The Eclectic Choice: Dead End Drive-In

Dead End Drive-In (1986)
dir. Brian Trenchard-Smith

This is a great one. In the near future (now distant past) resources have dwindled and society has crumbled. It's kind of like an urban Mad Max society where car gangs rule and just run around causing fatalities and generally fucking with people.

Our hero Ned takes a fine lady tothe Drive In and they end up being stuck there. The revelation dawns on Ned that the government is basically creating concentration camps for all of these juvenile roustabouts and keep them entertained with junk food, drugs and exploitation films. Not bad life, but Ned wants out and begins schemeing his escape.

Incredibly well shot, this is a gem. It's funny and well paced and delivers messages about society and the vegetative state of todays (yesterdays?) youth. The movie is an extreme example of 80's teen cinema, but has all of the good stuff and very little of the bad. It's campy explotaition and knows it, which makes it that much more fun to watch.

This is a must own for anyone who enjoys watching a good time on screen.

Review: Benjamin Button

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button (2008)
starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, Julia Ormond, Faune A. Chambers, Jason Flemyng
dir. David Fincher


I had a debate with a friend a little while back about how far David Fincher would have to bend to receive attention from the Academy and get an Oscar. I felt that he'd have to make a film that is very un-Fincher to get any notice and my friend said that it is being Fincher that will get him the award.

I think I was right. As of now, a push is going for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to be nominated and take the best picture of the year. Personally I think it will because it already won it several years ago when it was titled Forrest Gump (1994). However much I tried to put it out of my mind as I was watching it, the same thought kept creeping into my skull, "It's Forrest Gump!" This is not much of a shocker since it was written by Gump scribe Eric Roth, I just expected more from these guys.

I don't mean it as any kind of slam, I actually do enjoy Forrest Gump for what it is and I do enjoy this film for some of it's ideas. But it's not a David Fincher film as far as thematics go and to me it becomes disappointing because of that.

To me Fincher is the new and improved William Friedkin. He explores themes of aberration and obsession and that is what I want from him. So witnessing a film that deals with seizing life and how you're never too old to start living just seems like an awkward choice, very Zemeckis, and I don't really think Fincher buys into it entirely. The film never gets sappy enough for there to be any real emotional connection and it never delves into the darkness of human interaction to become a real Fincher film. This is a movie caught in the currents of confusion.

Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are both good. It's Pitt's best and he's helped along by the use of some amazing technology. The aging process used to move Benjamin backwards while time moves forwards is a real breakthrough. A real gasp happens not with some of the old Benjamin, but the Benjamin in his early twenties who looks just like Pitt did back in the Johnny Suede (1991) days. It's a marvel and instead of being distracting you feel the same awe and wonder that Blanchett's Daisy feels when she sees this young man standing in front of her. So I can't say if it's Pitt's talent or the help of computers that have given him such a subdued and emotional performance. I'll say Pitt, they guy deserves props for being more than pretty.

But the Forrest Gump thing keeps getting to me. It's structure is very similar, minus the flashback framing, the characters are very similar and the situations are very similar. From fighting in a war to continual encounters with people who will have moments in history, I find it hard to believe that it didn't seem to pop out to anybody early on. Unless it was an intentional move to make the film more pallatable for commercial audicences? If so, I guess they succedded then.

Some of the moments of quirk didn't really fit it. There is a sequence about fate that played like a clunky version of a Jean-Pierre Jeunet piece. It is an awkward moment that grinds the story to a halt and doesn't add anything. Also an old man relaying stories about being struck by lightning seven times, they only show five, seems to interrupt more than anything else. In a movie that tries to point out how odd things happen all the time, the odd things seem very out of place. We're willing to accept that Benjamin Button is aging backwards, you don't need to shove this conceit down our throat with whimsical side stories.

I'm not going to say it was a waste of time or that it's a bad movie. It has it's charm and is much stronger than I am giving it credit for. It is better than Gump, but I can't help and feel a little hurt. David Fincher is an amazing talent and an amazing voice. He is willing to look at the dark side of humanity and within it, ask questions and search for emotional resonance. This just doesn't happen to be one of those movies.

7 out of 10

Review: Gomorra

Gomorra (2008)
starring: Salvatore Abruzzese, Simone Sacchettino, Salvatore Ruocco, Vincenzo Altamura, Toni Servillo, Carmine Paternoster
dir. Matteo Garone


I wasn't ready for what I was about to see when sitting down for this film. I knew it was a crime film from Italy and that it was "different" than any other gangster movie. This hurt my viewing of the picture, but at the same time made the entire process that much more compelling.

At first I was trying to decipher the various story lines to see if they were going to start to come together for a giant climax. That's the Hollywood moviegoer in me. Then as I was beginning to learn the language and form of the film I came to understand it as a much more serious and important version of Robert Altman's Short Cuts (1993). Like Altman's film there are various characters who's lives never directly intercede with each other, but are all connected through the world they live in, Los Angeles. All of the stories in Gomorra may not be directly linked to each other, but are connected through a gigantic crime syndicate, the Camorra, that is involved in everything. This isn't your gangster movie about whacking the guy who offends you, it's about greed and a crime organization so forceful that it doesn't care who it destroys, including the environment, the kid next door or anyone who gets in the way of a dollar.

Gamorra shows a world so completely corrupt that there is no way out accept through death. Even attempting to walk away, giving up all dreams and resolving ones self to working a meniall job may end up some how connecting back to a Camorra clan. It is a scary world that is depicted with a lens that prides itself on depicting reality.

The closest this film ever gets to resembling the classic gangster film that we know of is the story of two teens who want to be big time gangsters. They imitate Tony Montana and try to live the romantic angle by playing big and acting tough. But those ideals are quickly shattered as the boys are brought into the real world of organized crime. There is no romance in this world, there is no code or pecking order, there is only survival of the greediest.

This is the one time where going in knowing what you are about to witness helps in the viewing of this movie. Like Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers (1966) or Costa-Gavras' Z (1969), Matteo Garone has worked hard to strip away every ounce of artifice and show the modern day Italian crime world for what it really is. Harsh and hearless.

9.8 out of 10

R.I.P. Sam Bottoms

Sam Bottoms (1955-2008)

There are several Bottoms brothers who act and it can get a little confusing at times, I admit. But Sam has appeared in a couple classic films including Apocalypse Now (1979) as Lance Johnson the ill fated surfer, The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) as Clint Eastwood's ill fated sidekick and The Last Picture Show (1971) as Billy the ill fated deaf kid. Hmmm, I'm sensing a trend there.

Bottoms may have never been a star, but he is what I consider a dependable actor. That isn't a slight in any way shape or form. If you see that he's in a film, it may not be a draw, but you know that role will be well delivered. Even if the film sucks, he'll be good. That means something.

Mr. Bottoms was taken way to early at the age of 53 from a brain tumor, but he leaves behind some great movies and will be missed.

Review: The Wrestler

The Wrestler (2008)

starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, Todd Barry, Judah Friedlander

dir. Darren Aronofsky

I've only been to one live professional wrestling show and that's what it is, a show. I never felt the emotional gouging of physical pain. It plays like a theatrical piece, a put on by a bunch of juiced guys who figured out some choreography and succeed and/or failed in executing it. Darren Aronfsky's The Wrestler is a beast from a different planet. In the first few minutes the viewer is in on the discussing of how a match should play out, but then thrown into the ring and the very real physical pain of executing those moves. Sure it's fake, but it's also a grueling exercise to entertain a small number of people. Nothing in this film feels staged or theatrical, it is an exercise in reality and the fringe-living human beings who populate it.

To say Rourke is great is an understatement. He's brilliant, mind blowing, so emotionally honest that he inhabits Randy "The Ram" Robinson completely. There is a lot of talk going around about the performance coming from a place that may be more Rourke than the character, I think it's bullshit. The case only stands up in Robinson's final soliloquy to a crowd of screaming fans. When dealing with his daughter or bonding with Marisa Tomei's stripper Cassidy, it is inspired and never goes over the top. Rourke huffs and groans his way through walking down a hall and you can feel the years of abuse Randy has put on his body. That's not Rourke, that's Rourke and Aronofsky interpreting the character of Robinson. I can't say enough about how touched I was by this troubled man who made decisions and in the end realizes he will stick by them.

Aronofsky has stepped away from the stylized images he has used in the past and allows the camera to become a part of Randy. It is there solely to show us who this man is and where his life has taken him. It's not devoid of style, far from it, it is a style that is built around Randy. It's fluid, but gritty, much like Randy in the ring. It is a beautiful piece of craftsmanship and Aronofsky shows that he can work with a script and not force a script to fit his style of film making.

Aronofsky also proves again that he is incredibly strong with actors. They say half a directors job is in the casting and the choices Aronofsy makes are spot on. Marisa Tomei is on a roll after a great turn in Before The Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) . This time she crafts a woman who has become so guarded and protective that she is afraid to do anything. You can feel the back and forth argument going through her all the time and as soon as she lets her guard down for even a moment of happiness, she refuses to lose control and brings it back in. Not the thought out progression of a character's emotions, but a person who has been through the shit and doesn't want to go through it again. Oh, and she looks amazing for a woman her age. Apparently she's making forty the new twenty-five and getting away with it.

Evan Rachel Wood is excellent in the few scenes she is given as Randy's abandoned daughter. You feel with her as she rediscovers a father she never had and then has to let those emotions die so she can form her own life. The high of watching her and Rourke dance in an abandoned dance hall is equal to the shattering moment where she wants him out of her life and he understands why he must go. It's tough, raw and soulful. Wood has been and continues to be a talent to keep watching.

The more it sits with me, the more admiration and adulation I have for this movie. If this is not the years best for me, it is easily in the top two or three. It's worth a repeat visit to the theater, DVD purchase, second DVD purchase when they put out the special edition and even buying a film print just to say I own it. It's that good.

POV: Expectations

So I'm seeing The Wrestler today and I'm pretty damned excited. I am a big fan of Darren Aronofsky and I was a big fan of Mickey Rourke when I was younger. Angel Heart (1987) still kicks ass. After all of the positive press and talk of the Rourke comeback, I'm worried that the film will let me down. This made me think of the all powerful expectation game.

What can a person do to curb expectations and go into a film with nothing but a clean slate so a film can be viewed with perfect objectivity? Well in my case, not a damn thing. Since I am so obsessed with learning about upcoming films, I find it impossible not to read articles or watch trailers. All of this information makes it impossible not to have a certain opinion before the lights go down and the flicker starts up.

There have been a few times where I get the benefit of going in blind. Amores Perros (2000) opened at a theater near me and I new nothing about it at the time. This was before all the hype and my area just happened to be one of the limited runs for Academy consideration. It was a revelation, I couldn't stop talking about it for weeks. But this is a rareity. Most of the time I know who's in it, who's directing it, or what it's about. Then, like anybody, I have a preconceived notion of what to expect and it can cloud my enjoyment.

So what can a person do? Just try to remain open to what is about to unfold on the screen. That there is someone who is telling a story and an audience just need to pay attention. It's not about being told a story that we want, but what they want to say. Then judge it by how successfully they told it. It's not much to ask, but a lot harder to do then we may think.

So tomorrow I'm just going to try and stay clam and open minded. Maybe it'll be more than I expect, maybe less, but it'll still be a thrill to see the latest Aronofsky film and see if Rourke is in the preformance of his career.

The Eclectic Choice: His Kind Of Woman

His Kind Of Woman (1951)

dir. John Farrow

Robert Mitchum plays down on his luck gambler Dan Milner who is recruited by the mob to go to resort in Mexico an await orders. While there he runs across a bevy of odd characters who may or may not be his contact as well as fall in love with sex pot Jane Russell. Milner isn't sure who he can trust or what the hell is going on until it's too late.

Populated with a bevy of actors like Jim Backus, Charles McGraw, Tim Holt, Raymond Burr and a first rate performance by Vincent Price, this film toes the line between a darker than dark noir and slapstick comedy. The comedy comes from Price's portrayal of Mark Cardigan, a pretentious ham-fisted actor who attacks even the most serious situations with over dramatic zeal. When Mitchum is being held captive aboard a yacht and being brutally tortured, Price gathers a rescue party and recites Shakespeare when the rescue boat starts to sink. It is an odd mix, but well balanced by director John Farrow who also gave us other great noir like The Big Clock (1948) and Night Has A Thousand Eyes (1948).

For some great Mitchum-Russell chemistry, Vincent Price in high camp mode and a bevy of character actors in top form give this one a shot. It's not the best example of Film Noir, but it is one of the funniest.

Review: Gran Torino

Gran Torino (2008)

starring: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Her, Brian Haley, John Carroll Lynch

dir. Clint Eastwood

I'm pretty mixed about this movie. I was wanting it to be great. It has moments of greatness, and I would say it is up there as far as Eastwood movies go, but there were several moments that just didn't work for me.

Technically it's very solid. Eastwood is an excellent craftsman and tells his stories with an economy that creates an atmosphere without relying on a heavy style or cutting factor. As a matter of fact his simplicity is so good an insert shot can get in the way. One moment in particular has Eastwood's Walt Kowalski catching his granddaughter in the garage smoking. The insert shot shows his foot crushing the cigarette, but it's the two shot of them that counts and feels interrupted by the insert. Yes, a minor quibble, but it distracted me and that was the biggest flaw at times, the small distractions.

One of the more irritating of these small distractions was Eastwood's continual growl of disapproval. The man has done some amazing physical work here and when it's ended with a growl that reminded me of Marge Simpson's disapproval, I kind off felt cheated. It feels disingenuous, like he was afraid the emotion wouldn't come across through his eyes. There are times he uses it to great effect, but it's over overplayed and I actually started worrying if he was going to growl in scenes. The second and bigger distraction was Father Janovich played by Christopher Carley. Now I don't know if Carley was the wrong choice, or the character was poorly written, but I just didn't get where he was coming from in a very important scene. He confronts Kowalski and I'm not sure what he was trying to say. You'll know the scene when it happens. It was confusing and could have easily used a rewrite or an actor with more experience to really find a direction and go with it.

There are also some minor plot devices that made me feel a little perturbed. I'd call them quick and easy cheats so certain characters and the audience are left off the hook for certain actions, but discussing them here would spoil a, for the most part, emotionally satisfying ending.

In his defense,Eastwood made this film quickly. In his dropping of the ball, Eastwood made this film quickly. With a little more time and fine tuning, all of these minor quibbles could have been worked out.

On the good side though you have, Bee Vang and Ahney Her as the teenage Lor siblings who are outstanding in first time performances. Ahney Her is especially good as Sue, the Hmong neighbor who decides to accept Walt for who he is as bring him into her family. There is a level of honesty and tenderness that forms between them that is genuinely touching and provides a great sense of humor throughout the first two-thirds of the film. Bee Vang is good as well. He slips at times, but he is also given a character that has to live from the inside and Vang pulls it off with solid success.

Eastwood gives a very strong performance, minus extraneous growling. I don't know if it equals the power of his confessional scene in Million Dollar Baby, but it is very good. There was that internet babble of "This is for Dirty Harry what Unforgiven was for The Man With No Name" stuff, but I didn't feel that. Other actors could have played the role, it would have been different and maybe not as deep because of the Eastwood mythology. It's Eastwood's understanding of his myth that helps flesh out the character and he uses it with great success.

My personal favorite is John Carroll Lynch as the barber Martin. Lynch is an incredible character actor who we've seen in Zodiac, Fargo and Beautiful Girls. He's a real talent and is awesome playing off of Eastwood. The banter and jibes sail between these two actors and you wish there was more with them. It's these scenes that establish that language is extremely versatile. What could be construed as racism by one person may be a form of bonding between others. It's not the words, but the intent that create hate in this world.

The film isn't really about any one of these people, rather it is about America as a whole. Who we were, who we are and where we are going is the real theme here. We are a country of many generations and many cultures that change so quickly in attitude, it can cause emotional whiplash. All it takes is a willingness to understand and the time to learn from each other. The 1972 Gran Torino that the film is named after isn't just a car, or a plot point, it's a very simple metaphor for a state of being.

8.2 out of 10

R.I.P. Bettie Page

Betty Page (1923-2008)


Now it is true that Ms. Page was not technically considered a movie star, but she is a celebrity of mythic proportions. She is the flip side to Marilyn Monroe. Where Monroe was sexuality that was bridled and allowed to bubble up but never over, Page was right out front with it. She helped bring bondage chic into the mainstream and has influenced fashion, pop art, tattoos and the look of countess women. It's tough to walk down a street in Los Angeles on a Saturday night and see at least one woman who has that "Bettie Page" look. Even if they don't know the origins of the look.

She was open and fun and outspoken and brought strength to female sexuality while still being able to hold onto the male fantasy angle. It's a turn on to a guy like me, so I think she's one amazing woman.

I've never seen the biopic The Notorious Bettie Page (2005), only because I'm not a big Gretchen Mol fan. But now might be worth taking some time to check it out give a toast to one of histories most famous pinups.

Bettie may be gone, but her pictures will be around for a very long time to come.

From Me: The Mission Statement

I was having a conversation today with a friend about a project that we are pondering doing together. I asked the question that I always ask as a future tripper, "Why are we doing this?" I decided to write down why I'm doing this blog in case anyone who stumbles upon it wants to know. I'll also have if for myself since I tend to forget.

I'm doing this to improve my writing, find a style, find my eye. I'd like to try and improve my analytical skills as well as learning how to structure a decent review. There hasn't much improvement, but it is early still. I'm not looking to become any kind of professional critic, but it will improve how I form an argument ad that is something that is important to me.

So every so often I think I'll post a look back at a few of the pieces I've done and give them a close look. Just glancing back I can see I focus more on the acting and directing more than anything else.  Those are the things that stick out the most to me, but I shouldn't keep it the focus of the reviews as I seem to be doing now.

I'd like to work on building my reviews out so they seem more complete. I'm trying to get DVD choices down to tight two or three paragraphs that can summarize and point out its importance without getting wordy. It's like doing different core exercises on a weekly basis. Get all of it into shape. 

I think I'll start writing pieces on reviews I like. Maybe look at how the critic presents it and break down what works for me and what doesn't. Not a bad idea. We'll give one of those a shot and see how it goes.

So onward and upward. Lets see over the next several months how this progresses.

On The Boulevard: Lon Chaney

There always seems to be a bit of confusion about Lon Chaney. This is because there were two of them, a senior and a junior. Lon Chaney Jr.'s real name was Creighton, but took his father's name in order to carry on the legacy of a man who was taken from us at an early age.

Lon Chaney Sr. was a master of disguise and is still considered one of the greatest character actors of all time. Chaney was a master at humanizing characters that were physically and therefore emotionally deformed. I don't think anyone today could match Chaney for the sole reason that no one today would make most of the movies that Chaney was in.

He had the popular ones which carry over to today like Phantom of the Opera (1925), The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), Oliver Twist (1922), as well as cult classics like The Unholy Three (silent 1925/sound 1930), West of Zanzibar (1928) and the famous lost film London After Midnight (1927).

In each of these as most of his films Chaney created makeup that created monstrous results and would then find the humanity within the character that allowed the audience to sympathize. He would also use contortion to create physical deformities like his character of The Frog in The Miracle Man (1919) or a body rigging that restricted his movements and help establish Quasimodo's uneven walk.

Chaney would create some of his most interesting characters with the help of filmmaker Tod Browning. Films like The Blackbird (1926), The Road to Mandalay (1926) as well as the before mentioned London After Midnight and West of Zanzibar. Browning is most famous for two films that don't star Chaney though. Dracula (1931) made a star of Bela Lugosi and Browning a director with power and Freaks (1932), which would rip that power away and basically destroy his career.

A film I'd like to point out is The Unknown (1927), that paired Chaney and Browning and is one of the more bizarre love stories in the Chaney cannon. In it Chaney plays Alonzo the Armless, a carnival knife thrower who just happens to be, wait for it...armless. Actually, he's not. He's pretending to be armless to hide from the police since he's a killer. Alonzo falls in love with a hotter than hot Joan Crawford who plays a carnival girl. The circus strongman is also in love with her, but she has a phobia about being touched. This is good news for a guy who has no arms. But, since he does have arms, he has them surgically removed. While he's away recuperating, Crawford overcomes her fears of being touched and falls in love with the strongman. Now Alonzo has no girl and no arms... That's gotta suck. All sorts of drama takes place and Alonzo learns to sacrifice himself for love and redemption. It's a great film with an amazing performance by Chaney and a plot line that is beyond original and could never be done today.

Chaney died at the age of 47 from lung cancer.

The Eclectic Choice: Dark Forces (Harlequin)

Dark Forces (aka Harlequin) (1980) dir. Simon Wincer


As part of my exploration of the Australian New Wave, this film was added to my queue and I was excited because it has an actor in it that I've always enjoyed, David Hemmings. Now Hemmings is quite good, but the real star of the show is Robert Powell in the lead role of Wolf. Powell is given a character that allows for mystery and humor as well as getting to dress like General Zod for some strange reason.

Much like another recent Eclectic Choice, Simon King Of The Witches, Dark Forces centers around a magician who enters into society and whose powers are questioned. It made me wonder why this same idea keeps popping up every so often. Then listening to the commentary track I found out why. Dark Forces is intended as a modern day retelling of Rasputin, that fun loving magical monk who moved through the Russian power elite before being poisoned, shot, strangled, drowned and cast into legend. It's a good story and when set amongst modern day politics it becomes a fascinating curio. Not quite a horror film, not quite a political thriller, not quite a love story, but a mish-mash that makes the film worthy of cult status.

Director Simon Wincer, who would later give us the non-porn version of Free Willy, keeps the story moving with some fun visual effects, fine acting by the leads and great gravel voiced gangstering by Broderick Crawford. There is a goofy photo montage about half way through (budgetary reasons), but it isn't too much of a distraction and even better if you hum the theme to The Rockford Files.

It's worth a look and personally I think it adds a little cult class to anyone's collection.

Review: Punisher: War Zone

Punisher: War Zone

starring: Ray Stevenson, Dominic West, Julie Benz, Wayne Knight, Colin Salmon

dir. Lexi Alexander

I will say that the third attempt at a Punisher movie is the best, it isn't a good movie, but the best of the three.

Punisher: War Zone is derivative, poorly paced, poorly written and its worst offense is simply being blah. I know this isn't fair, not like I'd expect high art from a Punisher movie but I ask that they at least try. From a movie like this I wanted and expected one thing. Good kills! That sounds gross and like I have a sick mind (I do), but a movie like this, along the Rambo, AvP: Requiem, mold. The film is going to lack all creativity accept in the way it shows folks spending their last seconds on earth.

For the most part, it's disappointing. There are two very funny and gross kills and others that seem like goofy disgusting fun, but needed a few more frames to let it sink in. This is what the unrated DVD is for, but the rest of the movie is't worth my time to check it out again. See, I may be sick, but if you want to keep me comin' back, you get one shot.

Ray Stevenson is up to plate as Frank Castle this time. He's good and I think I give him extra points just because he was great in Rome. But there isn't a lot to the Punisher character in general, so he either pouts or looks angry. Dominic West plays Jigsaw the baddy. He has an over baked Brooklyn accent and he struts around checking his hair like a Saturday Night Fever reject. He's not much fun and lacks the energy and evil that would make a person cheer at his final, and strangely tame, demise. Julie Benz plays the upset widow who causes emotional turmoil for Castle. She is neither here nor there, but I mention her because she was in the other killfest at the beginning of the year Rambo. I think all that time on Dexter has gotten to her.

I'm actually so blah about it I can't even work up the energy to write much about it. The final word is if you want to see it, wait for the unrated DVD. Then it should have a bit more gore and you can sit around with friends, smoke a bowl and allow yourself to be punished in the privacy of your own home.

3.5 out of 10

Review: Milk

Milk (2008)
starring: Sean Penn, James Franco, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna
dir. Gus Van Sant


I have a few problems with this movie, but it still stands as one of my favorite of the year. It has energy and humor and a sense of the seventies that never feels false or cheesy. For that alone it deserves major kudos.

Sean Penn is great as Harvey Milk. I had worries after the seeing the trailer that it was going to be an over the top flamboyant performance that falls into caricature. It is anything but. Penn does show Milk's jois de vivre, but also captures his pathos and sincerity when dealing with his campaign or personal relationships. Personally I think it's his best performance since The Falcon and the Snowman, but I like name checking that film whenever I get the chance.

Josh Brolin is on a roll. His portrayal of Dan White shows a man who is out of step with the times. He is frustrated and angry and confused about who he is supposed to be. Is he a repressed homosexual as is suggested? He never gives any indication that he is or isn't. It's a balancing act that Brolin maneuvers brilliantly.

The other supporting actors are at the top of their game, with Emile Hirsch, James Franco and Diego Luna keeping Penn on his toes. Of these, Luna's character Jack fell a little flat for me. Since his relationship with Milk never really blossoms beyond emotional turmoil it feels incomplete. It's a minor quibble, but I did find myself detaching a bit every time Luna's character went into some jealous fit. Luna was great with what he was given, it was simply the character that's under written.

I'm a sucker for Gus Van Sant films and he does some amazing work here. Moving as far away from his minimalist films as you could imagine. There is an abundance of style and form that isn't flashy as much as it is fitting. One entire scene is shot reflected off of a whistle and drives home how defenseless the homosexual community was at that time. Van Sant is an incredibly confident filmmaker, moving between formats and shooting styles with ease. He never makes anything feel artificial and what could have been artifice comes off as authenticity.

Originally Van Sant wanted to shoot the entire movie in 16mm which would have made it feel like footage shot in the seventies. A great idea, but vetoed because the studio was unsure of the idea. A fair decision, but it would have been fascinating to see Van Sant's original vision.

A big story device centers around Proposition 6. It proposed that you could lose your job if it was discovered you were a homosexual. This is Milk's big fight and coming on the heels of California's Proposition 8 in this years election, it was incredibly poignant and timely. It does make you stop and think about how much progress we've made, or not, with equal rights.

I'm giving this film a lot of praise and I think it's worth it. There are some problems. A visual montage of phone calls being made to, "Get the word out," feels more like a cell phone commercial than a part of the movie and there are scenes where it feels like moments of characterization are missing, but these are small things in a film that flows so well and makes you feel like you're witnessing a part of history.

9.5 out of 10

On The Boulevard: Signe Hasso

(An ongoing look at the stars on The Hollywood Walk Of Fame)

So who is Signe Hasso? A good question, because I had no idea. Sometimes walking down the street you see a name that strikes you and this is one of those names.

Signe is an actress who hails from Sweden. Born in 1910 she was one of the youngest students accepted to the Royal Dramatic Theater. That was in 1922, so I'm guessing there has been one or two younger since then. Maybe not.

She started making movies in Sweden in 1930 and was spotted by Hollywood where she moved to in 1940. RKO signed her and they tried to work the image promoting her as, "The Next Garbo!" Since most of us know Garbo's name and scratch our head at the name Signe Hasso, I'd say it didn't pay off.

But Ms. Hasso did have a decent little career. She starred opposite Spencer Tracy in The Seventh Cross (1944), George Raft in Johnny Angel (1945), as well as the Douglas Sirk film A Scandal In Paris (1946). For those who haven't seen Scandal, I'd highly recommend it. George Sanders plays a criminal who sees the light and becomes a cop... Or does he? It is one of Sirk's more underrated films and Hasso is quite luminous.

The other title I recognized was The House on 92nd St. (1945). This was another Henry Hathaway noir special. Shot mostly on the streets of New York it deals with the FBI taking down a nazi spy ring within the states. Hasso has an accent, so guess what she plays. The film is passable and entertaining. It even has J. Edgar Hoover introducing the film. He's not wearing a dress, so the film does lose a point for betraying reality.

Hasso's Career slowed down in the late fifties. Her husband passed away in 1955 and her son died in a car accident in 1957. That is just tragic. It looks like she gave up on Hollywood and went back to Sweden to make movies. She also spent some time on the New York stage according to Wikipedia, but I can't back that up. It also says she spent her later years as a poet and translated Swedish folk songs into english, which isn't something you hear about every day.

She passed away in 2002 at the age of 91. A good run you might say.

Though not a recognizable name, she earned her star, which means she has/had her followers. I'd also say that with A Scandal In Paris and House On 92nd Street, the following is well deserved.

24 Frames: Australian New Wave

The beauty of studying film is that there is always something new that came out of something old. The Australian New Wave is something that I recently discovered and I've actually unwittingly seen several movies from this movement. I even own some. Let's take a look t it, shall we?

Unlike the French New Wave which was spawned from a bunch of upstarts revolting against the film policy of the time, the folks down under just started making a group of movies that gained notoriety and popularity around the world. This popularity laster from around 1971 to approximately 1989 and included films that reached from the low to the high brow.

There are very few popular film movements that include a range of topics like The Year Of Living Dangerously, Breaker Morant, Razorback, The Road Warrior, My Brilliant Career and BMX Bandits. If that doesn't cover a rainbow of wackiness, I'm not sure what would.

The more pop culture loving entertainment crowd pleasers have recently been giving the label Ozploitation from a new documentary called Not Quite Hollywood. It takes a look at the low budget high octane exploitation movies of the era. These films include the Mad Max trilogy (as well as several other car movies), sexploitation, kung fu and lots of blood n' gore. Sound pretty terrific right?

Yes it is only putting a name to a period of time in a country's film industry, but it is exciting because it allows a framework of study. It's like offering a syllabus of movies to watch and try to understand the connection. I saw The Year Of Living Dangerously and Razorback as a kid, but I'd never consider that there was any sort of connection. Now I know there is. A period of time in a county's industry where business politics and ideas as well as audience understanding allowed both of these films to emerge from the same kettle.

Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, George Miller, Peter Weir, Bruce Beresford, Sam Neill, Judy Davis, Phillip Noyce and Bryan Brown all emerged during this period of time. That is an amazing list of talent that have also made some great films in the United States. WOuld they have become as well known without the popularity of that movement? Who knows.

But...

There is one down side and I don't believe that any other country can claim to have damaged movies as much as the Aussies have. It is during this era that they gave us Paul Hogan and Yahoo Serious.

We are still awaiting an apology.

The Eclectic Choice: Crime Wave/Decoy

Crime Wave/Decoy (1954/1956)
Dir. Andre de Toth/Jack Bernhard


These are part of Warner Brothers Film Noir Classic Collection Vol. 4 and every film in this set is worthwhile, but this disc is the prime cut. First you have Crime Wave, maybe one of the best B-noirs made. Directed by Andre de Toth in only 13 days it is a tight little thriller about a guy trying to go straight, the gang trying to pull him back in and the cop out to bust his ass. With some amazing visuals, including a gritty violent gas station hold up and a fist fight that physically hurts when you watch it, this is a primer on making every shot count. Sterling Hayden is excellent (as always) as the cop with a grudge and Timothy Carey makes an appearance as the wackiest criminal on the planet. Bit the real kudos go to Gene Nelson and Phyllis Kirk who give the film an emotional core. Nelson's tight gripped panic and Kirk's exasperation make you feel for the newlyweds who are stuck in a world they are trying desperately to escape. A winner on all fronts and bonus points for including Charles (Buchinsky) Bronson in an arly roll.

Next is Decoy, which may not be the best noir ever, but it is surly one of the nuttiest. Jeanne Gillie may not be the world's greatest actress, but her over the top performance melding with a character who's nothing but poison and bile is electric and leaves you giddy by the end. The plot itself is so implausible, which includes resurrecting a mob boss from the dead, that you have to appreciate it as high camp even if it was intended to be a serious piece. This sucker is filled with double and triple crosses, making it a fun filled, if not dated, companion piece to the straight forward gut punch of Crime Wave.

The entire set is well worth it and everyone will have their favorites, but for my money the Crime Wave/Decoy disc is the best of the lot.

Review: Australia

AUSTRALIA (2008)
starring: Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, Brandon Walter, Jack Thompson, Bryan Brown
Dir. Baz Luhrmann

They are saying this is Australia's Gone With The Wind. I'll say sure, since I didn't care much for Gone With The Wind. This is a georgoue looking sprawling epic that isn't very epic since it feels so small and isn't very sprawling because I never felt like we strayed far from a back lot or green screen. That isn't entirely fair, there are quite a few scenes that take advantage of the sprawling outback, but all you end up remembering is the confectionery creations that Baz Luhrmann and his team cooked up in a computer somewhere.

There is a very good film in the 165 minutes that flash across the screen with quit edits, continual camera movement and Nicole Kidman making noises every second to prove that she is acting. The good film is in the telling of Brandon Walter's character Nullah, a half white half aboriginal boy who narrates the tale as well as giving the most compelling performance. It's actually his movie, but Luhrmann decides to focus on the romance between Kidman and Jackman, sidelining Nullah's story at every turn. Had the project refocused to be about the persecution of "Creamys", a derogative term for Nullah's mixed blood, you'd have an amazing movie. But Luhrmann is a showman and he needs to keep it about love, loss, more love and big frothy compositions. It is cinematic, theatrically cinematic, but cinematic.

Luhrmann makes it epic for epics sake. It's like he just learned the word and wanted to prove it to everyone. The story keeps rolling along and could have easily been about any one of the many events but instead, jams it into a giant tale that never gives enough respect to any of them.

Kidman's portrayal of Lady Sarah Ashley are fingernails on a chalkboard. Perhaps she has to keep huffing, puffing and making rancid squeaks to show emotion because her botox wouldn't allow it to come through her face. Jackman is passable. I like the guy, he has a certain charm. Ladies, People magazine devotees and homosexuals across the land will enjoy the way Luhrmann's camera molests his body at every possible moment. Jack Thompson is back playing the heavy for Baz. Much like his character in Moulin Rouge! (2001), he twists his lips and furrows his brow in melodramatic overkill. The only word that kept popping into my mind when he'd show up on screen was, "blech".

Now, with all of this bad mouthing, I won't say I didn't enjoy myself. I couldn't understand why until I thought about it a bit. I realize and now understand how Luhrmann works his magic. It is through a type of hypnotism. All of his films are structured the same way. The first twenty minutes are designed to toss you back and forth and make the viewer wonder if they are going to enjoy it. Then he shifts gears and mellows out. It lulls you into a sense of enjoyment and makes you think the final product is much better than it actually is. It's like rolling on ecstasy. When the initial kick of the drug stars to hit you're a little worried and fear an ugly ride. Then that moment arrives (minute twenty in his films). it becomes more of a mellow feeling and you enjoy it. But it's just a drug and there is nothing more to it than being a drug. None of what you felt was honest.

So enjoy the trip. Remember that it could have been so much more. A dessert that could have been a meal. Sometimes though, it's nice to let the drugs take over and just go along for the ride.

For a better film that takes a look at the plight of the mixed-race Aboriginals, I am told Phillip Noyce's Rabbit Proof Fence (2002) is quite good. I haven't seen it myself, so no guarantees.

4.5 out of 10

On The Boulevard: Ida Lupino

Ida Lupino is one of those women that, in my book, has it all. She had looks attitude and a brain. That is an awsome package. Just look at her cute as a button nose and you'd never know she could play hard ass femme fatales or even have the nerve to start her own production company and succeed as a director for the second half of her career. She's a pretty amazing woman in my book, but then again I tend to romanticize.

For me it was movies like They Drive By Night (1940) and High Sierra (1941) that showed me she could hold her own and even control scenes against the likes of Humphrey Bogart and George Raft. In Moontide (1942) she gave a layered performance of a tough girl who wanted real love and found it in Jean Gabin. In Roadhouse (1948) she made me fall in love with her singing, if it was her. If not, I'm in love with someone out there. Last but not least she tamed a savage Robert Ryan (his best performance) as a sensitive blind woman in On Dangerous Ground (1952).

According to Wikipedia, Lupino is uncredited as director for On Dangerous Ground. There is no reference to it other than that so I don't know how valid it is. But Lupino did direct several great films. She had grown tired of the fact that women’s issues were never portrayed accurately on screen, so she decided to do it herself.

Outrage (1950) dealt with a woman who was raped. Hard, Fast and Beautiful (1951) dealt with a woman deciding over a career or love. She is also considered the first woman to direct a film noir with the B classic The Hitch-Hiker (1953). She also directed the young ladies classic Trouble with Angels (1966), but I've never seen it so I can't comment. She'd go on to a directing career in television where she worked on The Twilight Zone, Batman, The Untouchables and Gilligan's Island just to name a few. That alone is an impressive resume.

She'd continue to act and direct until the late seventies and passed away in 1995 at the age of 77 from a stroke. At the time she was undergoing treatment for colon cancer, so it seemed she was gonna-get-got one way or another around that time. But it was a hell of a life and career she lived the way she wanted to. That's more than most people can say.

Lupino actually has two stars on the Boulevard, one for her work in television and one for her work in film. Beat that.

POV: Some Boetticher And Scott Love

I just finished watching Decision at Sundown, a Budd Boetticher western starring Randolph Scott and I have to admit, it may be the most depressing yet uplifting western ever put to film.


It’s about Bart Allison (Scott) spending three years tracking down the man he feels is responsible for his wife’s suicide. When he catches up with Tate Kimbrough, really well acted by John Carroll, Allison comes to discover that not everything is as it seems and the price tag way too high.

Through the course of events, these really interesting psychological and sociological themes bubble to the surface. What is the price of revenge and how do we use it to mask our own denial about our lives? That is the biggie on the psychological front and on the sociological front, how do we as a society allow tyranny and injustice to rule over us when all we have to do is stand up together and reject it?

The answer to the second question is: you are pushed to the point of being unable to take it any more and you finally do something about it. This makes for a very uplifting ending where a town silently ruled by a man who uses money to control is finally cast out. The first question though ends with the destruction of the soul for our main character. Allison is broken as he rides out of town even though the town itself will praise his name for showing them how to stand up for themselves. It is very reminiscent of Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai where the real winners are the farmers not the samurai.

This is a film that plays with expectations and wears its questions on its sleeve, but never gets pretentious or soapboxy. The visual style is simple and clean, as most of Boetticher’s films are and allows for performances that carry a level of nuance while still being very upfront about the message being delivered.

Scott is solid as always and the supporting cast holds its own. As I mentioned earlier though it is John Carroll who really breaks out thanks to a well constructed character. Kimbrough is a rich scumbag, but is willing to stand up when he has to. He has a code of honor that he respects and when crunch time comes, takes care of his own business. Carroll handles it with a charisma that I wouldn’t call charming, but you feel he has earned his right to be smarmy. Noah Beery Jr, who most people will remember as Rocky in The Rockford Files, plays Scott’s reliable and full of life sidekick. Beery tries to play the voice of reason to Scott and does so with a heart and compassion that never becomes melodramatic.

This is a gem of a movie that is in the new Budd Boetticher Box Set that was recently released on DVD. So far every film in this set has been a winner and I hope it helps bring some praise to Boetticher and Scott who are long overdue for their contributions to cinema.

The Eclectic Choice: Simon King Of The Witches

Simon King of the Witches (1971)
dir. Bruce Kessler


This is an odd and exciting find. When I rented it I expected some crazy exploitation movie with drugs, sex and maybe a wacky psychedelic sequence. I got all of those things plus an incredibly engaging lead performance that keeps this film moving and awkwardly grounded in a sense of reality. Simon is played by Andrew Prine with a charm and sense of humor that wins you over pretty quickly.

Simon is on a quest to become a god , but along he way meets and befriends a hustler named Turk who introduces him to a society of hipsters, fake Wiccans and free lovin' hippies. Simon is accepted by some, doubted by others and ends up reciting a curse that sticks it to the man. It's all groovy, baby.

This isn't a horror film as much as it is a satire about the sixties and all of the craziness going on behind closed doors. There is one fabulous scene where they crash a Wiccan ceremony that Simon breaks up with humorous fervor. It it very reminiscent of Frank Langella's performance in The Ninth Gate. I would not be surprised if it was inspiration for the scene.

Sure this film can be lumped into all of those occult movies that were coming out in the late sixties early seventies that were made for a few bucks and hoping to "blow your mind"; but Simon King of the Witches is a surprise for anyone hoping to have a film to laugh at. Instead, you'll end up laughing along with it and even find something to chew on when you come to a conclusion that can cause some discussion.

It's well worth the purchase. It's like having cloves in your spice rack. You may not use it all the time, but it's cool to have around.

Review: Twilight

Twilight (2008)

starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Billy Burke, Nikki Reed, Peter Facinelli, Cam Gigandet

dir. Catherine Hardwicke

Yeah, I get it, I'm not the target audience. If I was a thirteen year old girl I'd be going nuts over this movie or shaking my head wondering why it couldn't be as good as the book. So for what it's trying to be it's fine. But I have problems with it none the less.

I won't discuss the performances. I can't say they were good or bad. They were forgettable, which it the worst you can do in any film. If you're gonna go over the top, go for it. Make it something that Timothy Carey would applaud, or go the other direction if you've got the chops. I have a gut feeling there are very few chops in this. 

The love story itself has logic issues. At one point Edward our dreamy vampire goes off on how he is a creature designed to be desired. His scent, looks, voice all work to draw people to him (I have the same problem). If that is the case and there is no key scene where we can see why she finds him attractive for reasons other than those stated above. Therefore it may not really be love, right? That's what I took from it. I never saw a clear moment where she said, "I like this guy, he's funny." Every reason had to do with what he was, not who he was. At least they explain why he loves her, he is unable to read her thoughts. This either means he finds comfort in her, or she's dumb as a stump. 

My big issues are all technical. I thought it was visually uninteresting and there were goofy flourishes where none were needed. The exception being a shot of Edward and Bella on the top of a giant pine tree. If it was real, I'd like to know how they got them up there. If it was CG, someone deserves a bonus. But over all, there was very little tension built through framing or cutting and the entire piece felt plain and derivative. It's that kind of thing that really makes me dismiss the film. It gives the impression that the producers felt success would come from the brand, not the filmmaking. It's just lazy and uncinematic. That is the biggest crime. You have a love story and vampires, two things that have visual storytelling written all over it and they couldn't care less.

The other technical issue I've got is not just with this film, but any movie where they have people climbing walls or trees or running up hills at fast speeds. Limbs never match the speed of movement and there is always the feeling or being pulled by wires. It just seems tacky to me. A cheapness that they live in denial about.

In case you're concerned, yeah, I got the whole abstinence theme but who cares. Most horror films tend to lean to the right, especially vampire movies. I'm not going to get into any political diatribe about teenage sexuality and when someone should or shouldn't have sex. Too each his or her own, just don't be a lousy lay.

So for me, the movie is a big failure. For the audience it is intended for, good job. Keep up your quest for more money and eternal virginity.

5.0 out of 10

Review: Slumdog Millionaire

Slumdog Millionare (2008)

starring: Dev Patel, Anil Kapoor, Freida Pinto

dir. Danny Boyle

co-dir. Loveleen Tandan

Danny Boyle is one of those filmmakers that I forget about constantly and then as soon as I am reminded of him, I remember how great of a filmmaker he is. The guy can tell a story and has a visual style that he adapts to each project, but still remains cohesive across all his films. Slumdog Millionaire is no exception to this rule.

The basic gist is Jamal (Dev Patel) is one question away from winning 20 million rupee on India's version of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire. He is accused of cheating and questioned/beaten by the police. During his interrogation we flash back through his life to discover where he gained the pieces of knowledge that supplied his answers as well as showing his relation ship with his brother Salim and love of his life Latika. It is a well drawn story that earns every emotional moment and never delves into sentimentality or nostalgia to earn our heart.

This may also be Boyle's most visually stunning film to date. Anthony Dod Mantle has shot two other films for Boyle as well as several films for the Dogme 95' movement, but here he seems to be channeling Christopher Doyle through Bollywood. Incredible colors and framing create an atmosphere out of a Wong Kar-Wai film. There isn't a shot wasted and Mantle captures beauty in a world that is knee deep in squalor and suffering. If this doesn't get a nomination for best cinematography at this years Oscars I might as well toss my hands up in defeat, which makes typing very difficult.

Everyone is good in this. There are three actors each for Jamal, Salim and Latika through different periods in time and they work seamlessly. Patel walks away with the show of course as he portrays Jamal with a level of honor and dignity that never leans into cartoon heroism. Anil Kapoor, a veteran Bollywood star plays the game show host with a hidden agenda brilliantly. This is a roll that easily could have become a mustache twirling scenery chewer, but Kapoor keeps it tight and puts Regis Philbin to shame.

In a recent interview, I was listening to Boyle talk about his casting director Loveleen Tandan, who had ended up helping so much and being such a benefit to Boyle, she received a co-director's credit from Boyle. The guy is cool, admit it.

An all around great movie, Slumdog Millionaire deserves all of the praise it is getting and reminds people that Danny Boyle is a filmmaker not to be taken lightly.

8.25 out of 10

Eclectic Choice: The New Centurions

The New Centurions (1972)

dir. Richard Fleischer

Based on the novel by Joseph Wambaugh, this is a character driven film that looks at the routines and effects of the Los Angeles Police in the 1970's. If you're looking for any semblance of a plot, this is not the movie for you, but for those wanting to see interesting characters and some excellent acting, it's worth a look.

George C. Scott delivers another solid performance as Kilvinski, the veteran cop who is partnered with idealistic rookie Fehler, played by Stacey Keach. We watch these mens lives unravel as the job becomes more important to them then the rest of their lives. 

Yes, it may seem a bit slow since they aren't out to solve a murder, or deal with corruption, but it's also a breath of fresh air as we see a profile of cops that doesn't rely on the tropes of every other film in the genre. This movie doesn't praise cops or punish their decisions, rather it takes an objective look at the life and consequences, emotional and physical, from the decisions they make. 

Review: JCVD

JCVD (2008)

starring: Jean-Claude Van Damme, Francois Damiens, Zinedine Soualem, Karim Belkhadra, Jean-Francois Wolff, Anne Paulicevich

dir. Mabrouk El Mechri

Jean-Claude Van Damme has feelings. Lots of them. Now, he's decided it lay them out there for everyone to see. I've watched him travel through time, do the splits on chairs and countertops, even fight a giant penguin, but  in his latest film he makes his gustiest move yet. He becomes a human being. This is not a satire as you might expect, but a "what if" scenario. What if a fading action star is thrust into a real life hostage situation? The answer is, "JCVD, dumbass!"

In JCVD (his initials for the slow folks out there), he plays himself. Not just himself, but a warts and all self. He's broke, stuck making bad movies to pay bills, fighting for the custody of his child and has a sketchy track record with drugs and women. This is not the invincible high kicking hero that we've seen in the past.

To shake off his woes, he's decided to go home to Brussels to get his act together. Almost instantly, he accidentally gets involved in a post office/bank robbery, taken hostage and mistaken by police as the criminal . It hasn't been a good day for Van Damme.

This is where it becomes a fascinating character study of the Muscles from Brussels. By using a tried and true formula, we are given an opportunity to witness a human being whose screen persona would solve this type of problem with a few high kicks. JCVD rips away the layers of the action hero to expose a man who has worked hard, been successful, made mistakes and been ridiculed by the same people who built him up in the first place. 

What really makes me appreciate this film is how gutsy Van Damme is. JCVD is a project that could have easily been laughably bad. At times it almost treads into territory of Van Damme asking to be taken seriously as an actor, but saved by the fact that he is so good. It is tough to portray emotional truth on screen. It's tougher to play an emotional truth that exposes yourself and not a character. Van Damme not only shows us who he is, but brings it back into the framework of the plot so we understand why he is confessing these feelings to us.

The films structure is solid as well, using non linear storytelling helps build tension as well as fill in all the missing pieces and points of view to create a cohesive narrative and helps us to understand the trials and tribulations that Van Damme deals with on a daily basis. Sure it does have some visual flaws that creates confusion at times, but in the end it is about looking at a man that we have already washed our hands of.

This is an art house film with an action star. Odds are, people who are not fans of his previous work will enjoy this much more than folks walking in hoping to see Bloodsport Redux. But everyone should give it a chance and let Jean-Claude Van Damme state his case.

7.75 out of 10