Phantom Lady (1944)

This is the blu-ray cover art from Arrow Video,
whose great transfew I watched. Arrow is a
great company that is really the "Criterion
Collection" for under-the-radar and cult films.

Director: Robert Siodmak

An odd but decent little B-grade noir flick.

The story goes something like this: a fairly well-to-do fellow, Scott Henderson (Alan Curtis), wanders into a bar late one night, after yet another row with his wife. He strikes up a conversation with a lady who also seems to be drowning her sorrows, and the two decide to make a night of it, though the woman purposefully never tells him her name. They do little more than go to a few bars and see a musical show, before Scott returns home and discovers the police there and his wife dead. When Scott tries to establish his alibi by leading the police to all the places he attended with the mysterious woman, nobody recalls his being with any woman at all. Henderson is locked up for murder, leaving his devoted secretary Carol (Ella Raines) to try and unravel the strange circumstances and try to save her boss.

Phantom Lady isn't great at too many things. The acting is mediocre at best, the dialog is rather forgettable when it's not laughably over-the-top, and the sets speak to a somewhat limited budget. But it does have one thing that can pull a viewer through an otherwise-run-of-the-mill affair: a solid plot hook and good pacing. In a rather tidy, brisk 87 minutes, the tale wastes no time in getting us right to the thick of things, with the murder and the bizarre mystery surrounding it laid out in little more than the film's first ten minutes. And the labyrinth of the dark underworld through which Carol seeks out those responsible for her boss's frame-up.

Despite a script that trying a bit too hard, resulting in some unintentional humor, director Siodmak knew how to shoot noir movie. It has so many of the shadows and askew camera angles that one might know from more famous films of the genre such as Out of the Past or Double Indemnity. This one certainly isn't up to the overall quality of those classics, but it definitely should satisfy fans of the genre.

This was one of those movies that I put on late one night, only planning to give about 15 minutes before giving up on it. Before I knew it, though, I was invested and quite willing to see it through. For anyone looking for a lesser-known crime noir flick, this one is worth a shot.

Retro Duo (sort of): Paul (2010); Logan [Noir version] (2017)

Paul (2011)

Director: Greg Mottola

This is the fun result of using a film to put together some science-fiction fan/writers with some of the most naturally funny actors in the business.

Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (who also co-wrote the movie) play Graeme and Clive, two massive fans of all things science-fiction and comic book, who have traveled from Englad to go on a massive road trip in the U.S., starting at the San Diego Comic Convention and then taking their RV through to and through sites noted in modern extra-terrestrial lore. In the middle of the desert, though, they come across an actual alien, who calls himself Paul. Paul speaks perfect English and has all the mannerisms and outlook of a foul-mouthed, good-timing Gen X-er. He's also quite kind and in possession of several amazing abilities, including invisibility, a sort of telepathy, and the ability to heal others. Paul is on the run from the U.S. government agency which has kept him in captivity for decades, and he plans to rendevouz with a ship from his home planet. Graeme and Clive agree to help him, odd as it seems for these two men of little action.

The movie is good fun, especially for science-fiction nerds. There are plenty of references, both obvious and subtle, to classic sci-fi and fantasy adventure films and shows. The tale itself is interesting enough, and it does use Paul to explore a few headier notions about humans' place in the grander scheme of things. It actually could probably have delved a little deeper in this area had it desired, but the movie seemed to opt for a more comedic tone. And this is where the strengths mainly lie. Pegg and Frost have shown to be strong comedy writers in their past TV show Spaced and their co-written movies with Edgar Wright. Paul is really not different, though it is further enhanced by a great ensemble cast of seasoned comic veterans from the Paul Feig and Judd Apatow crews of regulars. This includes Kristin Wiig, Seth Rogan (the voice of Paul), Bill Hader, Jane Lynch, and a host of other familiar faces from those directors' noted films. As always, they bring razor sharp comic timing, physical humor, and ad libbing abilities second to none. Many of the laughs my wife and I got were from short, simple reactions or facial expressions.

There are some scenes and gags that either don't quite hit or are beaten into the ground a little, but this is fairly standard for this type of comedy. Anyone who enjoyed Pegg and Frost in Shawn of the Dead or the other Cornetto trilogy films will certainly enjoy this one.

Logan (2017) - "Noir" version

Director: Nick Mangold

In a move that I hope other filmmakers embrace, the makers of Logan released the blu-ray version of the film with an additional disc containing a black and white version of the movie. This is great for film nerds, especially those of us who greatly enjoy many movies from the black and white days and classic noir films.  After sitting on this version of the movie for a few months, I finally gave it a shot. My review of the color version is here, so I'll only really comment on the throwback absence of color, rather than get back into the other elements of the movie.

Seeing Logan in black and white is worth it to those who enjoy black and white films, even if I didn't feel that it is a superior version to the original. It's a curious exercise for two reasons. One is that seeing the black and white version does accentuate just how the story does draw from traditional noir tales. Unlike other superhero movies, including the half-dozen X-Men team movies and the solo Wolverine films, Logan features a doomed protagonist who is all but completely resigned to his bloody fate. The figure of the disaffected, wounded anti-hero has been a part of the genre since the days of James M. Cain. This was brought to magnificently dark life in classic noir films in the forties and fifties, most notably Double Indemnity and Out of the Past. Just in terms of basic character, Logan is very much in line with the protagonists of those great stories, and seeing the movie devoid of color drives the point home nicely.

One of a handful of setting where the noir version does
surpass the color version. Black and white filming seems to
be all about light and shadows, and Logan wasn't truly
intended to place such emphasis on those visual elements.

The second reason it is curious is more cinematic. When one watches those old classic noir films by the likes of Billy Wilder and Jacques Tourneur, it is easy to see how skilled they were at using light and shadow to amazing effect. Truly, the noir genre of films all but requires the absence of color, due to the grim themes and tones that are at its core. The composition of the scenes and sequences is some of the finest work in all of world cinema, as it illustrated a perfect meeting of story, mood, and artistic medium. This, unfortunately, is where Logan can't live up to its noir predecessors. Most likely since it was not meant to be shot only in black and white, there are many scenes that are not enhanced, and in fact are somewhat diminished, by the lack of color. There are a few scenes which bear out the black and white contrast well, such as the early scenes with Professor X in the collapsed water cooler, with its beams of sunlight peeking through an otherwise dark ramshackle prison. Or a couple of visceral fight scenes which take place at night - one at the very beginning of the picture and one in the middle. But the sequences in vibrant Las Vegas or the lush, verdant forests that are the setting for the film's finale lose something in black and white.

Watching Logan this way is something I recommend to fans of the film who want to change it up a bit. I'm certainly glad I gave it a try, but I think all, or nearly all, of my future viewings will be in color. 

Before I Die #605: The Docks of New York (1928)

This is the 605th movie I've seen out of the 1,187 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm working my way through.

Director: Josef von Sternberg

A tidy little tale that illustrates several evolutions in film storytelling just at the dawn of the sound age in cinema.

The movie tracks the brisk meeting and bonding between Bill Roberts (George Bancroft) and Mae (Betty Compson). Roberts is a cynical, steely-eyed, hard-as-nails stoker, one who shovels coal into a ship's furnaces for fuel. While he and his fellow stokers are on dry land for an evening of R and R, he comes across a young woman, Mae, who tries to commit suicide by throwing herself into the river. Roberts saves her and soon falls in love, even marrying her in a hasty ceremony that very night, right at the bar where he had just earlier been getting drunk and brawling with other revelers. While initially getting married as a sort of lark and planning to hop a new ship the next morning, Roberts soon realizes that he loves the morose Mae more than he realizes. He jumps off of his new ship just as it is leaving port and rushes to find Mae at the local courthouse, where she is being charged for shoplifting. Roberts takes the rap for her, though, allowing himself to be sentenced to 60 days in prison. For him and Mae, though, this is a sort of blessing, as he will at least be on dry land and closer to her, rather than out at sea.

When compared to the other "great" movies that I've now seen from this era, The Docks of New York stands out in a few ways. Firstly is that it is a drama focusing on a segment of society very rarely featured in such films. Nearly the entire tale takes place in a beaten down dock area of New York City, a depressed section of the city where blue-collar workers struggled mightily to survive. The movie depicts the epitome of the "work hard, play hard" approach to life, where nights brought excessive drinking, fighting, and sex to anyone looking for them. This is a far cry from the loftier or more epic tales told in most other films of the day. There is a highly seedy element to the proceedings, but the movie isn't judging them. Rather, it uses Bill and Mae to evoke a certain amount of sympathy for such people. This is especially true for Mae, who has obviously been used and abused far too much in her young life. At this point in film history, not many quality films had offered such portrayals of the "lower class," with The Last Laugh and The Crowd being two of the few notable exceptions.

Something else I noticed in this movie is how we continued to see ever more subtlety in the star actors' techniques. Lead man Bancroft and lady Compson have clearly learned that they needn't mug or posture for a camera that can offer us telling close-ups of their faces and capture all of their smallest movements. And there is a notable ease with which Bancroft struts around the wild saloon where he and his fellow salt-of-the-earth types get into various scuffles. Such actors always unintentionally make their second-rate supporting cast look a little worse, though it can be a bit tougher to spot before the true boom of sound and dialogue. All the same, the leading actors do nice work evoking some feeling for their characters.

Bill and Mae, just outside of Bill's rundown room. This film
showed early mastery of dark and light that later movies
would turn into virtually an entire genre.

Perhaps even more than the characters, story, or actors, the visuals are quite impressive. Using methods that foreshadowed what we would see in the great noir films of the forthcoming decades, this movie used lighting and shadows to amazing effect. This creates a sense of lingering doom over certain scenes, especially those just outside of the bar and shanty apartments, where one can assume that nothing good is happening in the many nooks, crannies, and corners shrouded in darkness. This all sets a rather unique setting and tone for the movie, making it even more imperative that Bill and Mae find some sort of solace with each other.

Being a silent film, The Docks of New York is still trapped in several of that era's popular movie conventions, including silly slapstick gags here and there, and an oversimplified plot. Still, it is a decent movie for its time, and I was engaged for its very modest running time of 76 minutes. Those who enjoy silent era films would likely appreciate more than a few things about this one, even if it isn't the silent film likely to win over viewers not terribly interested in pre-sound pictures. 

Before I Die #574: Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (1932)

This is the 574th movie I've now seen from the 1,177 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working through. 

Yes, you're reading that right - Boris
Karloff of Frankenstein fame was in
this movie. 

Director: Howard Hawks

One of three films in the 1930s that marked a major historical turning point for gangster movies, and one that shows no small amount of technical skill. Still, the outdated elements and styles are impossible to ignore.

One of several films in the 1930s which used the infamous (and then still-living) Al Capone as its subject, Scarface: The Shame of a Nation was billed as a criticism of the gangster lifestyle and of society's glamorization of it. For the most part, the movie lives up to that claim. Similar to the the previous year's The Public Enemy, the movie even starts with a disclaimer and admonition of the "celebrity criminal", and states that the movie's protagonist, Tony, represents a type of disease in American society which must be wiped out. Even more than The Public Enemy, Scarface makes sure that it strips much of the glamour away from the oft-exploited cool gangster characters long popularized in U.S. culture.

Like James Cagney's Tom Powers character in The Public Enemy, the fictional Tony is inspired by the most infamous criminal of that time - Al Capone. From the first moments, it is clear that Tony is a cold-blooded killer, assassinating a rival gang boss while idly whistling a cheery tune. His vicious and power-hungry disposition is never in question at any moment. In his dealings with rival gang members, fellow gang members, or even friends and relatives, Tony makes no bones about how he will let nothing come between him and his acquisition of money and power. While he does show a mild dash of charm and subtlety when attempting to woo his boss's girlfriend, this is still a maneuver motivated by his own lust and recklessness. While the message is effectively delivered, it does become a bit of a one-note tone. There is a moment at the end when he shows a distorted form of affection for his sister, but for the most part, we are not meant to empathize with or admire him in any way. For these things, the movie was fairly unique for its time.

The technical aspects of the movie are a mixed bag. The movie still looks great, with brilliant uses of camera angles, visual storytelling, and shadows which evoke what the great noir movies would begin doing several years later. The pacing is also steady, clocking in at a brisk 93 minutes, during which there are almost no wasted scenes. However, the movie does suffer from the typical weaknesses of films from the era. Namely, occasionally-uninspired dialogue that is now silly from constant parody, and more than a few hammed-up performances. The legendary Paul Muni is often fiercely magnetic as Tony, but even he seemed to have trouble locking into the Italian-American accent that he was attempting to maintain. Many of the other actors are stuck in the exaggerated methods of the time, when movies were still only a few years removed from the advent of sound.

Tony (middle) puts on his sleazy charm to his boss's woman.
Handing his hat to his boss is a more subtle power move. 

It is interesting to note that there were two endings shot for the movie - the intended one which was actually shown in theaters, and one which was shot in an attempt to appease censors in states like New York, where the boards were threatening to boycott the film. The latter ending was actually still rejected by censors, leading the film producers to simply release the film only in states which had no censorship boards. It's a curious thing to watch both endings, for while Tony's ultimate fate is essentially unchanged, the way that it plays out sends two rather different messages to the audience.

One other curiosity is that this 1932 film is, as its name suggests, the original version of Brian De Palma's well-known 1983 remake starring Al Pacino as a Cuban-born immigrant who moves to take over the cocaine trade in Miami. It was rather fascinating to see just how many elements De Palma took from the original, despite its having been over 50 years old at the time. While I am often of two minds about De Palma, I think he did a masterful job of adapting the 1932 version for modern audiences, maintaining the spirit of the original while updating most of the aspects to which time had been rather unkind.

The movie is certainly worth checking out for anyone who appreciates the history of gangster movies, even if it hasn't completely stood the test of time. 

New Release! The Nice Guys

Director: Shane Black

One of the best times I've had at the movies in recent years. It might not be perfect or blindingly original in all facets, but The Nice Guys is a hilarious entry into the oft-botched genre of R-rated buddy flicks.

The movie follows Holland March (Ryan Gosling), a private investigator who is put on the case of finding a missing young woman, Amelia, in the drug-fueled Sodom and Gomorrah that was 1977 Hollywood, California. The case itself bears several odd elements, made all the more challenging by the fact that March is not only an alcoholic but also oddly inept at his job. Fortunately for him, he is joined by the sober and much more capable muscle-for-hire Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe). The two find themselves trying to navigate the winding, bizarre trail that Amelia leaves through the Hollywood porn industry, justice department, and even the U.S. automotive industry.

Writers Shane Black and Anthony Bagarozzi fully embraced the neo-noir style and did it tremendous justice, while at the same time turning plenty of its familiar cliches on their ears. There are more than a few sequences which begin in very familiar fashion to crime movie lovers, but which take sly little comic turns. In a move gleefully similar to The Big Lebowski, making the "hero" detective a booze-addled goof creates plenty of opportunity for humor, and the movie capitalizes.  And the characters only enhance the gags. While March does have reasons for being so down on his luck, it doesn't lessen the hilarity of his missteps and posturing. He's the perfect pairing to the grizzled, no-nonsense Healy, and their dynamic is a blast to watch. Peppered throughout all of this are several great little sight gags which are among some of the best I've seen in some time.

Gosling and Crowe make the blend of tough and hilarious
look deceptively smooth and easy. They enhance Black's
already-great script to another level.

It is difficult to imagine better casting for March and Healy than Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe. They play their characters to a tee, and left me with the same feeling that any successful buddy movie should leave - the desire to see more of them. There are a few minor characters that may not have completely fit the bill, but these were the few exceptions among the mostly-strong supporting cast.

As I write this review, the movie has been out for about two weeks and hasn't done exceptionally well at the box office. I do hope that it picks up, as I feel that this type of quality, R-rated comedy is a bit of a dying breed in movies. 

Before I Die # 564: The Big Heat (1953)

This is the 564th movie I've seen from the 1,172 movies on the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through:

Director: Fritz Lang

Why was it that European directors were the ones to make so many of the greatest noir films - a genre distinctively American? Whatever the reason, The Big Heat provided me with my favorite moment when watching movies - discovering a great film about which I had previously known nothing.

Right from its opening, there is something unusual and captivating about this movie. We're looking over the shoulder of a man in a plush den of a comfy home. He looks at a letter which he has just sealed, and then he commits suicide. His wife runs downstairs. Instead of panicking, though, she calmly takes a moment, looks at the letter, ponders it, and then calls another man with whom she has a cryptic and sinister exchange. Within these few minutes, we get the sense that something very dark is happening here.

Once the wife does decide to call the police to report her husband's suicide, the story shifts its focus to Sergeant Dan Bannion, the detective assigned to the case . Bannion begins to unravel an unsavory chain of corruption and self-interest that tests his will and morality right to their cores. Bannion's tale becomes one of the most memorable crime tales from the classic age that I've ever seen.

The Big Heat is very often classified as noir, with good reason. While one could debate whether it satisfies all of the requirements of the varying definitions of noir, it clearly has much in common with the best of the genre. A vast, looming criminal organization and conspiracy. Not one but two femme fatales. A protagonist caught in the middle of a dangerous maze and desperately trying to solve one murder and prevent others. These can all be found in movies like Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, and other greats. What sets The Big Heat apart is that Bannion is not the disturbed protagonist of those other movies. He is actually a decent man who is trying desperately not to lose self control as he confronts moral corruption at every turn. As much as I love those other classic noir flicks, it was great to see a truly admirable character at the center of the proceedings.

Yes, that's a young Lee Marvin on the left. His turn as the
sadistic Vince adds a truly sinister darkness that few films
in the 1950s were willing to include.

For a film released in 1953, this one was surprisingly dark in a few ways. Whereas other noir movies tend to create their own shadowy landscapes, both visually and psychologically, The Big Heat includes elements of the post-WWII "American Dream" which you might see in a Frank Capra movie. Early on, we get glimpses of Bannion's home life, complete with a loving wife and cute little daughter. Before too long, some horrific things shatter his little slice of heaven and send him down a rather dark path. On top of that, the actions taken by a few of the criminals are especially violent and brutal by 1950s movie standards. Though not nearly as visceral as more modern films, The Big Heat still packs an emotional punch with its exploration of the darker, unsavory aspects of personal and social corruption.

This movie is one that I put, if not exactly at, then very close to the same level as the other great noir movies of the '40s and '50s. I'll certainly go back and watch this one again every few years.

That's 564 films down, only 608 to go before I can die...

Gangster Flick 3-Pack: The Killing (1956); High Sierra (1941); Mesrine (2008)

The Killing (1956)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

An uneven but fairly compelling early work from a film master, and a rather uniquely dark caper movie.

The title of the movie refers to the slang term of making a large amount of money in a short time, as well as the more literal reference to murder. Both meanings are appropriate for this film. The Killing is a caper tale centered on a group who plan to rob a horse track of two million dollars. The head of the group, Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden), is the only professional thief in the group. The others are racetrack employees who, for various reasons, are looking to make a lot of money quickly. Clay plots out a very thorough and meticulous plan which requires expert timing. Once the plan starts to unfold, various hiccups begin to make things even harder than they already were, with Clay doing everything he can to execute his big score.

The movie takes a hard look at the brutal and dark consequences of crime, as do all of the very best noir  movies. All but one or two of the most minor members of the thieving crew are shown to be rather selfish, callous men whose greed or general weakness leads them into ever-more-foolish decisions. Unlike lesser crime films, The Killing does nothing to glamorize the thieves or their unsavory deeds. There is the compelling nature of the plan and its execution, as with all good caper movies, but this hardly overshadows the crew's dark motivations.

The primary distraction in this movie is the dialogue. Many of the characters are constantly spouting off tough guy lines in a rushed manner that spoke to some weak acting and uninspired scripting. This was especially disappointing considering that legendary crime fiction writer Jim Thompson wrote the script. Despite this, had I been watching this movie with someone else, we almost certainly would have been having plenty of good laughs at the abundance of silly, forced lines.

A lesser but rather obvious merit of the movie is the cinematography. This might not come as a major surprise, given that Stanley Kubrick directed this movie. Still, The Killing was his first major, full-length feature film. The then-only-28-year-old Kubrick was already showing his uncanny eye for striking camera angles, lighting, and using visual grammar to tell stories. This alone makes it worth seeing, as it is a very early but major step along a genius's path towards film mastery.

High Sierra (1941)

Director: Raoul Walsh

A compelling basic story buried within some painfully dated dialogue and acting.

I love Humphrey Bogart. While I haven't seen the majority of the many films he was in, I have seen around a half dozen of his best-known and best-loved movies. From these, it's easy to see why he became and still is a movie legend. With this in mind, I was excited to watch one of his relatively early starring roles in a crime movie. I have to admit some disappointment, however.

The story is actually the stuff of very strong noir. Bogart plays Roy Earle, a bank robber who has just been released from prison and is already setting up his next major score. The hard-boiled Earle came from a small town in Indiana, and he seems to have a tiny soft spot for small-town folks. This is clear when he comes across a farming family making its way out to California, whom he helps in several ways. Outside of his tender spot for such people, Earle is a rather severe man who does not suffer fools lightly, and will not hesitate to use violence if he feels the need.

One part of the story revolves around Earle's current big score - a jewelry heist arranged through an old associate of his. His partners in the caper are a couple of young, hot-blooded hoods who Earle dislikes but tolerates. The other part of the tale relates to Earle's relationships with two women; one is a young member of the farming family, and the other is a weary and jaded former dance girl. Seeing Earle try to juggle all of these aspects of his life is the real meat of the movie, and the story takes some turns which are intriguing in their unpredictability. I admire how the movie steered clear of a nice, pat, Hollywood ending.

Unfortunately, I had to work rather hard to maintain my appreciation. Even more than the above-reviewed The Killing, the dialogue and much of the acting in High Sierra have aged horribly. While there are some memorable lines, far too much comes right from the cheap, pulp "dime store hood" handbook. Bogart was a great enough actor that he could sell some of the dialogue better than his supporting cast, but even Bogie could only do so much. Also, the storyline involving the farming family is fraught with completely inorganic and illogical jumps. I feel that this movie served as an earlier, less balanced attempt at what director Raoul Walsh would do far better eight years later with the classic White Heat. I'll watch that latter picture again any time. High Sierra, however, is not one I'll ever return to.

Mesrine (2008)

Director: Jean-Francois Richet

Absolutely brilliant, if grim, biopic of a larger-than-life arch criminal.

Mesrine is the story of real-life French criminal Jacque Mesrine (pronounced "may-reen"), one of the most irrepressible, vicious, and public felons in the 20th century. Mesrine took to crime fairly early in the 1960s, after a stint in the French Army. He quickly became a noted burglar, bank robber, and violent thug with an appetite for women and high living. Though he made attempts at leading a "straight" life, they were few and relatively short-lived. For nearly all of his adult life, Mesrine was committing serious and violent crimes, eluding capture, being captured, or escaping from prison. A fair number of his exploits played out in the public eye, thanks to an image he created of himself which appealed to certain sects of the French masses.

Prior to watching this 2-film epic, I had no idea who Mesrine was, but I was fascinated. The movie urged me to look up some facts about the man, and it would seem that the film does not embellish his wild life. His story is told with a vibrance and energy found in some of the best gangster movies, such as Goodfellas or Bonnie and Clyde. The main difference with Mesrine, though, is that there is even less whitewashing of the man's most despicable actions. While it's made clear that Mesrine possessed good looks and charisma enough to seduce women, fellow criminals, and the French public at large, it doesn't balk at showing that he was also a brutal murderer who would torture or even kill anyone who offended his massive ego. The actions which play out on screen can be terrible, but I still found them compelling, given what an outsized persona Mesrine fashioned for himself.

A classic knee-capping, true to the violent nature of the title
character. It's so brutal that you might fail to notice just how
masterful the colors and  lighting of the scene are. This is
typical in these two movies.

The technical aspects of the movie are impressive. The set design and cinematography are first-rate, casting the ugly but oft-exciting world of Jacque Mesrine's life into a palatable light. The acting is also exceptional, with Vincent Cassel turning in a phenomenal performance in the title role. Some of the transitions between time periods can feel a bit rushed, which is surprising for a movie released in two parts and adding up to over four hours. This may just be a function of the sheer quantity of curious activities in which Mesrine invovled himself. The creators could probably have justified adding a tad more to it and making it a mini-series or a trilogy, if they thought anyone could stomach another hour or two of a rather detestable figure like Mesrine.

Mesrine is one of the darker, harder-hitting gangster movies one is likely to see. For those who enjoy well-executed dramatizations of very real and very frightening criminals, though, this movie is difficult to top. 

Retro Trio: Sunshine (2007); The Big Lebowski (1998); Shall We Dance? (2004)

Sunshine (2007)

Director: Danny Boyle

Smart, intriguing sci-fi that goes a bit off the rails in the third act.

Sunshine is set in a future where our sun is slowly dying, leading to a gradual cooling of Earth and the impending, subsequent death of all living things on it. To prevent such a complete devastation, a crew of astronauts is piloting a ship, the Icarus II, towards the sun in order to deliver a nuclear payload to the star's center. This will trigger a rebirth of the sun's energy and allow life to continue on our planet. A similar mission had been sent a few years prior, on the original Icarus craft, but it failed with no word from the crew, who have been presumed dead.

Of course, the Icarus II's trip does not go as planned. Once they get close enough to the sun, they receive some form of message from the original Icarus. The crew make the risky decision to investigate. Technical problems start to emerge after the detour is taken, and lives are lost. Matters go from bad to worse when one of the original Icarus's crew members, Pinbacker, is discovered to be alive and completely insane. Pinbacker sneaks aboard the Icarus II and, convinced that humanity deserves to die, does everything he can to sabotage their mission to deliver the payload.

Sunshine boasts a great many strengths as a film. Written by Alex Garland (28 Days Later, Dredd, Ex Machina), the story is wonderfully smart science fiction. Beyond the mere adventure of the Icarus II's mission, there is plenty of character conflict and psychological probing. The crew must repeatedly make extremely difficult decisions, similar to what is seen in the predecessor film Alien, and also later space travel movies like Europa Report and Interstellar. Such films are all the stronger due to the stakes on every level.

The acting is also top-notch. There are many actors who either were already well-established, like Michelle Yeoh, or have since become so, such as Cillian Murphy, Chris Evans, Rose Byre, and others. Every one of them displays their characters' stengths and weaknesses phenomenally well, which is essential for such science fiction movies to ascend beyond a mere genre piece.

My only real issue with the movie comes from its third act. When the tension is at its absolute peak, the visuals and editing become extemely trippy and herky-jerky, which is a technique that director Danny Boyle has put to good use several times in his career. For Sunshine, however, I found it unnecessary and disorienting. Simply, I lost my sense of spatial orientation bewteen characters and actions. I realize that this might have been Boyle's intent, but this knowledge didn't make it any easier to watch.

This aesthetic gripe aside, I thought that Sunshine was a great piece of science fiction cinema. Along with other Alex Garland-written movies like Dredd and Ex Machina, I've found that rare, reliable sci-fi writer whom I plan to follow faithfully for at least the next several years.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen

Like many fans of this film, I could probably write a doctoral thesis on what I love about it. For the purposes of this blog, I'll keep it relatively short and sweet. I think this movie is an absolute classic, and I can't imagine it ever getting old.

The entire concept has "Coen Brothers" written all over it. What if we tell an LA noir crime story, a la Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, only instead of a weary but capable PI in the middle of it all, we thrust a burnt-out stoner into the role of protagonist? It's a great starting concept, though it was one which required a lot more spice to make a memorable movie. The Coen brothers were up to the challenge.

If you read a bare-bones, general plot synopsis of the tale, it would bear a striking similarity to film noir - an unsuspecting citizen is mistaken for a wealthy local by a shady and powerful figure. The young wife of this shady and powerful figure is soon after kidnapped, at which point, the protagonist is soon thrown into the machinations of various parties who are interested in the million-dollar ransom put up for her release. The path to resolution is a winding one, along which the protagonist meets many strange characters, each with his or her own motivations.

That blueprint could just as easily have been some lesser-known Hammett or Chandler novel. Instead of Sam Spade trying to navigate the troubled waters of the tale, though, we get "The Dude," a loveable but interminably lazy stoner whose sensibilities never escaped the hippie movement of the 1960s. The powerful figures he meets include the self-aggrandizing Jeoffrey Lebowski, porn producer Jackie Treehorn, and the son of Arthur Digby Sellers ("you ever hear of a little show called 'Branded,' Dude?!"), among many others. Each and every appearance is hilariously memorable, all done in a style that only the Coen brothers would even attempt to pull off.

One of the countless moments of hilarious banter between
oddballs in the movie. This one involves nihilists, marmots,
and the Dude possibly getting castrated. Where else
would you possibly find such a thing?

While the Coen brothers have made snappy, memorable dialogue a regular feature in their movies, none is as highly quotable as The Big Lebowski (Raising Arizona is a contender, but it falls short). Thanks to sharp and quirky comedic writing and brilliant comic acting on the parts of over a dozen actors, nearly every line humorously expresses something about the oddball character who delivers it. From "It really tied the room together," to "The bums will always lose," to "Nobody fucks with the Jesus," and endless others, fans of this movie can send themselves into a tantric frenzy when they get into a room and start firing off line after memorable line.

It is arguable that The Big Lebowski is not "great cinema," and that it is not the Coen Brothers' best movie. However, it is certainly their most beloved. Being such a strange fusion of their unusual, and ususually effective, comic sensibilties and their passion for classic noir cinema, this movie is such a singular work that its cult classic status is more than well-deserved.

Shall We Dance? (2004)

Director: Peter Chelsom

Certainly not my cup of tea, but it's easy to see the appeal for many.

Shall We Dance is the story of John Clark (Richard Gere), a family man in New York City who seems a bit discontent with his normal, though very enviable, life. On his normal bus ride home, he spies a beautiful young woman staring forelornly out of a window to a dance school. He eventually and reluctantly enrolls in dance classes there, albeit without telling his wife, Beverly (Susan Sarandon). He even gets a bit of instruction from the sad muse from the window, Paulina (Jennifer Lopez), an exceptional dancer and teacher.

The movie is almost pure fluff. There is very little that is dangerous or challenging. A few of the characters do experience a tribulation or two here and there, but none of them is so great that it can't be overcome with some laughter and a touch of attitude. The main comic relief comes from the characters Bobbie and Link (Lisa Anne Walter and Stanley Tucci), two oddballs with great passion for dancing. Along with the mere presence of these two, there is plenty of light humor sprinkled regularly through the film, in the form of slapstick on the dance floor or airy dialogue.

The movie accomplishes its goals, thanks mostly to its incredibly talented cast. Supporting members like the aforementioned Walter and Tucci, along with Bobby Cannavale, often sell some rather tepid gags through sheer force of acting talent. Also, having Richard Jenkins give a great deadpan performance in a small role is a welcome element. These things were just enough to hold my attention. They help buoy the primary husband/wife/hot dance instructor relationship drama that takes very few risks and I found only slightly interesting.

Shall We Dance is probably not a movie that I'll need to watch again. It was certainly a good enough movie for those in a rom-com kind of mood.

Before I Die #561: The Asphalt Jungle (1950)

This is the 561st that I've watched of the 1,172 films on the "Before You Die" List that I'm gradually working my way through.

Director: John Huston

A decent enough noir flick, but one that I'm a bit surprised is held in such high esteem.

The basic tale focuses on a bank heist, masterminded by a recently paroled master thief, Doc Riedenschneider (Sam Jaffe). Doc arrives in a new city, where he quickly gets to work assembling a small crew who will help him pull off his long-planned score. The gang he gathers includes the safe-cracker Louis Ciavelli, the gunman Dix Handley (Sterling Hayden), and the driver Gus Minissi. Doc has his plot bankrolled by a shady lawyer, Alonzo Emmerich (Louis Calhern). The heist begins well enough, but multiple complication start to arise, between one crew member being shot by police, and the entire gang being double-crossed by Emmerich.

In terms of noir crime plots, The Asphalt Jungle is solid, if not completely novel. It seems a sort of hybrid between 1946's The Killers and 1948's The Killing (noir films weren't noted for originality in their titles). In fact, the latter film also starred Sterling Hayden, who is also the key player in Jungle. The familiarity of the story and tone robbed the movie of some of its edge for me. Still, the suspense as the heist unfolds is on par with some of the very best crime movies.

Dix (far left) and Riedenschneider (far right) display their
spoils to their ostensible patron, the oily Emmerich.

I found the characters varyingly engaging. Doc Riedenschneider is certainly the most unique and entertaining of the lot. A quirky and brilliant old thief with a weakness for young ladies is bound to be entertaining, and he is. The primary character Dix, however, I found rather dull compared to other classic noir protagonists. There is some complexity beneath his gruff exterior, but he's still rather simple. Sterling Hayden is an all-time great stoic, but it robbed the character of some intrigue. Most others in the film are fairly shallow, though acted well enough.

The classic noir era of the 1940s and '50s provided me with some of my absolute favorite movies. I still watch Double Indemnity and Out of the Past every few years with growing love and appreciation. Checking out another touted film from the era like The Asphalt Jungle was enjoyable, but I can't put it in the same class as those other masterpieces. 

Idiot Boxing: Jessica Jones (2015)

Marvel's Jessica Jones (2015)

Bold and worthy of respect in many ways, if not exactly a masterpiece.

As a devoted geek for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), I was greatly anticipating this Netflix-exclusive series. Prior to Jessica Jones, Netflix allowed the creators of Daredevil the freedom to create a series that, while part of MCU canon, could tell a darker superhero story in a more measured, mature fashion. Jessica Jones took this lead and ran with it.

As the trailer indicates, this series delves deeper and darker than anything the MCU has done before. The titular protagonist does possess the superpower of greatly enhanced strength, but she is a mess of a human being. Jones is a private investigator who, true to the PI character type in classic noir tales, drinks hard and has zero tolerance for complications. Once Jones's alcoholism and toughness are established (this takes all of about 2 minutes), the series is given over to how she came to such straits. We gradually learn about a horribly dark period in her life, one which helped shape the overtly apathetic, degraded gumshoe. When the person responsible for this horror, initially known only as "Kilgrave," returns to Jones's life, she is compelled to revisit and attempt to cope with trauma that she has long been trying to drown with booze.

The title character may not look like the typical
superhero, but her low-key approach to flexing
her considerable muscle is a big appeal of the show. 

There is much to Jessica Jones that plays like the procedural crime dramas which have been all the rage on network television for the past decade. While this can be a weakness at times, this show has the ace up its sleeve of having a few super-powered main characters. In the case of the arch villain, this adds the kind of spice that no typical "real world" TV show can emulate. The cat-and-mouse between Jones and Kilgrave is often packed with plot twists and tension which can only happen when the opponents possess supernatural abilities. Interestingly, much like George R. R. Martin's use of magic in his Ice and Fire series, these powers are used deftly and sparingly, only to enhance the more human tale, rather than being the tale itself.

A major element to the series, and the one that has received many of the well-deserved praises, is the gender issue. Jessica Jones can be seen as a metaphor for female empowerment on many levels. Even if a viewer chooses not to read this much into it, the simple fact is that this series features dynamic female characters far more prominently than most TV shows, and definitely far more than anything the MCU has done to date. Yes, there have been female superheroes like Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Sif, and a handful of others. However, these have always been relatively minor roles who have played second or third fiddle to male leads like Captain America or Thor. In Jessica Jones, nearly every major player is a woman, some of whom are admirable and heroic, and some of whom are despicably selfish and cunning. In fact, there are only three notable male roles: the villain Kilgrave; and Luke Cage and Will Simpson, who are both removed from the playing field before the ultimate resolution of the story.

Jessica and one of the few male main characters, Luke Cage.
A show that features a variety of female main characters is a
very welcome addition to the MCU. 

Another laudable aspect of this series is something that it avoids - being an "origin" story. The MCU, as with nearly every other superhero movie, has often relied on the origin tale as the go-to formula to launch new movie series. Much to its credit, Jessica Jones eschews this approach. We very quickly see what she can do, but there is virtually no explanation as to how she obtained her prodigious physical strength. In fact, when the character is asked about it, she simply responds, "Accident." That's all we get. Clearly, the show-runners wanted us to focus on issues far more relevant to the character's current situation. Rather than ask us to simply marvel at Jones's physical powers, we are asked to take a hard, thoughtful look at her damaged psyche and how it influences her decisions and actions.

There are certain points in the 13-episode run where the story drags a bit, to the point that I felt the series was probably 2 or 3 episodes longer than it needed to be. Also, some issues are resolved in ways that, while satisfying in terms of basic storytelling, are not terribly imaginative. As a complete work, though, the strengths of the show far outweigh the weaknesses. To date, this is the boldest work that MCU has crafted. My hope now is that they build on this and continue to explore other styles and themes, both in their TV series and in the feature films. 

New(ish) Releases: Inherent Vice (2014); What We Do in the Shadows (2015); Get Hard (2015)

Inherent Vice (2014)

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

The Big Lebowski meets Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. As you may imagine, this works brilliantly at times but is a hazy mess at others.

Inherent Vice bears many hallmarks of the noir film genre: A male detective protagonist. A (quasi) femme fatale. An array of strange and suspicious characters. A nefarious plot which grows complex enough to baffle nearly any viewer. The story was clearly taking from the pages of the earliest noir novelists like Chandler and Hammett, as well as the classic noir film directors such as Raoul Walsh and Billy Wilder.

Where Inherent Vice would seemingly take a different slant on the noir genre is how it makes the private investigator protagonist a semi-burned out stoner, Larry "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix). That is, it would be a different slant if the Coen brothers hadn't already done it nearly 20 years ago in The Big Lebowski. Granted, there is far less comedy and far more grasping for some sort of vague profundity in Inherent Vice. Still, it is impossible to watch the parade of comically bizarre and eminently "Los Angeles" characters and not think of the dozens of oddballs whom The Dude encounters while trying to track down Bunny Lebowski. The Dude had Walter, Jackie Treehorn, Maude Lebowski, the German nihilists, and plenty of others. Doc has Michael Wolfmann (Eric Roberts, in a solid performance), Detective "Bigfoot" Bjornsen (Josh Brolin, the same), Jade the hooker, Dr. Blatnoyd, D.D.S., the Nazi skinhead bikers, and plenty of others. Vice is clearly the spiritual successor of The Big Lebowski's tale of "a strange dude among far stranger and scarier people." It does make for a rather fun, trippy, 20th century American odyssey.

I have not read Thomas Pynchon's source novel, though I must assume that it provides the film adaptation's inconsistent, incoherent voice-over narration. Amidst what is sometimes very straightforward slapstick or gumshoe storytelling, the thoughts and observations of the nebulous character Sortilege often seem out of place and pretentious, if not downright ridiculous. The main characters also suffer from this same strange inability to completely flesh themselves out, whether through their actions or dialogue. It is simply quite difficult to get any firm grasp on who or what each person is supposed to be. When you mix in the sometimes-frantic tone, which I associate with Terry Gilliam's wildly uneven adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, then there tends to be just a little too much emulation of earlier iconic pieces of work. Honestly, Inherent Vice even has Benicio del Toro in a cameo playing a fast-talking, unhinged lawyer, just like in Fear and Loathing.

All of this said, I will likely watch this movie again in the future, probably after reading Pynchon's novel. The performances are certainly commendable, even hypnotic at times. The movie seems strongest when at its most comical, even if this is also when it wanders too deeply into the territory of being a Lebowski clone. The story also includes enough of the noir hallmark twists and turns to provide amusing mental exercise in simply keeping up with everything. Some of the work pays off, while some left me wondering at the exact purposes of certain parts of the film.

Inherent Vice is another film in the Paul Thomas Anderson catalogue which shows the director's eye for visuals and dedication to crafting something engaging. This recent effort, though, is arguably his least accessible film to date. Those who like a clear, straightforward narrative and tone will probably find this 140-plus minute movie frustrating. Even those who appreciate elements of the film will likely find their patience tried more than a few times.

What We Do in the Shadows (2015)

Directors: Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi

Maybe not quite an instant classic in the Spinal Tap class, but this is a great mockumentary.

Mimicking the tone of "days in the lives of" documentaries, What We Do in the Shadows follows four flatmates in New Zealand who happen to be vampires, ranging in age from around 150 to over 8,000 years old. Though having all of the powers glamorized through popular fiction, the four undead roomies are not immune to many nuisances similar to those experienced by the living, though their problems have very peculiar twists. They bicker about who has to clean the dishes, but they do it while floating in the air and hissing at each other. They try to keep the carpets clean, but mostly from their accidentally hitting a victim's artery and spraying blood all over the apartment. Since they can't cast a reflection in a mirror, they have to draw rough sketches of each other in order to know what they look like. And on it goes.

The movie is hilarious in a variety of ways. Some of the gags and lines are immediately and gut-bustingly funny. Others are far more wry, but they are likely to stay with you and grow funnier the more you think about them. One example is how the vampires, in their attempts to go clubbing, are constantly frustrated by the fact that they must, in keeping with well-known vampire lore, be invited inside. Watching the main trio of powerful creatures get turned away from club after club grew funnier the more I replayed it in my mind. This was just one of dozens of similar gags.

The cast is all but perfect. True to the humor seen in director/star Jemaine Clement's HBO series The Flight of the Conchords, everything is done in complete deadpan. The actors were, to a person, spot on in their absurd matter-of-fact approach to being vampires, meeting vampires, or even being eaten by vampires. A particular standout is co-director Taika Waititi, who plays Viago, the single most amusing and memorable character in the film. Viago was born in 18th century Austria, and is a hilariously chipper "dandy," as his roommate and fellow vampire Vladimir calls him. Waititi plays this undead creature of the night with such hilarious cheerfulness that his performance alone is worth your time.

I have a feeling that this movie will only grow funnier upon repeat viewings, as do the very best mockumentaries.

Get Hard (2015)

Director: Etan Cohen

Enjoying this movie requires two simple things: Be a fan of either Will Ferrell or Kevin Hart, and check your brain in before you watch it. I am, and I did, and I had just enough fun to justify spending 100 minutes with this comedy.

The  movie has problems, to be sure. The script and tone smack of disorganization and overreliance on improv by the highly energetic co-stars. The attempts to use race and racial stereo-typing as sources of humor sometimes fall flat at best, and horribly offensive at worst. Many of the scenarios are far too ridiculous to hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. All the same, it provided just enough of the stupid humor that I was looking for that night.

My main concern going in was that I would find the hyper-active Kevin Hart extremely annoying. Blessedly, he's the far straighter character, resulting in his toning down his energy level enough to remain funny without getting too clownish. Ferrell is the far more ridiculous character here, which has always been his comfort zone. Between his occasionally manic outbursts and deadpan absurdity, he can carry many would-be dud scenes. Granted, there are several scenes so ill-conceived that neither Ferrell nor Hart could breath humor into them.  All the same, I got a good solid laugh every 5 or 10 minutes, which is all I really look for in a movie that clocks a 29% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

The most frustrating thing about movies like Get Hard is that they have far more potential. In the opening scenes, it seems as if we are in for a well-done satire on wealth, privilege, and racial stereotyping. Around 15 minutes in, though, the satire fades and an oddly serious tone takes over. The remaining hour or so continue to zig-zag between complete zaniness and half-baked or misguided attempts at social commentary. If the movie had had a clearer vision of itself and more imagination and courage with the script, it could have been far better. As it was, it ends up in the same barrel as Talladega Nights - an intermittently funny flick that I'll never watch again. 

Gangster Flick 3-Pack: Little Odessa (1995); Key Largo (1948); Dillinger (1973)

Few crime movies feel so authentic. Or so
numbingly grim.

Little Odessa (1995)

Director: James Gray

Hard and real, but faded around the edges.

Little Odessa follows a bleak few days in the bleak life of a young Long Island, New York hitman, Josh (Tim Roth), who is descended from Russian Jewish immigrants. Josh is told by his boss to return to his old neighborhood, Little Odessa, to perform a hit. Though reluctant to return for reasons not totally clear to us viewers, Josh does so all the same. As he hunkers down and prepares for the assassination, Josh attempts to reconnect with a few people, including his younger brother Reuben (Edward Furlong) and his former girlfriend, Alla. These things are not so easy, as he not only needs to keep a low profile, but he must also deal with a mother stricken with a brain tumor, as well as a stern father who has long since disowned him.

The movie has one of the grittiest, nastiest feels of any crime movie I've seen. Any glamor that one finds in most gangster movies is completely stripped away. There are certainly gunfights and killings, but they are presented with cold, disturbing realism. The matter-of-fact manner with which Josh goes about his business is unsettling, to say the least. Yet the juxtaposition with his attempts to rekindle some sort of connection with Reuben and his mother gives depth to this otherwise detached character. He's fiendish and heartless in most ways, but his interactions with these two hints at a person who may just have been redeemable at some time in the past. As the story unfolds, though, it becomes clear that Josh is truly beyond saving.

The film is written and shot with the same starkness as the themes and characters. The Little Odessa where the story takes place is all faded grays and browns, and speckled with urban blight. Everything happens in the cold, bitter wintertime, adding a greater chill to the grim proceedings. There are a few brief moments of gallows levity, but this is not a film that one "enjoys" as much as sees through with determination and a hope for some form of reconciliation.

It is a good movie, no doubt. Director James Gray, who would later do the much glossier We Own the Night, executed a very clear vision, despite having limited resources (this was his very first film). The dialogue feels very authentic, and the performances are excellent. Still, the entire tale is far too tragic and depressing to even border on "entertaining." Rather, it has the feel of a dramatization of all-too real events. It's worth seeing one time, especially for crime movie aficionadoes, but one time should suffice for most people.

A stand-off between Bogart and Robinson should have been
epic. As it was, I found Robinson's cigar-munching,
scenery-chewing Johnny Rocco a rather dull character.

Key Largo (1948)

Director: John Huston

I can see why this movie has been labeled a classic, though I didn't enjoy it as much as I had hoped.

The story begins with World War II veteran Frank McCloud (Humphrey Bogart) arriving on the titular island, where he hopes to visit the father and sister of one of his fallen comrades. He finds the father James Temple (Lionel Barrymore) and sister Nora (Lauren Bacall) as the proprieters of a little hotel on the island, but not before running into several tough-looking individuals who are staying at the hotel. It isn't long before Frank and the Temples learn that the men are henchmen for Johnny Rocco (Edward G. Robinson), a formerly powerful Chicago ganglord who had fallen from power after the repeal of Prohibition (Al Capone, anyone?). Rocco is staying at the hotel in order to meet with former associates and transact some illegal deal which will give Rocco a foothold back in the criminal world.

Virtually the entire film takes place inside the hotel lobby, where Rocco and his men hold the Temples and McCloud hostage while they wait for Rocco's associates to arrive. To complicate things, a hurricane is bearing down on Key Largo. Things become more and more claustrophic as Rocco repeatedly bullies the Temples, McCloud, and even his own boozy girlfriend, in a effort to demonstrate his strength. McCloud is the biggest enigma, as he seems to be a man of principles and heroism, but he passes up more than one opportunity to stand up to Rocco. Things culminate after the hurricane passes and McCloud is forced to pilot Rocco's boat, with Rocco and goons aboard, to Cuba for their escape.

There is certainly enough in Key Largo to carry a viewer's attention. Bogart is always magnetic, especially when playing a morally ambiguous character such as McCloud. The movie also features great performances by some of the all-time greats such as Bacall and Robinson. Still, I found myself disappointed in much of the dialogue. Rocco and his thugs spout off the same, tired tough guy gangster lines that I've heard in dozens of other such films from the era. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone tagged a statement with "...see?!" These, along with far too many instances of Rocco exclaiming that "Rocco will be back on top!" became dull before very long. It bordered on unintentional self-parody.

Still, the finale was strong enough to redeem most of the weaknesses. The boat ride to Cuba has a nice amount of tension and suspense, making for a memorable finish. It also provides welcome closure to the most intriguing thread to the story - just what kind of man Frank McCloud is.

Key Largo is definitely not your typical gangster movie, as it feels far more like a stage play. With some tighter, more imaginative dialogue, it likely would have become one of my favorite films. As it is, though, it is a great idea somewhat dulled by imperfect execution.


Dillinger (1973)

Director: George Milius

If there's a movie that should be watched in conjunction with Bonnie and Clyde, this is the one.

Warren Oates is great as the title criminal, but it is Ben
Johnson as "G-Man" Melvin Pruvis (seen here, with
Tommy gun) who steals the show.

Clearly taking his cue from that 1967 Arthur Penn masterpiece, director George Milius decided to meld a polished, Hollywood sheen with a violent, nasty presentation of the other infamous bank robbers of the Depression Era. As the title makes clear, the movie depicts the felonious acts of John Dillinger, the very first "Public Enemy Number One," as he robs and shoots his way across the Mid-West U.S. during the early 1930s. Dillinger was, along with a few others such as Bonnie and Clyde, among the very first "celebrity" criminals the country had seen. He was handsome and charismatic enough to build a rather strong following among many in the public. Like his fellow bank robbers, the support for him stemmed much from the public's emnity towards a banking industry viewed as the culprit of the country's desperate economic situation.

Though the movie does show Dillinger's charisma, it doesn't shy away from showing how brutal, ruthless, and irascible he was. Penn's Bonnie and Clyde conveniently left out several very sordid details about how the pair had killed several innocent people during their crime spree. Milius does not shy away from showing Dillinger for what he was: a greedy, selfish, and self-absorbed punk who cared very little for any collateral victims caught in his wake. Though Dillinger was only ever charged with one murder - that of a police officer - his open gun battles showed little concern for anything but his own escape.

The cast is excellent. Imagine my surprise when seeing Sergeant Hulka from Stripes, Warren Oates, playing the title criminal masterfully. He plays Dillinger's impishness, petulence, and arrogance all with equal skill. The other infamous robbers in his crew - the homicidal "Baby Face" Nelson and charming "Pretty Boy" Floyd - are also done extremely well by a very young Richard Dreyfus and Steve Kanaly, respectively. The most pleasant surprise came from an actor and character I knew nothing of. Ben Johnson plays Melvin Purvis - the stern F.B.I. man in charge of tracking down many of the infamous bank robbers of the day. Johnson's performance is magnetic, as he gives Purvis an icy, calculated toughness that draws the eye in every scene in which he appears.

Dillinger was definitely one of the stronger movies on the list from which I've been pulling these gangster films. Though it was clearly aping much of the style of Bonnie and Clyde, it did include just enough alterations and additions not to be seen as a straight ripoff of that earlier classic.

Before I Die #521: Get Carter (1971)

Director: Mike Hodges

Great gangster flick, based on a great book.

The basic story is that Jack Carter, a "fixer" for a London-based crime syndicate, has returned to his home town in the north of England. His brother has died in a way that makes Jack very suspicious. Jack quickly begins to start shaking bushes and soon has multiple criminals swirling around, most of whom wish to do him very serious harm. Jack, not a man easily dissuaded, pursues the mystery to its very end, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake.

How does one adequately describe this film, or even the book upon which it was adapted? The title character, Jack Carter, is not a nice man. He works for a sleazy and extremely powerful organized crime syndicate based in London. He kills people. He barely hesitates to exploit relatively innocent bystanders in the name of reaching his own goals. So why is it so compelling to follow him?

Jack Carter is, to me, a very dark, very English take on the classic noir protagonist of Hammett and Chandler. Jack is fully immersed in the murky waters of the English criminal underworld of the increasingly cynical post-mod era of the early 1970s. And while he's not the biggest fish in those waters, he is easily one of the deadliest. Like the classic noir "hero," he inhabits every scene, and we follow him through a complex maze of depravity and salaciousness that is frighteningly entrenched in Jack's entire world. But Jack is clearly right at home there, and his confidence is mesmerizing.

It is this confidence, along with his lethal capabilities and knack for the occasional snide one-liner, that carry us along. Don't be fooled, though. This is not Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe. He's not even the more jaded Tom Reagan from Miller's Crossing. He is a villain, and there are really only two things that keep him from being too repulsive to be interesting. One is that, in this tale, his targets are even more villainous that he is. The other is that he does exhibit the tiniest shred of compassion for his niece (who may actually be his daughter) as he carries out his quest for revenge. Mostly, though, he is out to avenge his brother's death. A viewer gets the sense that Jack is killing his way through adversaries out of is own pride just as much as a sense of vengeance.

Jack and his trusted weapon - the shotgun that he and his
brother saved up their money to buy as boys. Jack and the
gun get more than a little payback.

So the character and story are strong enough, but they are far from the only worthy qualities of the movie. The direction is tight and focused, and the aesthetic is just as gritty as it ought to be. This is not to say that it has a "dark" or "cheap" look based on some misguided attempt to convey some form of reality. A surprising number of scenes take place in broad daylight, where Jack and his opponents' dastardly deeds can be witnessed openly. The editing and framing are wonderfully done, which makes the viewing experience extremely dynamic during the several action sequences. But nothing feels rushed in any way. The first half of the film features many slower, meditative shots when the camera lingers on Jack's face, or the faces of others who are reacting to Jack's words or actions. There is just as much power in these moments as when the bullets are flying and the bodies are falling.

Do I really need to say anything about Michael Caine? Perhaps you are only familiar with his more recent roles, and you may be wondering if he was as strong an actor in his younger days. If so, you can stop wondering. He's incredible. If you've only seen him in roles of genteel, pleasant, and stately chaps, then you will marvel at how well he plays the coolly brutal Jack Carter.

The main caveat for those who don't know the story should be clear. There is no "good guy" here. Get Carter is about a bad man doing bad things to even worse people. But it sure is entertaining, just as any expertly-presented story about a cool customer plying his trade should be entertaining.

...And What About the Book?

I suppose a touch of disclosure is in order here. The reason I read the source novel for this is that a close friend of mine is responsible for having it published for the first time in the U.S. in four decades. I had already planned to watch the film for some time, so its reintroduction onto U.S. bookstore shelves last month was rather fortuitous for me.

Originally titled Jack's Return Home in the U.K., the book is fantastic. And the movie's director, Mike Hodges, stays extremely true to the spirit of the story and the protagonist. As expected, certain artistic license was taken, but it was done respectfully and with amazing adeptness. It is that rare adaptation that does the source novel more than enough justice while utilizing the elements that make cinema a different art form. Author Ted Lewis used terse, sparse language in this narrative. Hodges took that great narrative and translated into a ripping good film story with great camerawork, editing, and a fantastic actor.

If you have any interest in comparing the book to the film, I highly recommend reading the novel first. It's a modest 200 pages, and they turn very quickly. You can order it from a ton of places, but here's the direct link through Syndicate Books.

Movie or book, you really can't go wrong if you're into hard-boiled crime fiction. 

Retro Trio: Pacific Rim (2013), 13 Assassins (2010), Dark City (1998)

Pacific Rim (2013)

Director: Guillermo del Toro

This was my second viewing of this one, and I feel the same now as when I saw it on the big screen a year ago. It's certainly fun, but far from a masterpiece.

Yes, it's giant robots fighting against giant monsters, referred to as jaegers and kaiju, respectively. If you need to know more than that, then you probably won't be into this movie.

I do have to say that they do come up with a decent enough story for why we are watching a robot/monster slugfest. It's not exactly novel, but it doesn't try to get too clever for its own good, while not insulting your intelligence. Also, the notion of needing at least two "pilots" to handle the neural requirements to command the jaegers, leads to a bit more genuine empathy than you might expect.

Del Toro made sure that the fights looked at felt just as
titanic as they needed to be. Mindless? Yes. Fun? Hell yes!!

The fights are pretty awesome. They lose quite a bit on a small screen, it must be admitted, but they're still fun to watch, if you're not bored by that sort of thing, like my wife often is (she was fast asleep while I was happily watching Gipsy Danger body slam a Gamorrah lookalike into a Chinese skyscraper). Waiting to see just what type of bizarre powers the kaiju possess, or what kung-fu type moved the jaeger pilots will employ is plenty of fun. And there are a few noble deaths given up for admiration. The a deep-sea slugfest at the end is more than satisfying.

The weaknesses to me are few, but too obvious to ignore. The first is that the dialogue is inconsistent. There are some decent lines, including virtually all of the ones delivered by Idris Elba. However, there are plenty of cheesy duds that made me wince. When the protagonist Raleigh Beckett urges his neural partner Mako, "Let's do this! Together!!", it sounded way too much like the awful, hackneyed dialogue one might hear in a children's anime program. The other weakness to me is the romance between Raleigh and Mako. Totally unnecessary. The shame is that, for nearly all of the film, they don't fall down the Hollywood trap of cramming a romance story into an out-and-out action movie. Then, at the end, we get the cliched kiss-cut-credits sequence. I would have admired the film a bit more if they had simply kept Raleigh and Mako's relationship one of friends and colleagues.

A fun movie, nonetheless. Watch it on blu-ray, on a large screen, with a good sound system, if possible.

13 Assassins (2010)

Director: Takashi Miike

Great samurai flick. I don't watch a ton of Japanese or samurai movies, but I absolutely love them when they're done well, like 13 Assassins.

It probably helped that, just by coincidence, I had finished reading Hagakure a few weeks prior. This 18th century collection gathers the thoughts of a true feudal samurai, and it provides a fair amount of insight into the ideals of that position in Japanese social history. 13 Assassins incorporates several of the deepest sentiments and values of the samurai, both the admirable and the baffling. The primary belief is the ultimate quest for an honorable death. Essentially, a true samurai should never fear death. In fact, a true samurai should embrace the fact that he will die, and he should simply prepare and wait for the opportunity to give his life in the service of his feudal lord. It may seem like an oddly suicidal world view to most of us Westerners, but I've always been intrigued by the sense of honorable purpose conveyed by such an approach to life and death. 13 Assassins uses this idea to motivate the titular group.

But the movie is far from merely being a somber existential meditation. It starts off not unlike a Seven Samurai "let's get the band together" scenario. A middle-aged samurai, Shinzaemon, is tasked with the mission of killing the psychotic, sadistic, and homicidal Lord Matsudaira before he ascends to an esteemed place at the side of the shogun. So Shinzaemon, played with masterful gravitas and humanity by Koji Yakusho, rounds up whomever he can find to attempt what amounts to a suicide mission. The dozen fellows who join the band do so for various reasons, but they all add something to the group.

Do not get on the wrong side of this haggard-looking group.
They're just itching to give their skills and lives up for a
noble purpose.

The assault on Matsudaira is akin to the final 90 minutes of Seven Samurai, but condensed and thrown into a blood-soaked typhoon. In short, it's amazing. There is a slow-build throughout the movie, in terms of the duels and stand-offs. There are some outstanding showdowns, with steely-eyed swordsman squaring off. During the final half hour, though, it's a blizzard of violence, as Shinzaemon's band uses every scrap of cunning and trickery, as well as their considerable individual fighting skills to mow down their 200 opponents. The direction is outstanding, giving a phenomenal sense of place, purpose, and tension to all of the action.

True to the spirit outlined in Hagakure, the 13 "assassins" charge towards their noble deaths, and it's a phenomenal show.

Dark City (1998)

Director: Alex Proyas

As the title suggests, this is a dark, twisted science fiction mystery tale that I found to be excellent.

Dark City contains many shades of other, earlier artists and works: Franz Kafka, Philip K. Dick, noir in its many forms, and Clive Barker's Hellraiser are some of the most immediate that come to mind. The blending of them, though, is unique and highly engaging.

I'll refrain from writing about the plot, as the slow revelation throughout the movie is a large part of its appeal. All a first-time viewer needs to know is that the protagonist, John Murdoch, awakes in a motel bathtub, with no memories of who he is or how he got there. He very quickly finds himself pursued by shadowy, cloaked figures who possess terrifying supernatural powers. Murdoch, in constant flight, attempts to figure out who and where he is, but every answer raises many more questions about the nature of the reality that he is experiencing.

The story is so creative, and its execution is so brilliant, that I'm simply amazed that this movie isn't better known. My guess is that some of the themes and visuals were a little too bizarre or macabre, and the aesthetic - a pervasive noir darkness - was a bit off-putting to people who didn't know what to make of it. In addition, the film doesn't draw the clearest lines between good and evil, which can often disappoint and confound many viewers.

Another potential source of frustration for many viewers is likely the fact that there are certain larger questions that are not clearly answered. Without giving anything away, I can say that we are never given the grand answer to just how the entire scenario of the movie began. But this is completely fine to me. Ultimately, the way it began is immaterial, and this unanswered question allows us viewers the opportunity to engage in some imaginative speculation, based on the many details offered in the film's look and narrative.

Whatever the reasons for its lack of commercial success, it's a great science fiction movie that has rightfully built up the wider praise that it should have received from the outset.