Social Network

I'm still on the fence about The Social Network. It has all of the ingredients to be incredible, but those same things could be its downfall.

That being said, the trailers for have been nothing but exemplary. They tease and utilize the entire Facebook recognition factor to perfection.

Now we get to see some actual footage!

POV: Happy Birthday AK

Akira Kurosawa would have turned 100 today.

For me he is the greatest filmmaker who ever lived. His ability to entertain while delving deep into the human condition is second to none. There is a reason why he is known as The Emperor, and it is a title well deserved.

Akira Kurosawa 1910-1998

Frame from Yojimbo (1961).Note the use of planes and deep focus.

One of the paintings he'd created for storyboards

24 Frames: Europa Film Treasures

This is a great little site that is perfect for the cineaste in all of us.

Click on the image to visit:

You can discover a treasure trove of short films from various decades and countries as well as test your knowledge, or gain some.

Well worth checking out.

Review: The Ghost Writer

The Ghost Writer (2010)
starring: Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Kim Cattrall, Olivia Williams
dir. Roman Polanski

Chinatown, Frantic, The Ninth Gate, and The Tenant all share one key component. The main character is in over their head and think they are smarter than they really are. From this idea comes a level of twisted comedy as the protagonist struggles with everything and everyone to find some kind of answer. In most cases the lone hero ends up failing miserably. This is something most people can relate to.

There is a moment in The Ghost Writer when Ewan McGregor's character, simply known as "The Ghost", wants to see where the body of his predecessor was found washed up on a beach. He borrows a bike to ride there. His first attempt to hop on the bike proves fruitless as the tires sink into the gravel of the drive, and no matter how hard he pedals to push himself out, he simply falls over. That's pretty much his character in a nutshell and Polanski gives it to us with simple grace and humor.

Filled with little moments, this movie may not live up to the classics that Polanski has given us in the past, but is shows a sure hand and a man who understands that even the slightest little gesture can make a mediocre scene hum with life and atmosphere. It's a movie that shows that what is happening on screen isn't half as dangerous as what is happening off screen. It's a confidence in storytelling that has always set him apart from the pack.

No matter how ridiculous the climax of the film is, odds are you wont see it coming. The pieces of the puzzle fit together, and it is thrilling to be guided by a master storyteller with a unique voice.

There is only two rules to remember when sitting down to watch this: Don't turn your brain off and bring your sense of humor.

8.7 out of 10

POSTERS: Blade Runner

This is a minimal concept piece. One of several great ideas. You can find more here.


It's inspired by Roy Batty's final line from the film which reads as thus:

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

How can you not love that.

Second place goes to The Shining with a close third to the Back To The Future trifecta. I would rank them higher, but I'm not a fan of the sequels.

POV: Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies

Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies
author: Michael Adams

I originally thought that this was going to be more of a reference book. You know, a movie title followed by a brief plot synopsis followed by a snarky critique. Instead, I got a fun adventure into a year in the life of a man who is on a cinematic adventure into the dark waters of crap cinema.

Written like a memoir, Adams lays out his strategy for how he plans to discover the worst film ever made. What makes this a real winner is his sense of humor and lack of obnoxiousness. He's not some snob out to bring down Z-grade cinema. This is a celebration of low budgets, bad writing and directing.

Adams spent a small fortune accumulating a library of movies that most people would be embarrassed to admit they have even seen. Then using random selection through bingo balls, he attempts to watch a movie a day for an entire year. The results are a book that you can't really put down.

If I were to point out a weakness of the book, I do with he'd displayed his rating system. He explains it, but I would have loved an appendix that shows the full score cards for each film. That minor squabble aside, it's a blast.

POV: The Futurist

The Futurist:
The Life And Films Of James Cameron
Author: Rebecca Keegan



As far as biographies go, this one is fine. Keegan keeps the pace brisk, which is nice, but never gives a sense of a full human being. She was given access to the friends and family of Cameron, yet never seems to get any deeper than a few basic bullet points.


1. Cameron is a smart dude who loves real science as much as he loves film.

2. He has a drive that can cause a lot of friction but even when he seems like a jerk, he's a good guy.

3. He continues to push himself.

There is some discussion about the themes of his films and the tensions that it takes to continue to push the envelope, but never any deeper analysis than a few paragraphs that continually reference his other films to show how they link together.

The best part in the book is delivered by Cameron's friend and fellow genius director Guillermo del Toro. He discusses the kidnapping of his father and how important Cameron was at helping Del Toro not only help get his father back, but the real compassion and deep rooted support that Cameron delivered. It's a great story and is the one real glimpse into a man who is a lot more complex than the book wishes to explore.

This biggest shame is that Keegan was given access to Cameron's latest film Avatar, but we learn little more than what has been discussed on the internet or through making of videos. Even his other films are mainly discussed using information that can be found in the special features of DVDs.

There is also no discussion of the film Solaris (2003) which was produced by Cameron and directed by Stephen Soderbergh. These are two men who are the exact opposite when it comes to making movies. If you take the time to listen to the commentary on the DVD which features Cameron and Soderbergh, you get a real sens of how Cameron sees himself and how he respects and honors the way other filmmakers. It's a very solid commentary and feels like a better peek into the way the man operates than most of the book does.

That being said, it's a fast read and it is very enjoyable for what it is. It may not be the definitive biography of one of the worlds most powerful filmmakers, but it's an interestig peek that leaves the reader wanting to know more.

Review: Avatar

Avatar (2009)
starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Stephen Lang, Sigourney Weaver, Michele Rodriguez, 3D, Motion Capture CGI
dir. James Cameron


Not much to add to the debate, but I would like to breakdown this thing into the two separate elements that everyone is talking about/fighting over. Technical vs. Story.

Is this the best example of 3D that has come along? Yes, but what does that mean? At first I was so entranced by the depth and levels that Cameron and his team have created that I wasn't paying a lot of attention to the story. It was more of a "Wow!" distraction then anything else. As my eyes grew accustomed to it, the 3D simply goes away and I'm left watching a 2D movie. What's the point of that? It just becomes a massive piece of escapism that makes my nose itch from uncomfortable glasses. There are some amazing moments, but as a viewer, it made me lose sight of the story, which Cameron claims is the most important part.

Is this the best example of motion capture CGI? Yes, hands down. There is weight and a naturalism to the movement, the eyes seem to live and the power of the closeup retains its importance. The world is amazing, at first, but starts to ware thing over time and when the plot should be really ratcheting up, Cameron gives us more tribal rites that are meant to expand the depth of our alien race, but kept reminding me of a "spiritual" version of the "Tonight we dance" scene from The Matrix: Reloaded. Not a high point.

So what about the plot? This is a movie that wears all intentions on its sleeve. That is, for me, where the film really starts to feel thin. People can quote different sources from where Cameron got his inspiration, but it all boils down to something that is mildly derivative and doesn't add anything new to the debate. These types of wars over territory have existed since the first monkey beat up the second monkey. There is nothing new here. The symbols may change, but the theme remains the same. There is always an exploiter and an exploited.

Here is a test. Take the movie and imagine it on earth. For ease, turn it into a western. The industrialists attempting to take land from a peaceful Indian tribe. How does that play out in your mind? Does it have the same impact without Cameron's imaginative world to back it up?

The characters are caricatures, or drawn thin to the point of nonexistence. There is no reason fro Michele Rodriguez to be in this movie and her motivations are never backed up. She says, "I never signed up for this!" which is a lie. Yes you did, that is the purpose of the humans being on Pandora. You fly a gun ship, what did you think you signed up for?

(SPOILER)
My big problem is that this superior sensitive species that are the Na'vi are supposed to hold all life sacred. Yet they ship off the humans to die. They are allowing for the death of an entire planet. That feels like a false beat and an unearned victory on their behalf.
(END SPOLIER)

Avatar is an excellent technical achievement and Cameron still has the stuff of greatness. He just has a mediocre story that is relevant because of eternal relevance. A proven universality in which to hang the latest and greatest of technology on. Without all of the tech, this would be laughed at by critics as sub-par Oscar bait. But the genius of the film is in the execution and that is the one thing that fires on all cylinders.

Is this a game changer? No. There is no such thing. The Wizard of Oz didn't change the game, The Matrix didn't change the game, Avatar won't change the game. It's a great piece of bubblegum that will lose its flavor and be tossed aside for the next piece. But it's a flavorful piece right now.

7 out of 10

Review: Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans

Bad Lieutenant: Port Of Call New Orleans (2009)
starring: Nicholas Cage, Eva Mendes, Val Kilmer, Xzibit, Brad Dourif, Jennifer Coolidge
dir. Warner Herzog

Considering the film tends to have moments that meander, this is a blast, due in large part to some great performances. Cage has been getting some mighty praise for his balls to the wall drug addled, back spasming corrupt cop and he deserves the praise. As a mater of fact it's right up there with Richard Widmark's insane turn as Tommy Udo in Kiss Of Death (1947). I only bring that up since both characters torment elderly women in wheelchairs. It's a blast to watch Cage act (if he's acting) and reminds us that he is a great talent that has to take one to many pay check jobs. His Lt. Terrance McDounagh is one for the books

But there are a few stand outs that ned to be recognized as well. Jennifer Coolidge has lost her botoxed lips and delvers a fabulous serious turn as a drunk girlfriend to McDounagh's father who is struggling with his recovery. The other actor to mention is J.D. Evermore who is almost as off the hook as Cage. Never going over the top, Evermore delivers the word "Wow" with a variety of expression and a flabbergasted shake of the head that sells a character as well as a stunning piece of humor. It's a great bit and he is one of the few cast members that really holds his own against the tornado that is Cage.

Herzog seemed a head-scratcher of a choice when he wa selected to direct, but it makes sense when it is all put together. McDounagh runs the same route as most Herzog protagonists; driven, bordering on obsessive as well as self-destructive. The post Katrina New Orleans is a good place for Herzog as he allows his camera to find those places that are tucked away in the lower income districts of the city. He also get to throw in a few of his flourishes with imaginary iguanas, a water snake and a patient alligator. Cage even gets to perform the spin into frame that Herzog and Klaus Kinsky used in so many of their collaborations. Another director may have been able to make this movie, but only Herzog could make it as bat-shit-crazy as it is and make the audience feel as if it were real.

There is a lot of talent in this movie and the thing that really keeps it from being a classic is the middle portion that struggles to find it's feet, but finally does, for what becomes a text book lesson in irony by the third act.

If you can handle some dark humor and some dark situations, this is worth a look. Don't be expecting a Harcey Kietel and Abel Ferarra film here, this one belongs to Cage and Herzog.

7.7 out of 10

Review: Pontypool

Pontypool (2008)
starring: Stephen McHattie, Lisa Houle, Georgina Reilly, Hrant Alianok
dir. Bruce McDonald

Zombie movies are a dime a dozen these days and out of every ten movies maybe there are twenty minutes of decent filmmaking. And when it comes to originality, forget about it. There have been some stand-outs, but these tend to be comedies like Shaun Of The Dead (2004) or Zombieland (2009). Even the Father of the zombie film George Romero's recent output could be called at its best flawed, at its worst unwatchable.

Now there is Pontypool, an original zombie movie that is more than just a zombie movie. It's a film about language, the flow of information, and wordplay. What makes this such a great movie is its perspective.

The brilliant Stephen McHattie plays Grant Mazzy a morning DJ at a small radio station in the Canadian town of Pontypool. He's an instigator, a shock jock, relegated to reading off weather reports and local news. This is the bottom of the barrel for him. He continually battles with his producer, played equally as well by Lisa Houle while sneaking liquor into his coffee mug. Then the first reports start coming in that zombies are attacking. It's confusing to our heroes and made even more confusing that the story never goes outside of the station, almost like War Of The Worlds where we only learn from scattered reports leaking in from the outside. It's this limited perception that adds to the tension and McDonald's incredible choice in camera placement that drives the growing dread home.


And these aren't just your regular walking dead. The virus that turns our innocent townsfolk into blood spitting, rage filled zombies is a new one for the books of the undead. The concept isn't wholly original, but it is for the zombie film and that makes this an even bigger breakthrough.

Tight, tense, great acting and great characters make this mini universe movie a must see for horror fans and cineaste alike. A great piece of filmmaking from script to cast to execution. This is easily my favorite "least seen" film of the year and may even be in the top ten of the year.

9.5 out of 10

Review: 2012

2012 (2009)
starring: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Thandie Newton, Amanda Peet, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover
dir. Roland Emmerich

I'm going to say up front that I thought this movie was a blast. It is utter garbage, but it is a blast. Perhaps long in the tooth by the time you reach the final half-hour, but getting to that point is a lot of fun. Now, whether this is a good movie or not depends on a single factor. Was this gigantic wheel of cheese rolling down a hill at mach 5 intentional or not? How did Roland Emmerich approach this?

For the actors, they are in on the joke. There is no way in hell a cast of this caliber didn't realize this movie was nothing more than crap melodrama wrapped in a CGI machine of gigantic proportions. For that they get credit. There is not a single wink at the screen. A performance never becomes comedic for any other reason than to deliver a surface level joke. Every actor knows they are simply dialog delivery devices to make the disaster sequences stick together. In some ways, this is Emmerich's masterpiece. He has been able to boil down character to the minimal amount of broth needed to support the effect houses in charge of blowing up the planet. You never feel for anyone, but understand you are supposed to. In this type of film that's all you need. I dare anyone to say they felt true emotion for a character in disaster epics like The Towering Inferno (1974), or Earthquake (1974). If you have, then look in the mirror and try some self-examination.

Now the bigger questions lay in what Emmerich is trying to say with this type of movie. He is the reigning Irwin Allen and is able to tell a story clearly and cleanly unlike the blurry epilepsy inducing visuals of Michael Bay (I am using the word story loosely here). But does he want there to be more to it than just explosions? Right off the bat, I want to say no. It appears that Emmerich has resigned himself to making giant escapist cinema that wants to wow audiences with explosions and crumbling landmarks. He attempted to dig a little deeper with The Patriot (2000) when it came to exploring father son relationships or (less so) with the crapfest 10,000 BC (2008) as a love story. With 2012 he has tossed out any form of depth and stuck with what he knows best, spectacle. On that level alone he is successful.

But, if Emmerich's goal was to delve into the goodness of humanity and how our willingness to risk our lives to help others, he has failed completely. The relationships are shallow, the dialog clunky, and subtlety is a rock bashing us over the head. So it simply comes down to what is it that Emmerich is shooting for here. Is it possible to enjoy this movie? Of course. The X generation has firmly implanted a sense of irony into the human condition and we can scream, "This is a great movie" with no sense of shame. The film lover in me, the one that believes that cinema is worth more than two hours of explosions and lazy cliches knows it's just a piece of junk. So If Emmerich is in on the joke, good for him. If he sees himself as a serious filmmaker subverting content with CGI to lure in an audience, sorry Emmerich, no sale.

(Irony) 8.5 out of 10
(Legit) 4 out of 10

The Eclectic Choice: Return To Oz

Return To Oz (1985)
dir. Walter Murch


Man did this movie take a beating when it was first released. There was all kinds of flak over the fact that Disney was making a "sequel" to such a beloved film. Not to mention this one wasn't a musical. For shame. Never mind the fact that the original film was a perversion of a book by L. Frank Baum.

Return To Oz did exactly what it should have done. Go back to the original source material. By doing so, legendary editor and sound designer Walter Murch made his first and only foray into directing a memorable one. This isn't our parents Oz.

Darker, twisted and a lot of fun, Dorthy is sent to a hospital for delusions after she has talked up her first visit to Oz. The cure is going to be electroshock, but she is rescued by a mysterious patient and they escape into a storm that eventually leads a lone Dorthy back to Oz. There she discovers a destroyed Emerald City, A Gnome King who can move through solid rock and a Wicked Queen who has a variety of snap on heads to choose from.

She is also joined by a new cast of side kicks include a wind up robot, a living jack-o-lantern and a talking chicken. Together they seek to rescue the Scarecrow and return Oz to the pristine state it once was. It's a quest of the bizarre and a real cinematic treat.

Were this movie made in the franchise minded culture of today, it could be a big hit. Baum had written 14 Oz books, and the idea of a female protagonist running around a magical world could be a real hit amongst the Harry Potter lovers. Alas it was not meant to be. But we do have this adventure to enjoy and it's well worth the trip. I wouldn't recommend it for younger viewers, it does have a more macabre edginess to it and the effects, though good for the time, are showing their age.

This is another entry of a Disney struggling to find an audience. Along with other risks of the era like The Black Hole (1979), or Tron (1982), Oz was a failure at the box office, but now has more than a few aspects that make it an overlooked flick that's worth a second look.

POV: Good Ol' Days

I had moved from the small town to the medium city to start college. It was perfect timing. The popularity of independent film was starting to boon and no one had more of an influence on bringing the indies to the masses like Miramax. I was introduced to them through the breakout sex, lies and videotape (1990) and stuck with them through the amazing run of the 90's. The Crying Game (1992), The Piano (1993), and Pulp Fiction (1994) helped Miramax become a giant among production and distribution companies.

When the word came down that Disney was going to buy them up, it set off alarms. But Bob and Harvey Weinstein (despite reputations) were geniuses at getting what they wanted made and reinforced up the Miramax Brand. It wouldn't be until the new century that their Midas touch seemed to be hitting some bumps. Everyone does at one point in time, this doesn't mean they can't come back, but it caused a growing rift with their parent company. Then they left, forming the Weinstein Company which has been struggling to find it's feet.


So where did this leave Miramax? Well, unfortunately the name that helped define a generation of movies and movie goers has been relegated to the basement of Disney. They have announced they will only be releasing three films a year and let go of a majority of staff. What does it mean for the future of the once great indie champion? Probably a slow and painful death until the word Miramax sinks into history like AIP or Monogram. I hope it doesn't. They had such a mark of quality for so many years, it seems a waste to let it fuck off to hospice.

Maybe Disney will reevaluate at some point, bring in fresh blood that will be the new Harvey and Bob and resuscitate. Maybe the Weinsteins will see a banner year and bring back that old feeling of greatness to the movie screens. Or maybe, most probably likely, a new name will emerge from the ether and capture my heart.

Review: A Serious Man

A Serious Man (2009)
starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Sari Lennick, Adam Arkin, Fyvush Finkel
dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

The Coen brothers have been two of the more interesting filmmakers to watch evolve over the years and A Serious Man is another step in that evolution. It may feel like the distant cousin to Barton Fink(1991), or contain some of the same visual style as Blood Simple (1984) and Fargo (1996), but this is a film of a different beast that may deliver one of the more theologically debatable endings in recent years.

The story revolves around Larry Gopnik and his decent into chaos. His wife is leaving him for another man, his tenure may not be approved and a student is threatening to sue over a bad grade. Plus his brother is getting into trouble, his kids are fighting over money stolen from Larry's wallet and every Rabbi that Larry seeks consolation from can't deliver.

The film feels like the story of Job with a new ending that asks the audience to think about our own actions in life. Every scene seems to push Larry further and further into a spiritual hole that he just can't seem to dig himself out of.

The glue to this film is an amazing performance by Stuhlbarg as Larry. You feel the weight of his shoulders as he suffers emotional blow after emotional blow. He's so good if he doesn't get a best actor nomination then I'll have lost as much faith as Larry does in the film.

The one thing that also needs pointing out is the sound design. It's a knockout! Complex, precise, and it adds to the atmosphere more than it has in the brothers past films. Which is saying a lot since all of their films have amazing sound design.

The Coen's have delivered another piece of art that my cause some Barton Fink flashbacks, but feels emotionally like the flip side off the No country For Old Men (2007) coin. This isn't a film for everyone and challenges even the more devout Coen fans. But it's a remarkable and seemingly personal piece of work that comes from the mind of two brothers who do nothing but surprise us time and time again.

9 out of 10

Review: Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity (2009)
starring:Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Michael Bayouth
dir. Oren Peli

It was exactly 10 years ago the The Blair Witch Project (1999) opened up and became one of the summers biggest hits. It introduced the movie going public to what would grow into it's own sub-genre. These micro-budget horror films shot in a pseudo-documentary style have become a part of our popular culture and have ranged from a giant monster movie like Cloverfield (2008) to the annoying couple become fish food film Open Water (2003).

Paranormal Activity has had a long and strange journey. The word of mouth from Anne Thompson back in 2007 was great but it couldn't find distribution. There was an offer to remake it, but not release it in the original form. No matter how well test screening did, offers never came in.

They finally secured a deal, with midnight screenings and the opportunity to sign an online petition to have it released nation wide. I'm not sure if it is a publicity stunt, but it seems to be working. The tally is around eight-hundred thousand and rising by the minute. The goal is one million. So everyone will have an opportunity soon.

As for the movie it self, it will be looked at the same way as Blair Witch. Those who got in early before the hype grows out of control will love it. Those who see it after buzz hits the tipping point will hate it. Those who enjoy seeing the process of how a horror film works at manipulating the audience will find it very educational.

Here's the plot: Boyfriend buys video camera to capture strange things happening in the house at night. Camera starts catching weird stuff that slowly grows and grows until the final shot, which is designed to deliver a sharp shriek of fear and an uneasy feeling that all is not well in the world.

It's does contain some forced moments to try and tie the plot together , but Featherston and Sloat make a convincing couple with all of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that make couples lovable and annoying. They're fun to watch and you feel for them as they dig themselves deeper and deeper into the paranormal world.

This is a movie for folks who love horror that isn't about gore but the slow build. Outside of that, it is a fascinating experiment to see a potential model for distribution.

7.7 out of 10

POV: Flicker

Flicker (1991)
by Theodore Roszak

If you are a lover of movies, movie history and a shadow history of film that casts a dark, ominous shadow over the light of celluloid, then this book is for you.

I first picked up a paperback copy back around 1996. Like most things, I was first attracted by the cover. I'm known to pick up any book that features sprocket holes as part of the artwork. I assume it has something to do with movies, though most of the time, it doesn't. This time though, I hit pay dirt. It took about fifty pages for me to find the rhythm, but suddenly I was engrossed. It's so well written and thought out that I'm shocked it hasn't caught on to be a bigger work than it is.

This sucker is an onion, you keep pulling back layers and layers, idea upon metaphor upon theme. I'm always fascinated how I find new and deeper meanings with each read. It makes me wonder if it has to do with me growing older, learning more about film, or both. I'll say both.

The main thread is about Jonathan Gates, a young college bound kid in the late fifties who stumbles upon a small movie theater run by cineaste Clare and her stoned out projectionist, Sharkey. Gates and Clare begin an affair that will lead to the discovery and appreciation of a lost filmmaker named Max Castle. But Castle's films are much more than just b-movies, there is an under-hold, a flicker, a mysterious something that hides underneath his images.

The book is a gothic thriller that uses real movie history as the building blocks for a religious cult that is out to destroy the world. However cheesy it sounds, the book works incredibly well.

I remember trying to track down the rights to it and there was a big legal battle at the time. They ended up at Regency Productions and for a while Darren Aronofsky was attached. The only outcome of that was the most recent printing in 2005 which states Aronofsky's involvement. He has since left the project.

Only time will tell if a great movie will be made from this. There is a great movie in the book, it just depends on who ends up making it. But for now we have the perfection that is the novel and as soon as you've finished the latest political biography, or Stephen King paperback, pick this up and give it a read. You wont be disappointed.

The Eclectic Choice: Family Plot

Family Plot (1976)
dir. Alfred Hitchcock

This isn't Rear Window (1954), Psycho (1960), Vertigo (1958) or Strangers On A Train (1951). Hitchcock has a list of classics a football field long, and sure, this isn't one of them. Sure it may be flawed, silly, fluffy fun, but it is Hitch's last film and there is a lot more to it than you might expect.

The main plot circles around a fake, or is she, psychic who along with her cab driving boyfriend decide to hunt down an heir to a fortune. These characters are played with charisma and some real genuine chemistry by Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris. It's a blast to watch these two together. they have this rhythm that feels like a couple in love, even through the minor bickering of everyday life. Dern is a very different character than we are used to seeing. Sure he's quirky, but far from the nut-ball borderline psychos hat he is famous for. It is a real shame Barbara Harris was dealing with personal problems that stifled her career. Between this, Nashville (1975) and Freaky Friday (1968), it's impossible not to notice her incredible range and the cute-as-a-button looks this lady has. I really wish she was able to do more.

The weakness of the movie is William Devane who is always dependable, but is always William Devane. The character is weak and his subplot to kidnap people and ransom them for diamonds never really takes off. Karen Black plays Devane's accomplice, but isn't given much to do.

It's fun and frothier then most of Hitchcock's work, but it also includes a lot of the masters touches that made him such a great filmmaker. Does it stand up to his best films? Of course not, but few movies can or ever will be able to hold up such standards. Hitch may have not gone out with a bang, but as he literally ends his cinematic career with a wink at the camera, it reminds us that the man was never about delivering the normal set of expectations.

R.I.P. Henry Gibson

Henry Gibson (1935-2009)

Henry Gibson will be remembered for two major things. The first is a regular on Laugh In and the second was as the leader of the Nazi's in The Blues Brothers (1980). But for me there are three roles that really single him out as a major talent. The first two are for Robert Altman films.

His portrayal of Haven Hamilton in Nashville (1975) is great stuff. He captured all of the hypocrisy of Christianity and the entertainment world. All smiles and glad handing in public and just a royal judgmental prick in private. It's a stroke of genius in a movie that has genius at every turn.

The second was his take on Dr. Verringer in The Long Goodbye (1973). It's a tough thing to make intimidating Sterling Hayden look legit and Gibson did it with flying colors. Cold, steely eyes and the delivery of "Sign the check Roger!" You actually think he could kill Hayden with that look. Fantastic.

The third is in Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia (1999), as the snobbish barfly Thurston Howell. He takes down a crumbling William H. Macy with his one-liners and wandering eyebrows with the creepy grace and elegance of a serial killer. Plus his name is Thurston Howell, which is awesome.

There is also his work in Innerspace (1987), The Wedding Crashers (2005) and several episodes of King Of The Hill to take into account. The man worked rigorously and brought a touch of humor and ingenuity to every character he performed. It was an excellent career and one that will stand the test of time.

Not On DVD: Ride The Pink Horse

Ride The Pink Horse (1947)
dir. Robert Montgomery

The second (official) film directed by Montgomery, this may not be as stylistically experimental as his debut effort Lady In The Lake (1947), but this is a tighter story and grimy as hell.

Montgomery plays Lucky Gagin. He's tough, ruthless and is seeking to avenge, in the form of blackmail, a murdered friend. His adventure leads him to a dirty border town where he runs into a Fed, played brilliantly by Art Smith, who is after the same guy.

With a wicked-mean femme fatale, a Latino psychic predicting the worst for our hero and a smooth-as-glass bad guy who plays up his hearing aid like a badge of honor, this is hard boiled dipped in wrought iron. It's tough, mean, brutal and ornery. A real overlooked gem.

To ice the cake, the script is written by Ben Hecht and Charles Lederer who supply some great dialog that is endlessly quotable. A tight well paced piece that ranks with the best of their work.

This is a mandatory watch for any noir buff and a real shame that it doesn't have a DVD release.

Review: Whiteout

Whiteout (2009)
staring: Kate Beckinsale, Gabriel Macht, Columbus Short, Tom Skerritt
dir. Dominic Sena

A real waste of time and potential. Go and read the graphic novels by Greg Rucka, they are superior in every way. Bad dialog, shit direction and bland acting. It felt like the actors wanted to get off the screen as much as I wanted to get out of the theater.

I would like to point out a moment that got some big laughs for the audience. Unintentional, of course. Carrie Stetko, played by Beckinsale keeps having crappy flashbacks of a situation gone wrong. She and her partner have arrested some drug trafficker and have holed u in a hotel for some unknown reason. They handcuff the guy to one of the beds and Stetko decides to get some rest. She wakes up and sees the empty handcuffs on the bedpost where her Bad Guy once was. Her narration spouts, "I felt something was wrong as soon as I woke up." No shit, the guy is gone sweetie. Open handcuffs, hmmmm that seems fishy. Fuck, it was just ridiculous.

I will give props to some of the production design. there was some decent work done there guys, unfortunately the director only knows how to do closeups of faces, so the odds of your work getting any screen time are little to none. Sorry.

Oh, I'll also give credit to Skerritt. Not for his acting, but for his attempt to look as much like Kris Kristofferson as possible. Apparently Kristofferson had something better to do than this role. Like clean up the dog shit from his back yard.

It's just a shame, there was so many possible for tension and horror and mystery that just seems tossed out and wasted. If you can't figure out who the bad guy in in ten minutes, you're not paying attention. No matter how hard they try to pull a shifty eyed dog on you.

4 out of 10