concerns, continues to have faith.

Of the two, however, the portrayal of Joseph stands out the most because so little is known about Joseph's life as compared to Mary's. Joseph also comes across as a complete human being, a regular, hard-working man of faith who is decent, fair, honest, responsible, tough when necessary, has a sense of humor and can show anger as well as being hurt.

The supporting cast does a good job in backing up the lead actors, especially the three actors who play the wise men (Nadim Sawalha, Eriq Ebouaney & Stefan Kalipha) and who provide the lion's share of lighthearted moments in the film, and Ciaran Hinds as a ruthless, heartless dictatorial King Herod.

The film itself, written by Mike Rich and directed by Catherine Hardwicke (yes, of Twilight fame), is beautifully told and presented in a compressed narrative (the wise men, it is deduced, didn't arrive in Bethlehem until the Christ child was about two years old), and supported by an equally beautiful musical score. It's hard for me to think of any other film about the birth of Christ I'd watch during the Christmas season than The Nativity Story. I give it three and a half (of four) stars.

A Christmas Carol (1984)

2009-12-01T10:45:00.006-05:00

So many adaptations have been done of the classic novel by Charles Dickens (the most recent coming out in theaters just a couple of weeks ago), they've become virtually too many to count. I've seen a few of the adaptations and I must say, my favorite of them all is the 1984 television adaptation of A Christmas Carol.

As with the near countless adaptations, the story itself is quite familiar with a countless number of people; the story of a miserly old man who sees the error of his ways and regains his humanity with the help of the spirit of his deceased partner and three Christmas ghosts. Also familiar are the names of the characters Charles Dickens presented to us in his story. Ebenezer Scrooge, Bob Cratchit, Fred Holywell, Jacob Marley, Old Fezziwig, the Ghosts of Christmases Past, Present & Yet To Come, Tiny Tim; all characters who've been immortalized through the decades.

The 1984 adaptation of A Christmas Carol is a superbly done one, with the role of Ebenezer Scrooge, the most important part in the film, exceptionally performed by the late great George C. Scott, whose performance is one of the best portrayals of Scrooge (if not the best ever), and backed up by wonderful supporting performances from, among others, David Warner (as Cratchit), Frank Finlay (as Marley), Roger Rees (as Fred), Susannah York (as Mrs. Cratchit) and Anthony Walters (as a truly sympathetic Tiny Tim). Also of note is the late Edward Woodward as the Ghost of Christmas Present, the most memorable portrayal of that character I've ever seen. If you ever watch this film for the first time, you will never forget him.

The story, faithfully adapted from the classic novel, is presented in a way that comes across to me as darker and more bleak at times than with other adaptations; the setting seems more somber at first than with other adaptations as well. Once I get to the scene when Scrooge is repentant of his old ways, the setting, of course, is far more joyful, but the scene in which Scrooge visits his nephew Fred on Christmas Day is a memorable scene.

On the whole, the word enjoyable best describes the experience from watching this version of A Christmas Carol. I give it a full four stars.

Manhunter

2009-10-31T10:55:00.000-04:00

Five years before audiences saw (and never forgot) Hannibal Lecter, they were already introduced to him. Sixteen years before it was made as a film again under its original title, writer/director Michael Mann gave us a thriller like no other: the 1986 film Manhunter.

Based on Thomas Harris's novel Red Dragon, the first half of the film focuses on an ex-FBI profiler as he reluctantly joins the hunt for an elusive killer of whole families and must rely on the tools of his former trade to find him, while the second half alternates between the profiler's manhunt and the killer, leading to an inevitable confrontation.

Without a doubt, Manhunter is unlike any thriller I've ever seen; even thrillers made in the 23 years since Manhunter's release are not like this film. Michael Mann presented an intense and edgy film, served well by its taut narration, photography, musical score and especially its editing, which heightens everything about the film and makes it stand out among thrillers. The way the editing was done (slow-motion, speeding up, repeated shots, lapses in film), if it wasn't timed just right, my attention would have been led away from the story.

As for the cast, it's filled with many familiar players who all give good performances; most notably, William Petersen as Will Graham (the ex-FBI profiler), Brian Cox as the infamous Hannibal Lecktor (Michael Mann's misspelling, not mine), and also including Dennis Farina, Stephen Lang, Joan Allen and Tom Noonan as the killer sought in the manhunt.

I will confess, having seen Manhunter so many times, I don't have any interest in seeing the 2002 film Red Dragon. With a film as intense, edgy, frankly as good as Manhunter is, how can it be equaled? I give Manhunter three and a half (of four) stars.

Gods And Generals

2009-10-07T16:28:00.002-04:00

In the early 1990's, Ted Turner financed the production of the superb Civil War epic Gettysburg. Ten years later after Gettysburg's release came another Civil War epic, financed also by Ted Turner, and presenting the Civil War before the battle at Gettysburg: 2003's Gods And Generals.

Starting not long after the beginning of the Civil War with the attack on Fort Sumter, the story of Gods And Generals covers briefly the first battle of Bull Run (or Manassas, if you prefer), fast forwards to the battle of Fredericksburg and very briefly covers the battle of Chancellorsville. As with Gettysburg, the film has three central characters: Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Union colonel Joshua Chamberlain.

Unlike in Gettysburg, however, where it was focused equally on its three central characters, Gods And Generals is focused more on “Stonewall” Jackson and his life than on the other two central characters. Also, there is more focus on the Southern viewpoint of the War and what led to it than the Northern viewpoint, but the real flaw in the film was it wasn't long enough. At 3 hours and 39 minutes, it's shorter than Gettysburg by 36 minutes; 36 minutes which could've balanced the film out a little more. Nevertheless, Gods And Generals is a great film, with Ronald F. Maxwell adapting the script from Jeff Shaara's novel of the same title and directing the film (and as with Gettysburg, a good job by Maxwell on both counts).

Jeff Daniels, reprising his role as Colonel Chamberlain, and Robert Duvall, as Robert E. Lee, both gave good performances despite not being seen in much of the film. The best performance of the film was given by Stephen Lang (who also played General George Pickett in Gettysburg) as “Stonewall” Jackson. It's very easy for me when watching Lang's portrayal of “Stonewall” Jackson to see why the real Civil War general was and remains such an admired and respected historical figure. And, of course, the attention to detail, authenticity and historical accuracy throughout the film is spot on.

A well done (on all counts) prequel to Gettysburg, I give Gods And Generals three and a half (of four) stars.

Gettysburg

2009-10-07T13:25:00.003-04:00

When I saw this film for the first time, I was in the fifth grade. All the students in the grade, at the elementary school I was attending at the time, had to spend the school day watching this film. The battle, one I was very much acquainted with, came alive, as did also the men who fought the battle; the generals and officers who planned and led the fight and the men who fought it for three bloody days, as shown in the 1993 film Gettysburg.

Epic in its size, scale, story and length (at 4 hours and 14 minutes), the film begins just before the beginning of the battle on July 1, 1863, and continues on in great detail through each of the three days of the battle of Gettysburg, one of the most pivotal battles of the Civil War. Based on Michael Shaara's novel The Killer Angels, the central characters in the film are the Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet and the Union colonel Joshua Chamberlain, who played a major role during the second day of the battle.

I finally purchased the film on DVD not long ago and saw it for the first time in fifteen years, and as it was that day at the elementary school, the story of Gettysburg came alive once again. The performances given by the cast, which was led by Tom Berenger (as Longstreet), Jeff Daniels (as Chamberlain) and Martin Sheen (as Lee) were memorable, as was also the re-enactment of the battle, which was filmed at the actual battle sites and with great attention to maintaining authenticity carried out.

Ronald F. Maxwell, who adapted the script from Michael Shaara's novel and directed the film, told and presented quite well the story of Gettysburg, a story which is poignant and at times quite moving, with the individual stories of the soldiers, North and South alike, shown in the film. And also of note, both the Northern and Southern causes are shown without any bias in the film (as I believe it should be).

In conclusion, it's one the finest historical epics produced for the silver screen, with the writing, directing, filming and acting all done well, and told with great historical accuracy. I believe the film does a great service to the memory of the men who fought there during those three days in Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863; a noble tribute, in my opinion. I give Gettysburg a full four stars.

Inglourious Basterds

2009-08-25T18:18:00.001-04:00

I have something to confess here: I have never seen the whole of any of Quentin Tarantino's films. Not Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, either volume of Kill Bill, or his Grindhouse featurette Death Proof. That is until this past Saturday, when I saw Tarantino's latest film, Inglourious Basterds.

The film is about a small band of GI's in World War II with a simple objective: killing Nazis. Sent into Nazi-occupied France, the GI's unleash a campaign of terror upon Nazi soldiers, brutally killing and scalping those they find. Eventually, the "Basterds" (as they're called) are given the job of assassinating none other than Adolf Hitler. However, they face several obstacles, including a Nazi SD officer and a young Frenchwoman with an agenda of her own. What results is nothing short of bullets flying, Nazis getting killed, nonstop mayhem and chaos; it's beautiful, man. And on top of that, it ends with a "masterpiece".

For a Quentin Tarantino film, Inglourious Basterds has everything associated with a Quentin Tarantino film: part funny, part uber-violent, part graphic, part offbeat. Brad Pitt gave a good (sometimes funny) performance as Lt. Aldo Raine, the head of the "Basterds", but it was Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa (the Nazi SD officer) who really stood out with his performance (best performance in the film, in my opinion). The film also has a couple of big surprises (including Mike Myers's cameo appearance).

There's not a dime's worth of historical accuracy in it, but it doesn't matter. The only downside I found was that a couple of scenes were pretty long. Although they prove beneficial, I'd recommend being sure you've had plenty of sleep before watching. Inglourious Basterds is a good film, well-made with good performances all around and a definite Quentin Tarantino film, and it's one I like. I give Inglourious Basterds three (of four) stars.

Get Carter

2009-08-08T12:19:00.004-04:00

It all begins somewhere in London, with one man, a gangster, dead set on going to his old hometown "to find out what happened". And thus begins the story of a superb gangster film from 1971, Get Carter.

The gangster in question, Jack Carter, is determined to find out the truth behind his brother's mysterious death, and so he travels to his old hometown of Newcastle to find the answers. Seeking answers from a number of seedy characters in the city's underworld, Carter draws the ire of the local hoods, and his bosses in London, trying to keep their connections with Newcastle intact, want him back in London. However, nothing will stop Carter from finding out, and nothing will stop him from avenging his brother's death.

On the whole, what you see in Get Carter is a brutal, cold-blodded man you don't like, but one you root for because of why he is doing what he does. Michael Caine, who plays Carter, gives one of his strongest and best performances in my opinion, convincing you he is that brutal, that cold-blodded, that determined.

The musical score, while it's rarely heard, serves its purpose well; when played at regular speed, it sounds very much like the 70's that London was well known for, but played slowly, is a haunting piece that accentuates the grim, bleak reality you see in the film.

A very well done film, I give Get Carter three and a half (of four) stars.

The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother

2009-08-05T19:24:00.007-04:00

That legendary detective of literature has been featured in such a large plethora of movies and television shows (this year, in fact, will feature a new film about him), you likely would need a guide of some kind. And of all those films and television shows, there is one film that is sometimes neurotic, sometimes crazy, sometimes silly, sometimes bawdy and entirely hilarious: 1975's The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother.

Set in 1891 London, Sherlock Holmes passes along a case to his younger brother Sigerson (who "lovingly" refers to his brother as Sheer-luck), a case involving a stolen document left by Queen Victoria in the care of a government officer, an actress who knows more than she says, a Scotland Yard sergeant with a photographic sense of hearing and the Napoleon of crime himself, Professor Moriarty. But hey, we're talking about Sherlock Holmes' smarter brother; how can he not solve the case?

The ever funny Gene Wilder wrote, directed and starred in the film as Sigerson, and he scored a triple play; writing a story filled with situations, gags and jokes that can only be described as hilarious; directing a well presented story and very funny performances given by fellow cast members Madeline Kahn as Jenny Hill (a.k.a. "Miss Liar"), Marty Feldman as Sgt. Orville Sacker, an eccentric sidekick with a reliable sense of hearing, Leo McKern as the funniest Moriarty I've ever seen and Douglas Wilmer as Sherlock Holmes, who seems to pop up every now and then (just look for a certain pipe); and giving himself one of his funniest performances as the neurotic detective who can't seem to break out of his famous brother's shadow.

Considering this was Gene Wilder's first film as a director, it was a superb accomplishment. This is a film to watch, especially if you're a fan of Sherlock Holmes, Gene Wilder, Young Frankenstein (which also featured Wilder, Madeline Kahn and Marty Feldman) or any other silly comedy. I give The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother three (of four) stars.

Valkyrie

2009-07-27T22:01:00.001-04:00

Sixty-five years and seven days ago saw one of the most elaborate and daring attempts ever taken on Adolf Hitler's life, and it was met with one of the largest reprisals ever undertaken by the Nazis. It was the gripping true story of a group of German resistance fighters seeking to save their country from the destruction Hitler had condemned them to that was told in an equally gripping film released late last year, Valkyrie.

The film centers on the man responsible for attempting to kill Hitler on July 20th, 1944, Claus von Stauffenberg, a colonel in the German Army. Beginning with the day he lost his right hand, his left eye and three fingers on his left hand due to an air attack in Tunisia, von Stauffenberg becomes committed to the assassination efforts being conducted by like-minded individuals.

Forming a plan to kill Hitler and overthrow the SS by using reserve Army troops in place to prevent a coup, the conspirators launched their attempt on July 20th. Because, however, of indecision and a seemingly innocuous incident, Hitler's life was spared, which ultimately doomed the effort by the conspirators. In response, most of the conspirators and thousands remotely suspected of involvement were executed, and in some of the worst ways imaginable.

On the whole, Valkyrie is very good, with a solidly good performance from Tom Cruise as von Stauffenberg, and backed by one of the strongest supporting casts I've seen in a film, featuring Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson and Terence Stamp. As an actor, Cruise has reached a level of maturity that allows him to tackle roles with more depth and gravitas. If this was ten years ago, I doubt he could portray Claus von Stauffenberg as well as he did.

Bryan Singer, still very well known for directing the first two X-Men films and Superman Returns, scored in his presentation of the July 20th bomb plot and the subsequent attempt to carry out Operation Valkyrie (as it was called), leaving you at the edge of your seat and almost thinking this could succeed, even though the outcome is already known.

Today, those patriotic Germans who attempted to save their country, their sacred Germany as they called it, are remembered as the heroes they truly were, and it's in no small part because of this superbly-done film that they are not forgotten and likely will not be for a long time. I give Valkyrie three and a half (of four) stars.

Taken

2009-07-27T08:41:00.002-04:00

He doesn't know who they are, or what they want. He doesn't have any money, but he does have special skills; skills that make him a nightmare to people like the men who've kidnapped his daughter. His ultimatum is simple: if they return his daughter to him safely, that ends the matter, but if they don't, he will find them and he will kill them.

That's the situation for a retired "preventer" in one of the best action films to come out in a quite a while, this year's Taken. A retired spy who lives in Los Angeles, close to his daughter, reluctantly agrees to let her travel to Paris, but when she kidnapped by unknown individuals, he will use his special skills to track down the kidnappers and bring his daughter back home. And yes, he does kill the kidnappers.

The film relies entirely upon Liam Neeson, who plays the retired "preventer", to carry it from beginning to end, and he does an excellent job of it. Almost from the beginning, you know this is a guy whose bad side you would never, ever want to be on. More than that, he's also somebody you sympathize with, as you see him try to be close to his daughter, and when the "preventer" in him must spring into action, you're rooting for him all the way.

The story is a simple one, singularly focused, well-told and (at 93 minutes) nicely paced. It's an adrenalin-rushing, vengeance-fueling thrill ride well worth paying the $20 to own on DVD. I give Taken a full four stars.

Luther

2009-07-19T13:07:00.004-04:00

It was more than three years ago when I saw a DVD of this film at a supermarket. I, as well as my family, had already left one church and were about to check out another. I ultimately decided to rent the film, and what I saw became my introduction to a man who would permanently alter the direction of Christianity. That film was 2003's Luther, the true story of Martin Luther.

The film covers the most important and impactive part of the reformer's life, from 1507, when as a law student, a fierce thunderstorm compelled him to become a monk, to 1517, when he would publish the Ninety-five Theses that would start the Reformation, to 1521, when he would give his greatest defense of his writings and teachings, and finally to 1530, when the acceptance of the Augsburg Confession would help cement the foundation of the Lutheran Church.

In those 23 years, you see the many things that drove Luther, the doubts that plagued him early about his salvation and who God is, the rage he felt at the rampant corruption of the Catholic Church at the time, and the importance of his efforts to reform Catholicism, and in effect, Christianity.

Luther is a superb film; the story is paced fairly quickly, as there is much to cover in a little over two hours (accompanied also by a beautiful, sometimes haunting musical score), and there is featured equally superb performances from its cast, which includes Joseph Fiennes in the title role, Alfred Molina as John Tetzel, the 16th century version of today's televangelists, and the late great Peter Ustinov (in one of his last performances) as Frederick the Wise, a regional prince who was one of Luther's most stalwart supporters.

What Martin Luther achieved in his lifetime had a significant impact, not only on Christianity, but also in other areas, including education, the formation of the German language as we know it today, law and many others. And what the film Luther does is superbly present the remarkable story of this incredible individual. I give Luther three and a half (of four) stars.

Cop Land

2009-07-14T02:18:00.003-04:00

Sylvester Stallone will always be remembered for at least two memorable performances, as Rocky Balboa and as John Rambo. But his best performance, in my opinion, is as that of Freddy Heflin in the 1997 film Cop Land.

As Heflin, Stallone plays the sheriff of a New Jersey town just across the river from New York City, a town whose residents are cops. As the story unfolds, the sheriff finds himself having to deal with the truth behind the facade of the cop town, a truth involving organized crime, corruption and murder. Ultimately, it's up to Sheriff Heflin to decide between loyalty to the very cops who helped him and the law for which he serves.

Everything about Cop Land is well-done; well-written, well-paced, well-directed and especially well-acted, featuring in addition to Sylvester Stallone, great performances by, among others, Robert DeNiro, Harvey Keitel and Ray Liotta. The best part of the film is the story of Freddy Heflin, how saving the girl of his dreams ends up costing him a shot at joining the NYPD, how he becomes the sheriff and how after looking the other way long enough, confronts the truth.

Without doubt, not only is Cop Land an exceptional film, it is to date the best film written and directed by James Mangold (Girl, Interrupted, Walk The Line), who superbly weaves together the main story, the backstories and the film's themes into a gripping cinematic achievement. And I reiterate, it features Sylvester Stallone at his best. I give this film a full four stars.

Malone

2009-07-12T13:13:00.007-04:00

I'm not sure how old I was when I first saw this film. I'm pretty sure I was no older than 8 at the time. The thing I remember best was seeing a tough guy with a mustache confront a group of bad guys after they killed a friend of his. This was a guy you didn't want to mess with. That guy was Burt Reynolds. The film I'm talking about is the 1987 film Malone, an enjoyable and very entertaining B-movie.

The story of the film involves a CIA assassin named Malone who is unable to do his job and leaves. As he travels, around the country, his car breaks down somewhere in Oregon. As he waits for the car to be fixed, he comes to the aid of the mechanic, who is being harassed by menacing individuals who want him and his daughter to leave. Soon, the appearance of Malone attracts the attention of these individuals, who want him gone, but when a former CIA protege is killed after trying to help him, Malone springs into action and disposes of the bad guys once and for all.

On the whole, Malone is not a well-made film. It's like a cheap version of Shane, with its biggest flaw being the revelation of the villain's goals. Yet, it remains both very entertaining and enjoyable, in no small part because of Burt Reynolds and Cliff Robertson, who plays the villain in the film.

Malone serves as a great example of what made Burt Reynolds the film star he is, and it is because of his performance as the title character, this remains my favorite Burt Reynolds film. In the end, I give Malone 2 1/2 (of four) stars.

Last Chance Harvey

2009-05-12T22:22:00.005-04:00

There are some films I should have seen in theaters, films that were worth paying the $5 to see on the big screen. Last year's Last Chance Harvey is one of them.

Within the first half of the film, you see the mostly separate lives of Harvey and Kate as they deal with problems involving jobs, unresolved family issues and loneliness. When they finally get to talking, things begin to click and in time, the problems are resolved and they pursue a new chapter of their lives together.

Last Chance Harvey reminded me a lot of Marty, where you have a similar situation with lonely people who come together at the least expected time, and is just as well done. The performances given by Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson as Harvey and Kate were indeed worthy of awards; they were nominated for Golden Globes, but sadly didn't win. Writer/director Joel Hopkins also delivered with this film, nicely keeping everything in balance.

This romantic melodrama can be best described in one word: heartwarming. And the two main characters in this film can be best described in two words: likable & sympathetic. If you're a fan of films like Marty or also An Affair To Remember, you will enjoy Last Chance Harvey. I give it three & a half (of four) stars.

The Seventh Seal

2009-05-08T00:12:00.005-04:00

I've come to realize that when it comes to Ingmar Bergman's films, they're hard to understand. Maybe they're like fine wine; it requires time for you to understand what Bergman is trying to show you in his films, or possibly Bergman simply allows you, the viewer, to draw your own conclusions on what his films are about.

After having just seen Bergman's other classic from 1957, The Seventh Seal, there is much about it to contemplate. What starts out as a story of a medieval knight back from the Crusades who competes in a extended chess match with the Grim Reaper turns into one of individuals faced with questions about God, life, love, emptiness, happiness and ultimately, the inevitability of death, and all of this against the historical backdrop of Sweden in the Dark Ages & during the infamous Bubonic Plague, forever known as the Black Death.

In no way was The Seventh Seal an easy film to watch, especially because everything about the film was so bleak, grim, foreboding, apocalyptic. And yet, in spite of all the bleakness and the grim reality, there is still a ray of hope in the form of two characters, troupe actors Jof and Mia, whose paths cross with that of the knight, his squire and other characters, and who ensure that the film's ending remains a hopeful one.

As with Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal was interesting and well done, with good performances by all, including Max von Sydow as the knight and especially Bengt Ekerot as Death itself. I give this film three (of four) stars.

Wild Strawberries

2009-04-30T00:50:00.001-04:00

The late Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman has been heralded for half a century as a great writer/director, but I never saw any of his films, and I have to admit, with all the hoopla about him and his work, I was tempted to check out a few of his films. Now, I've finally seen one of them, his 1957 classic Wild Strawberries.

It isn't an easy film to watch, even though it's only about an hour and a half long, and you do need to pay careful attention, especially when trying to read the subtitles (which is hard to read sometimes). The story has to do with a 78-year old doctor who over the course of a road trip to get his honorary degree, realizes the consequences of his past actions through nightmares and hallucinations. And while the story is told well, it's done at a slow enough pace, I was worried I'd be bored to sleep.

An interesting thing I observed about Wild Strawberries was that it reminded me a bit of A Christmas Carol, in which you have an old man forced to face the actions of his past and the repercussions of those actions (in the case of Wild Strawberries, the doctor shuts himself off emotionally from everybody and the repercussions directly affect not only himself, but also his son and daughter-in-law).

On the whole, I found the film interesting. It's one of those films that made me think. I give it three (out of four) stars.

Introduction

2009-04-27T22:05:00.000-04:00

Well, first of all, welcome to The Normal Critic, my new blog devoted to my two cents on films I've seen. The idea for the title came from how my mom described my taste in films. I had mentioned my self-opinion on my taste as being real low, to which my mom responded by describing my taste as normal.

The objective of The Normal Critic is simply to opine on any film I've seen. I expect there will be agreements and disagreements with my opinions, as what some people might see as a work of cinematic art, I might see as a boring waste of time.

I also don't expect to be writing particularly thorough or insightful reviews, as my taste is in fact unrefined compared to actual film critics, most of whom knowing what they're doing. By all means, when I post a review and you have a couple of pennies to spare, so to speak, do opine. I would love to know what you think about the films I'll be writing about.

Hope you enjoy this blog.