The Irishman (2019) [No spoilers]

Spoilers ahead (it's mostly historical record, though).

Director: Martin Scorsese

It's a mammoth of a gangster movie by arguably the greatest director of such films, and it is among his very best.

If you only know a few of Scorsese's rather large and impressive filmography, chances are that Goodfellas and Casino are two of them. They both offered dramatic re-tellings of real-life events in the world of organized crime. In Goodfellas, we saw the rise and fall of Henry Hill, a street-level soldier for the Italian mafia in New York who, after living the criminal life from the 1960s to the early 1980s, turned state's evidence and testified against his former colleagues and bosses. Casino followed the closely intertwined lives of Sam "Ace" Rothstein and Nicky Santoro, who both served to help the mafia carve out a solid niche in Las Vegas during the 1970s. Both movies offered us a view of the rises and falls of the more violent, influential mafia figures, but seen from the perspective of guys - Hill and Rothstein - who were just far enough away from the truly violent and powerful that they avoided complete disaster.

The Irishman follows a very similar blueprint, for most of the way. Scorsese mainstay Robert DeNiro plays Frank Sheeran, an Irish-American truck driver and World War II veteran who eases his way into working for the Italian mafia during the 1950s. Through a chance encounter with Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci), a high-ranking mafia boss, Sheeran soon works his way into becoming a reliable hitman. Despite being a foot solider, he builds a great deal of trust with Bufalino, who eventually introduces him to Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). At this point in history, the mid-1950s, Jimmy Hoffa was about as famous a figure as there was in the United States. A hard-nosed and charismatic people's man, Hoffa was never above a little strong-arming and bribery to accomplish his goals, which were often to the benefit of himself as much as the Teamsters. Sheeran and Hoffa strike up a friendship, with Sheeran becoming Hoffa's bodyguard and occasional confidante for a number of years.

In the succeeding decades, Hoffa's star famously falls, starts to rise again, and then completely disappears under famously mysterious circumstances. The Irishman, however, offers an answer to the mystery - that a highly conflicted Sheeran played a role in sabotaging and assassinating Hoffa after he refused to take marching orders from the powerful mafia figures with whom he had previously worked. After Hoffa's death, Sheeran himself remains connected to Bufalino in both professional and friendship capacities. Eventually, though, Bufalino and all of Sheeran's human connections to the mafia and Hoffa pass away, leaving him the last one alive to recount his tale a few decades later.

The epic scope and the sordid nature of organized crime dealings prevalent in The Irishman will feel very familiar to anyone who knows Scorsese's mafia flicks. Some low-rent, morally dubious dude is lured in by the money, and gets a front row seat to some pretty dastardly business, all set to a great soundtrack. But The Irishman does offer something more. Sure, the thugy killings and beatdowns are there. Yes, the hilarious exchanges between not-so-smart guys trying to sound smart are there. But what elevates this movie above even Scorsese's past mafia masterpieces is the final analysis of Sheeran. In the much quieter final 30-or-so minutes of the movie, we see Frank Sheeran reckoning with the cost of his loyalty to Bufalino, Hoffa, and forces far more powerful, personal, and spirit-crushing than he ever quite realized. It all leaves a much deeper impact than Scorsese's earlier mob movies, not unlike how Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven left an indelible final stamp on his own career in Western movies.

As important as any of the typical gangster-film violence in
the movie is the bond that forms between Frank and Jimmy
Hoffa, as well as Russell Bufalino. In the end, Frank has to
live with the decisions he made regarding both, which is
far from easy.

The only thing that might be surprising about the fact that The Irishman is so technically brilliant is that Martin Scorsese is still doing this in his late-70s. The movie is no less sharp or eye-catching than anything in his exemplary career. And it was probably his age, wisdom, and the fact that Netflix granted him the freedom to make a three-and-a-half hour movie that he could extend his previous boundaries a bit and offer broader circumspection on a character type whose story he's told so expertly several times before.

It feels a bit silly to nitpick over such a well-crafted movie, but there were a few things that I couldn't help but notice. Mainly, the fact that DeNiro and Pesci, both 76 years old, are playing characters over a span of four to five decades. Rather than find younger "look-similars," Scorsese had the late-septuagenarians play their own late-30/early-40 year old selves in the earlier flashbacks of the tale. And no amount of makeup and costume ingenuity could cover all of that up, making few of the scenes from the earlier times a tad distracting.

That little gripe aside, it's an excellent movie. The length and relatively somber final act may prevent me from firing it up again anytime soon, but I'll certainly see it again in the future. 

Gangster Flick Binge Overview: 30 Years in the Making

If you've happened across this blog much over the last couple of years, you've probably noticed a few of those "Gangster Flick 3-Pack"s posted. While I do appreciate a good gangster movie, I wasn't watching so many of them out of random compulsion. Instead, I was working my way through the book which my in-laws gave me for Christmas - The Ultimate Book of Gangster Movies by crime flick enthusiasts George Anastasia and Glen Macnow. Before getting this fun little gift, I thought I had seen a lot of gangster films, so imagine my surprise when I looked over the authors' list and found that I hadn't seen over half of the movies listed. It even included several which I had never even heard of. Not one to back down from such a list, especially in a genre which I enjoy, I started to work my way through.

Now that I have watched every movie on their list, I feel the need for a recap. The authors did actually rank all of their selections in the following order (I've provided links to any of the movies which I have reviewed at some point):

1. The Godfather

2. The Godfather Part II

3. Goodfellas

4. On the Waterfront

5. Pulp Fiction

6. Little Caesar

7. The Departed

8. Donnie Brasco

9. The Usual Suspects

10. Casino

11. Scarface: Shame of a Nation

12. Once Upon a Time in America

13. Leon: The Professional

14. Mean Streets

15. Reservoir Dogs

16. Scarface

17. White Heat

18. A Bronx Tale

19. Bonnie and Clyde

20. Carlito's Way

21. The Pope of Greenwich Village

22. Gangs of New York

23. The Public Enemy

24. Sexy Beast

25. Road to Perdition

26. Get Shorty

27. Rififi

28. The Untouchables

29. Eastern Promises

30. The French Connection

31. The Petrified Forest

32. City of God

33. American Gangster

34. The Long Good Friday

35. In Bruges

36. Pepe le Moko

37. A History of Violence

38. The Friends of Eddie Coyle

39. Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels

40. Miller's Crossing

41. Infernal Affairs

42. Underworld, U.S.A.

43. True Romance

44. A Prophet

45. M

46. Angels with Dirty Faces

47. Dinner Rush

48. Get Carter

49. The Big Heat

50. Midnight Run

51. Mesrine

52. High Sierra

53. Snatch

54. The Killing

55. Animal Kingdom

56. Drunken Angel

57. Kill the Irishman

58. Jackie Brown

59. Heat

60. Bugsy

61. Things Change

62. Layer Cake

63. The Asphalt Jungle

64. Bullets Over Broadway

65. Salvatore Giuliano

66. State of Grace

67. Key Largo

68. Atlantic City

69. Let Him Have It

70. The Valachi Papers

71. The Killers

72. American Me

73. Analyze This

74. The Roaring Twenties

75. The Godfather, Part III

76. Al Capone

77. King of New York

78. Charley Varrick

79. Federal Hill

80. Mafioso

81. Point Blank

82. Sonatine

83. Dillinger

84. Little Odessa

85. At Close Range

86. Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai

87. The Joker is Wild

88. Lucky Number Slevin

89. Prizzi's Honor

90. The Killer

91. Gloria

92. El Mariachi

93. Year of the Dragon

94. New Jack City

95. Bound

96. We Own the Night

97. The Yakuza

98. Made

99. Brother (Brat)

100. The Freshman

Rather than get into a hyper-detailed rundown of how I might reorder their rankings, I'll just cluster these 100 films into a handful of groups, inspired by the greatest gangster movie of all time (I put Anastasia and Macnow's original rankings in parentheses):

"Don Vito Corleone" Group:

The top of the pyramid. These are the ones that I feel are incredible. They are films which I have already seen multiple times or will happily watch again in the future. Even if I may not feel the need to watch them again, their greatness and influence simply cannot be refuted:

The Godfather (1); The Godfather, Part II (2); Goodfellas (3); On the Waterfront (4); Pulp Fiction (5); Donnie Brasco (8); Casino (10); Leon: The Professional (13); Reservoir Dogs (15); Bonnie and Clyde (19); Road to Perdition (25); The French Connection (30); City of God (32); The Long Good Friday (34); Pepe le Moko (36); A History of Violence (37); Miller's Crossing (40); True Romance (43); A Prophet (44); Get Carter (48); The Big Heat (49); Jackie Brown (58); Heat (59); The Killers (71)

"Always a Capo, Never a Don" Group:

The Clemenzas and Tessios of the gangster movie world. These are the ones that do a lot of things well but have an annoying flaw or two which I can't completely ignore. I also include movies that may have once been great but have suffered the misfortune of being slightly worn down by time. They're solid, reliable movies that I either have or likely would watch again, but they are a bit short of being among the very best:

Little Caesar (6); The Departed (7); The Usual Suspects (9); Once Upon a Time in America (12); Mean Streets (14); White Heat (17); A Bronx Tale (18); Carlito's Way (20); The Public Enemy (23); Sexy Beast (24); Get Shorty (26); Rififi (27); The Untouchables (28); Eastern Promises (29); American Gangster (33); In Bruges (35); Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (39); Infernal Affairs (41); Underworld, U.S.A. (42); M (45); Dinner Rush (47); Midnight Run (50); Mesrine (51); Snatch (53); Animal Kingdom (55); Drunken Angel (56); Kill the Irishman (57); Layer Cake (62); The Asphalt Jungle (63); Bullets Over Broadway (64); Salvatore Giuliano (65); State of Grace (66); Atlantic City (68); Let Him Have It (69); American Me (72); The Roaring Twenties (74); Al Capone (76); King of New York (77); Mafioso (80); Sonatine (82); Dillinger (83); Little Odessa (84); At Close Range (85); Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (86); Lucky Number Slevin (88); The Killer (90); Bound (95); We Own the Night (96); The Yakuza (97); Brother [Brat] (99); The Freshman (100)

"Luca Brasi" Group:

The movies that can serve a simpler appetite for some gangster cinema, but are somewhat limited in their scope and what you can expect from them. It may be due to poor aging or a few misguided choices by the creators, but these ones' merits are almost overshadowed by their flaws:

Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (11); The Pope of Greenwich Village (21); Gangs of New York (22); The Petrified Forest (31); The Friends of Eddie Coyle (38); Angels With Dirty Faces (46); High Sierra (52); The Killing (54); Bugsy (60); Key Largo (67); The Valachi Papers (70); Analyze This (73); Charley Varrick (78); Federal Hill (79); Point Blank (81); The Joker is Wild (87); El Mariachi (92); Year of the Dragon (93); New Jack City (94)

"Fredo" Group:

Sure, Fredo might have ostensibly been a "gangster", but he was clearly far, far out of his depth. The movies in this group are those which I found very difficult to make it through, even once. If there was a redeeming quality or two, I had to work especially hard to find them. Whether due to age, shifting tastes, or the authors' completely different sensibilities from my own, I'm not even sure why these ones were considered among the "100 greatest" by Anastasia and Macnow:

Things Change (61); The Godfather, Part III (75); Prizzi's Honor (89); Gloria (91); Made (98)

All told, Anastasia and Macnow put together a good list. While I suspect that there are some foreign gangster movies which the writers may not know of, they did include a decent amount of crime movies from abroad. Whenever I go through a list like this, my goal is always to try and find a few gems which I had never seen or heard of. Such was the case here. There were seven  standout discoveries for me: Pepe le Moko, A Prophet, The Big Heat, The Killers, Mesrine, At Close Range, and The Yakuza. Sure, I had to sit through a fair number of mediocre or downright unpleasant movies, but finding those seven were worth it.

That wraps up this little obsessive compulsive movie-watching task. On to the next ones...

Before I Die #577: Little Caesar (1931)

This is the 577th movie I've now seen from the "Before You Die" list that I'm gradually working my way through.

Director: Mervyn LeRoy

Another bona fide classic that, while clearly tremendously influential, has lost quite a bit over time.

Little Caesar was and is, by all accounts, the earliest morality play gangster movie. Preceding The Public Enemy by a mere four months and 1932's Scarface: The Shame of a Nation, it featured a star-making turn by Edward G. Robinson as Rico, power-hungry, eminently violent thug who uses his cunning, brutality, and willpower to quickly carve out a sizable portion of the criminal underworld in an unnamed big city. With one exception that ultimately leads to his downfall, Rico shows no mercy to anyone who gets between him and his grab power and respect through fear.

Like Tom Powers and Tony in the other two aforementioned films, Rico was modeled after Al Capone, the most infamous organized criminal in the United States at the time. The fictional arch villains in these movies were used to illustrate the film-makers belief that such crime lords were to be seen as a cancer on society - a cancer which the public had a responsibility to root out and destroy. To the end of delivering this message, any trace of glamour and attraction is stripped away from Rico. Yes, he eventually acquires flashy material goods, but his methods of obtaining them are so cruel and repugnant that all but the most immature and superficial of viewers would mistake Rico for some sort of role model. And by the end, Rico is meant to be a lamentable, appalling , and almost pathetic figure.

One might be briefly blinded by the slick clothes and
powerful figure that Rico cuts, but one doesn't have to try
very hard to see that it is merely window dressing on a
deranged, power-obsessed psychopath.

Beyond its clear message about violent crime, the movie holds up only so well, these 85 years later. Robinson really is an acting force. Like James Cagney in The Public Enemy, he unintentionally puts to shame all of the many weaker performances around him. Perhaps it is because this iconic movie has been parodied and comically evoked so many times since its release, but it is difficult to take seriously all of the tough-guy slang that gets bandied about. I imagine that it was fresh and riveting back in the 1930s and '40s, but I couldn't stifle laughter at much of the dialogue. I was, however, pleasantly surprised by the unusual performance by Thomas E. Jackson as Sergeant Flaherty. Jackson played the part with an odd, slow drawl and a self-assured calm which really stood out. I found it one of the stronger, more memorable supporting performances in any movie from that era.

There can be no doubt about this movie's influence on film, regardless of genre, but particularly the gangster/crime movie. In hindsight, I wish I had watched this one before The Public Enemy and Scarface, as it clearly influenced these latter two. Like those movies, it is an easy, entertaining watch that shows the best, earliest examples of a type of movie that is distinctly American and still very much alive to this very day.

***An interesting note that the trio of early anti-gangster movies seemed to rely solely on death at a young age as the major deterrent to taking up a life of crime. Those movies and their creators never reckoned on the notion of living fast, taking what you can get, and dying young would become a credo embraced by alpha types in impoverished neighborhoods, where a short life is often assumed. For individuals with this "get rich or die tryin'" mentality, this type of movie has become not a cautionary tale but almost a guide for living. One need look no further than the modern reverence that many young aspiring and hardened criminals have for De Palma's 1983 remake of Scarface. The ultimate message in that movie is no different from its inspirations from the early 1930s, but for many it has had the polar opposite effect than what the original film-makers intended.

That's 577 movies down. Only 600 to go before I can die. 

Gangster Flick Home Stretch: A Bronx Tale (1993)

A Bronx Tale (1993)

Director: Robert De Niro

A strong and unique gangster movie that overcomes some noticeably weaker aspects.

Based on a stage play by Chazz Palminteri written from his own experience growing up in the Bronx, the movie looks at two key periods in the life of Calogero as he struggles between the lessons taught by his father and a local mafia figure. In 1960, a 10-year-old Calogero is enamored by the swagger and presence of Sonny (Chazz Palmenteri), a neighborhood guy who is the most powerful crime figure. Despite the warnings of his parents, the impressionable Calogero can't help but be mesmerized by the sharp dress and image of strength found in Sonny. Sonny takes no notice of the fawning young Calogero until the boy publicly refuses to tell the police that he witnessed Sonny kill a man in broad daylight. From that point, Sonny tries to take Calogero under his wing and introduce him to the criminal lifestyle. When Calogero is caught spending time in Sonny's bar by his father Lorenzo (Robert De Niro), a tense standoff occurs between Sonny and Lorenzo. While no violence occurs, a quiet but severe tension arises between the earnest, hard-working Lorenzo and the lethal Sonny.

The story flashes forward eight years to 1968, when we learn that the now-18-year-old Calogero has been managing to toe the delicate line between doing what his father wants while also maintaining ties with his wastrel friends as well as the still-powerful Sonny. Calogero dresses the part of a would-be hoodlum and even does some low-level loan sharking, but always stops short of committing any serious acts of violence or criminality. Things eventually come to a head when Calogero develops a crush on an African-American girl, Jane, from a nearby neighborhood, something which could potentially make him a pariah among his intensely racist friends.

One of the more intense confrontations between Sonny and
Lorenzo. The battle over Calogero's life and upbringing is
one of the most human dramas you'll see in a gangster movie.

The movie bears many aspects familiar to those who have seen the New York gangster movies of Martin Scorsese, but Palminteri tells a story that is far more personal and presents several unique elements. For one, the character of Sonny is splendidly well-rounded. Yes, he is a brutal criminal who garners respect through fear. At the same time, he is more than a mere thug. He displays an intelligence and wisdom with Calogero that is unusual in such a character but authentic in this story. It is Sonny who repeatedly tells Calogero to get away from his small-minded friends, who Sonny says will eventually bring him down. It is Sonny who urges Calogero to stay in school and create opportunities for himself. It is also Sonny who tells the young man to follow his heart and start seeing Jane, regardless of what his ignorant peers think. At the same time, Sonny still runs a criminal operation through violence and intimidation, which is why Calogero's father is continually fighting for his son to turn away from Sonny as any sort of mentor. The specific dilemmas are often wonderfully subtle, such as when Lorenzo takes his son to a boxing match, where Sonny offers to bring the two down to their ring-side seats. Lorenzo, trying to maintain his integrity, refuses the offer but has to watch his son fight the urge to join Sonny. Simpler moments like these are rare for gangster movies, and A Bronx Tale includes several very well-executed sequences like it.

The movie isn't flawless. Some of the performances are rather weak, most notably Taral Hicks as Jane and even Lillo Brancato as the older Calogero at times. Part of this is due to a script that is occasionally tepid, but it also doesn't help that the performances by Palminteri and De Niro are typically phenomenal. I suppose this can always be a risk when using such amazingly talented actors - that the shortcomings of any other actors become much more obvious. The weaker performances hardly undermine the movie, but I did find them occasionally distracting.

I really enjoyed this movie, and I wish that I had seen it earlier. I would recommend that anyone watch A Bronx Tale, and then follow it up with a viewing of Scorsese's Mean Streets - two movies very different in general theme and tone but which take place at very similar times and within similar settings. They are two of the very best New York gangster movies that one could possibly watch, although for different reasons. 

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. 

Gangster Flick One-Two Punch: The Petrified Forest (1936); The Pope of Greenwich Village (1984)

The Petrified Forest (1936)

Director: Archie Mayo

An interesting old gangster flick with an novel arc and a few thoughtfully-crafted characters, but one which suffered from the trappings of many of its contemporaries.

The story begins with a drifter wandering through the Arizona desert and happening upon an isolated gas station. The drifter, Alan (Leslie Howard), is an Englishman who has left behind a life of ease and luxury in order to find something profound in the expanse of the American Southwest. At the gas station, he finds Gaby (Bette Davis), the daughter of the station manager and a young woman who seeks to escape the desolation and confinement of the family business. Alan and Gaby quickly find somewhat kindred spirits in each other, and a spark of passion is ignited. While the older Alan eventually leaves Gaby, things are thrown into chaos when a fugutive criminal, Duke Mantee (Humphrey Bogart), arrives in the area with his small crew of bank robbers and killers on the run. Once they take over the gas station and the threat of death becomes palpable, the tone becomes rather existential for several of the captives.

The main story is very solid, and the primary characters are deep enough to be compelling through their interactions. However, the execution is heavily rooted in standard screenwriting of the time. The dialogue can be a bit cliche, especially with the gangsters. A bigger problem for me, though, is the pacing, which seemed very rushed, making the plot points feel more forced and quite implausible. When we consider that the setting is the middle of nowhere, it becomes ridiculous to think that a lone drifter, a quartet of fugitive thugs, and a wealthy couple and their driver all end up at the same spot at the same time. In fact, the wealthy couple hardly seemed essential to the true heart of the plot, and I felt that the movie could have been stronger without them. The movie had a very similar feeling to another Bogart movie - Key Largo - which bore several of the same strengths and weaknesses. Both movies also had the feel of a tale meant for the stage rather than the silver screen (as they both were).

Fortunuately, The Petrified Forest clocks in at a very modest 82 minutes, making it an easy watch. Because of its brevity, it is well worth watching for fans of old-time gangster movies or just Humphrey Bogart. This was an earlier, non-starring role for Bogie, but he could pull off a rather menacing bad guy just as well as anybody ever has.

The Pope of Greenwich Village (1984)

Director: Stuart Rosenberg

I realize that this movie is highly admired by plenty of people, both casual movie-viewers and a fair number of critics. And while it has some clear merit, it really didn't come very close to living up to its reputation for me.

The tale follows Charlie (Mickey Rourke) and his cousin Paulie (Eric Roberts), a pair of local Italian-American boys in Greenwich Village, New York City. Both work in a restaurant but aspire to greater wealth, and neither is above illegal means to obtain it. Their approaches towards life could hardly be more different, though. Charlie, while not exactly a master criminal or life winner, at least has some style and a sense of patience and propriety. Paulie, though, is a complete mess of a human being. Painfully loud and boorishly obnoxious, he can hardly sit still for a second without trying to con someone or get some kind of get-rich-quick scheme underway. His latest is to rob a safe which houses tens of thousands of dollars. He ropes in Charlie and a neighborhood safe-cracker to pull off the job, hoping to split the take. Running along with this scam is Paulie's ill-advised investment in a racehorse.

There are the makings of a good crime tale in the movie. There is a somewhat suspenseful little heist that goes wrong. There are several looming mafiosi. There is the dynamic between the woefully immature Paulie and the less-immature Charlie as they try to navigate some extremely treacherous waters. Still, the movie came off as a patchwork of sometimes-compelling scenes rather than a cohesive whole that had anything particularly interesting to say. While there is some character study involved, it ultimately feels downplayed by the time the final credits roll.

Paulie (left), trying yet again to convince his relatively more
mature cousin Charlie to take a ridiculous risk. I wonder if,
deep down, Mickey Rourke was as irked by Eric Roberts's
performance as I was. 

When I guess about the movie's popularity, I must concede that many of the performances are strong and the fascination with "authentic" New Yorkers can compel. Mickey Rourke was just hitting his early peak at this time, and his turn as Charlie was another example of why he impressed so many viewers at the time. And most of the secondary roles are solid, including the likes of Burt Young, Daryl Hannah, and several other experienced character actors. Eric Roberts, on the other hand, I found almost insufferable. While the Paulie character is supposed to be the kind of twitchy, irresponsible street guy whom we're not meant to like, Roberts went way over the top in many of the scenes. His performance shifts so often and so drastically that the character becomes almost a caricature, or at the very least someone who is far too dumb and far too unstable to function. It didn't help that Roberts's New York accent was spotty at best, which stood out all the more among so many other native New Yorkers. Also stacked against Roberts is the fact that the character type of a fast-talking, irresponsible, selfish, and greedy sleaze has been done too well by others. Robert DeNiro's performance as Johnny Boy in Mean Streets and even Edward Norton's as Worm in Rounders make Roberts's acting look strained.

It also not hard to see why many people have found the movie entertaining. Not unlike The Godfather before it and Goodfellas after, The Pope of Greenwich village gives us more than few amusing verbal exchanges of the distinctly New York Italian-American variety. Plenty of balls are busted and many hands are waved around as the several none-too-bright characters baffle each other with their ineptitude. For those moments, the movie can be fun.

As he did so many times with other movies, Roger Ebert articulated what I felt about this movie far better than I could. He generally liked the movie, but he felt that it was far more about the performances than about any story or message. It is what he dubbed a "Behavior Movie". When I read this, I realized just how right he was. I also realized that, despite many strong performances, I was disappointed in this movie, and I feel no need to see it again. 

Before I Die #567: The Public Enemy (1931)

This is the 567th film I've watched from the "Before You Die" list which I'm gradually working through. I actually overlooked doing a separate post for the 566th film, High Sierra, but the link leads to the combination review I did, along with a couple of other gangster movies. On to The Public Enemy...

Director: William A. Wellman

A decent enough movie that stands out dramatically from contemporary movies of the same ilk, but one whose power has faded over the 85 years since its release.

At the beginning and end of The Public Enemy, there are disclaimers stating that the movie would not glamorize the criminal lifestyle (an indirect criticism of exploitation films of the day). For the most part, the filmmakers stuck to this promise. The movie follows fictional criminal Tom Powers, a young street tough who, from a young age, is constantly looking for angles and hustles to make money. And possible arrest is no deterrent. When Powers reaches adulthood, Prohibition is in full swing, and he fully embraces the chance to grasp the wealth and power available to those willing to engage in the illegal alcohol trade.

That little synopsis should paint the picture of a very familiar story: the rise of an arch criminal. It's been told in film countless times over the last century or so, in myriad ways. From The Roaring Twenties on up through more recent movies like Brian DePalma's Scarface and Ridley Scott's American Gangster, the tale is a staple of U.S. popular culture. The Public Enemy was one of the very first movies to effectively portray the mob lifestyle as despicable and tragic. Other films of the time were more exploitative and shallow, using the strong gangster character for cartoonish entertainment. James Cagney's Tom Powers, though, is hardly admirable. Sure, he has some amusing one-liners and more than a little courage, but his overwhelmingly dominant characteristics are self-interested greed and violence. It would take an immature or disturbed mind to watch this entire movie and come away wanting to emulate any of Powers's behaviors. In this way, the movie mostly makes good on its promise to not romanticize criminality.

This is not to say that the movie is not entertaining at times. James Cagney was always a pleasure to watch, even when he was playing detestable characters. The tension in his line reads and his physical movements really shone through in this early role, one of his very first starring parts. His presence in this movie is as magnetic as his other iconic roles in The Roaring Twenties and White Heat.

In this still shot, even the postures indicate the difference
in style and attitude. Donald Cook (left) gives a pain-
fully stiff performance, unlike the brilliant Cagney's
more naturalistic acting.

Outside of Cagney, though, the rest of the cast doesn't really stand out. Even the legendary Gene Harlow falls rather flat with her lines at times, and Donald Cook as Tom's brother, Mike, is downright groan-worthy in a few scenes. These two were just a few of the many pieces of evidence that The Public Enemy has, through no fault of its own, aged poorly in some aspects. I hardly count this against the filmmakers, as one will not find a movie from 1931 which has more than one or two actors whose performances hold up over 80 years later. Still, it doesn't make the clunkier, more outdated elements of the movie any easier to watch.

If I compare it to a near-contemporary, I actually preferred The Roaring Twenties, which had stronger all-around production value. That said, The Public Enemy is well worth watching for fans of older gangster movies. At a brisk 82 minutes, it's not much of a commitment, and it's a solid early example of the "rise and fall of a gangster" story which so many of us love.

That's 567 movies down. Only 605 more to see before I can die.

Gangster Flick 3-Pack: The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973); The Long Good Friday (1980); American Gangster (2007)

The taglines on the original movie poster say it all.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973)

Director: Peter Yates

A curious movie which oozes despair and fatalism like only 1970s movies can.

Acting legend Robert Mitchum, no stranger to great noir films, plays Eddie Coyle, a mafia middle-man of the lowest-rent variety. Coyle dabbles steadily enough in the purchase and exchange of guns, but he barely manages to eke out a meager existence by which he lives in an uninspiring home with his wife and three children. Eddie is not even particularly great at what he does. As penance for flubbing a job earlier in life, he had his fingers broken in a drawer, earning the nickname "Eddie Fingers". As this movie begins, he has already been collared for illegally transporting stolen goods, and is only free on bail until he can be tried and locked away. That is, unless he turns evidence on some of his more powerful bosses.

The movie isn't always as tight as it could be. A fair amount of time is spent showing how an arms dealer whom Eddie knows goes about the dangerous work of selling guns to criminals of both the professional and amateur variety. While much of this isn't necessary to the central tale of Coyle, it is actually done well enough to remain intriguing. Many of these scenes actually exhibit much that other filmmakers could learn about how to execute tense and suspenseful scenes which still feel fairly organic.

In spite of these mildly tangential moments, the movie coheres at the end, without leaving any dangling elements. Thanks to the generally sordid nature of his business and a horribly unfortunate mix-up, Coyle is targeted for assassination. I couldn't help but think that this movie is essentially the third act of Goodfellas, when Henry Hill sees all of his past glories and successes fall away as he becomes severed from the life of crime which had nurtured him for so long. The difference with Eddie Coyle, however, is that we have no sense that Coyle ever had a "heyday" when he lived the high life and rubbed elbows with mafia big shots. For this reason, Eddie Coyle feels more sadly authentic, and of course far less entertaining, than a Scorsese or Coppola gangster movie.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle is probably too dreary for me to watch again. Still, I have to admit that it is extremely well done and still shows why it is, to this day, considered among the best gangster movies.

Harold Shand - a man who wants profitable peace but has
a frightening violent streak dragged out over the course
of this tense film.

The Long Good Friday (1980)

Director: John Mackenzie

This was the second time I've seen this one. I found it excellent the first time, and it only improved.

The only difficulty I can point out has nothing to do with the film itself. It is merely that there is an abundance of cockney crime slang, which can be tough to decipher, even for one who is familiar with it through movies and novels, like me.

Foreign phrases aside, this movie is an all-time great. Even more than 1971's Get Carter, The Long Good Friday paints a portrait of a British gangster that is as compelling as it is creative. Bob Hoskins plays Harold Shand, a London-based gangster who has overseen nearly a decade of peace and prosperity in the organized crime world. With the 1980s freshly underway, Harold has big plans for massive, mostly-legitimate expansion, and he is about to host a representative of the Sicilian-American mafia in order to forge a partnership. Just as the visit is about to begin, though, some very bad things start happening. A few of Harold's top lieutenants are killed. One of his pubs is bombed. Another bomb is found in one of his casinos. Somebody clearly has it in for him.

The movie follows Harold as he tries to figure out first what is going on, and then who is responsible, so that he knows where to aim his murderous rage. The details of the plot can be rather difficult to follow at times, due in part to the heavy accents and regional slang, but the gist is quite clear: someone is out to get Harold, and Harold is not a man who takes kindly to being gotten. It's the stuff of some of the very best gangster tales, be they in literature or film. There is an almost noir-like impenetrability to the plot, so that it is much easier to feel Harold's disorientation. It's easy to see why he makes several missteps, and its also easy to see why he reacts so violently when certain details are revealed. With each new piece of information he discovers or weeds out through beatings and torture, either the mystery deepens or the scope grows to frightening proportions. This movie is very clearly where plenty of modern British crime movies like those of Guy Ritchie took many of their cues. While the more recent movies exaggerate the entertaining aspects of hard-boiled criminals and their exploits, though, The Long Good Friday keeps the tone far darker and more menacing.

Harold Shand (middle), showing some creativity with his
methods of information extraction.

The performances by the stars of the movie are phenomenal. The secondary characters are played by many faces familiar to those who have seen some of the more popular British crime movies, and a few were even used by Guy Ritchie later in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. We also get a rather young Helen Mirren as Harold's sophisticated, modern gun moll, and Mirren predictably nails the role. Most amazing of all of the strong performances, though, is that of Bob Hoskins. His turn as besieged crime lord Harold Shand is one that is arguably unmatched in British crime movies. His shifts in personality, from gregariously charismatic optimist to snarling, vengeful, and brutal thug are completely natural and captivating. His is one of those performances that draws the eye to his character in virtually every scene, and even warrants multiple viewings.

This was the second time that I've watched this movie, and I'm quite likely to watch it again. Anyone who has ever enjoyed British gangster movies owes it to themselves to watch this touchstone film in the genre.

American Gangster (2007)

Director: Ridley Scott

A solid offering of a Scarface-style, making-of-a-gangster movie of a different breed, if not exactly a modern classic.

Based on real events, American Gangster follows the rise of Frank Lucas, the very real drug kingpin who rose to power in Harlem in the 1960s and 1970s. Prior to his climb to crime-lord, Lucas (Denzel Washington) had been an associate of the powerful and influential boss Bumpy Johnson. When Johnson dies, Lucas sees the opportunity to place himself in the gap left by Johnson's death, a gap left mostly in the heroin market. Knowing the landscape of the local illegal drug trade, Lucas knows that he can't compete with the already-entrenched forces of smaller local drug lords and the corrupt police force. He therefore goes directly to a major source of heroin - Vietnam. Using a few old neighborhood friends, the enterprising Lucas cuts a deal with a Vietnamese opium grower and purveyor to sell to him directly. Lucas also organizes a method for getting the opium into the U.S. on board military planes making regular trips between Vietnam and the U.S.

While Lucas's power begins to grow, New Jersey police officer Richie Roberts (Russel Crowe) is fighting the good fight. In ways very reminiscent of Serpico - another story based on true events - Roberts is one of the very few clean cops on the force, which alienates him from nearly all of his fellow officers. It is, however, his incorruptibility that brings him to the eye of state officials who make him head of a force tasked with bringing down the ever-growing illegal drug trade in the greater New York City area. This sets Roberts on the path to tracking down Frank Lucas and attempting to put together a case that will bring down the cautious and savvy criminal and his organization.

The movie bears plenty of familiar elements, the most obvious being the two well-known crime movies already mentioned. But while there may not be much that is exactly novel about the basic elements of the story, director Ridley Scott spins the tale out in entertaining and engaging ways. Richie Roberts's detective work is not unlike what we see in the first season of The Wire, with a small crew of dedicated cops using all of their wits to grasp the scope and details of a massive illegal operation and bring down those in control. The cast does plenty to elevate many of the confrontations and exchanges above their occasional mediocrity, and watching the inevitable collision between Lucas and Roberts slowly develop is engaging. The resolution of the movie is a bit atypical of such movies, and it provides a really solid scene between Washington and Crowe.

As with most movies based on real events, I did a bit of informal research to see just how close to reality the events in the film came. The short answer is: not very close. By most accounts, the real Lucas was not nearly as suave or endearing as the on-screen version, and Roberts is actually portrayed in a slightly less appealing light than the real man. This is another case in which I feel that I would almost prefer to watch a well-done documentary on this topic, even when the dramatized version is of high quality. 

Before I Die #565: Pepe le Moko

This is the 565th of the 1,172 movies on the "Before You Die" list which I'm gradually working through.

Director: Julien Duvivier

To an average modern viewer, Pepe le Moko would be a good movie. When taken in the context of its release and the overall history of film, it's an incredible movie.

Taking place roughly around the time it was made in 1936, Pepe le Moko centers on the title character, a thief who is hiding out in the famous Casbah area of Algiers, Algeria. Pepe is, in many ways, the classic romantic rogue - handsome and charming, with just enough integrity to inspire devotion from many who meet him. However, he is also possessed of a deep sadness, and this is where the movie was well ahead of its time. While it is certainly engaging to learn about Pepe's skills as a thief and his powerful charisma, it is the deeper exploration of his psyche which made this movie so groundbreaking.

The film wears the veneer of a chase movie. The police force in Algiers have been unable to catch the elusive Pepe, and the government of France, the colonizers of Algeria, send in officials to oversee a more rigorous pursuit. Despite warnings from local officers familiar with the difficulties of the situation, the French attempt to bulldog their way into finding the notorious thief. Shifting between the center and the periphery of the investigation is Slimane, a seemingly-lazy local officer possessed of deceptive intellect, knowledge, and patience. It is the slow burn of watching Slimane work the problem of apprehending Pepe that makes this movie so far ahead of its time. Whereas nearly all films of that time (and the majority of films even today) rely on the drama of strong characters constantly duelling each other in dynamic and eye-catching ways, Pepe le Moko is more measured and assured. It is this slower pace which allows us to truly think about what motivates Pepe, and it becomes clear that it is more than simply money and women.

This still gives just a taste of how tricky the maze of the
Casbah can be, especially to those unfamiliar with its
twists, turns, and many, many dark shadows. 

Pepe le Moko is also a film about place. The locale of the Casbah is spectacular. Filmed on location, the movie depicts a neighborhood which is a fascinating labyrinth of multi-storied buildings, winding stairways, and bodies packed into the well-worn structures. It's a perfect setting for the tale of a thief who both uses the maze to retain his freedom and feels its constrictive nature. Casablanca, as great as it is, never comes close to creating the sense of locale as Pepe le Moko.

The resolution of the story is just as impressive as anything else about the movie. It avoids all of the tropes and typical cliches of weaker films. This was a great movie that I'm glad to have finally watched, after reading about it for so many years.

That's 565 films seen, only 607 more to go before I can die...

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. 

New(ish) Releases (2015): Ex Machina; Dope; Straight Outta Compton

Ex Machina (2015)

Director: Alex Garland

A brilliant piece of original speculative fiction.

Ex Machina begins with Caleb, a young computer programmer in a large company, winning a competition to spend a week with his company's eccentric, reclusive, and brilliant founder, Nathan. Caleb is taken to Nathan's home in a beautiful, isolated area, where he is told that he will take part in a ground-breaking experiment. Nathan has been building robots with cutting-edge artificial intelligence, the long-time dream and goal of computer programmers whereby a machine actually possesses all the deepest and most complex intellectual capacities of human beings. Caleb's job will be to interview Nathan's latest creation, Ava, a robot given the form of a beautiful young woman. Nathan is told to apply his knowledge as a programmer to assess whether Ava could pass as a human.

Within the first few days of his stay at Nathan's beautifully sleek but confined home, Caleb senses something amiss. His host drinks himself into a total stupor every night. Several parts of the house are firmly locked by Nathan's state-of-the-art smart home security measures. Caleb is charmed by Ava when they first meet, but she soon tells him that Nathan torments her, out of the sight of others. Eventually, Caleb is mentally scrambling to determine whether he is part of some twisted experiment, or whether he is being manipulated by one or both of the hyper-intelligent beings in the house with him.

It is rare to get a science fiction film that is confident enough to keep its pace measured and its aesthetic simple and clean, but this is what Ex Machina does. The result is a striking work with a ton of intellectual and emotional power. The character of troubled genius Nathan is fascinating to attempt to analyze, though such an exercise is difficult for much of the film. Caleb, the far more sympathetic character, evokes the kind of feeling which we reserve for the good-hearted and vulnerable. The three-way psychological war is subtle enough that it never relies on cheap thrills or obvious melodrama. There is tension, but it is cerebral in nature, and it builds wonderfully to a shocking finish.

When taken with other films penned by Alex Garland, such as Sunshine and Dredd, Ex Machina means that I now have a smart, modern science-fiction movie writer who I am glad to follow to the theater.

Dope (2015)

Director: Rick Famuyiwa

A phenomenally creative update to the "coming up in the 'hood" movies of the late '80s and early '90s.

Dope chronicles several very tense and sometimes funny weeks in the life of Malcolm (Shameik Moore), a high school senior growing up in 2014 in Inglewood, California, an area notorious for its poverty and danger. Malcolm is an unusual kid for his time and place - he's a young black man with a passion for learning at school, science fiction, punk music, and 1990s hip-hop and rap music and clothing styles. Basically, he's a geek. He and his two misfit friends, Jib and Diggy, spend far too much time trying to avoid the various perils rife in his neighborhood, tellingly nicknamed "The Bottoms."

One night at a club which Malcolm and his friends have nervously wormed their way into, a gunfight breaks out over a raid on a drug deal. After the chaos abates and the trio flee to safety, they discover that an entire brick of uncut cocaine has been stuffed into Malcolm's backpack, which had been placed behind the bar for safekeeping. This puts Malcolm, Jib, and Diggy in the difficult position of deciding what to do with it. Various social pressures and personal desires assert themselves, understandably, as these three nerds in the 'hood try to cope with a situation which could land one or all of them in prison.

Following such a description, you may be surprised to learn that Dope is an incredibly funny movie. Malcom, Job, and Diggy are such awkward fish out of water, despite being natives to The Bottoms, that their simplest, everyday interactions are often comedy gold. This is enhanced by some great direction by Rick Famuyiwa. For sections of the movie, Malcolm is almost a Ulysses-type character. He needs every bit of his considerable smarts to survive an array of dangerous and bizarre characters and situations. Almost every stage in his mini-epic journey has a distinctive sense of place, and it makes a viewer eager to see just what awaits Malcolm and his comrades around the next corner.

Dope is a wonderfully clever update to films from the late 1980s and the 1990s like Juice or Boyz In The Hood. It shines a light on a part of the United States that is far too often overlooked, and it does it with style and respect. A larger message is there, but it is not what you might expect, and it is nowhere near as heavy-handed as those earlier groundbreaking movies.

The original members. Unlike many of the "gangsta" rappers
who followed in their footsteps, these guys came by their
anger and perspectives honestly, as the movie shows.

Straight Outta Compton (2015)

Director: F. Gary Gray

Slick and compelling dramatization of the formation and dissolution of one of the iconic music groups of the late 20th century.

While the above-reviewed film Dope is a brilliant fictional tale of modern life in a rough section of Los Angeles, Straight Outta Compton is the dramatized tale of the very real hardcore rap group N.W.A. in the late 1980s and early 1990s in neighborhoods not far from the Inglewood in Dope. Those of us over age 35 are bound to have strong recollections of the waves that this group made at that time, and this movie does the members' stories justice.

Blessedly, the movie doesn't bother going back too far into the lives of the group's members. Rather, it picks up just before they come together and start performing. Director F. Gary Gray made the savvy move to quickly establish the social ills that Andre Young, O'Shea Jackson, and Eric Wright (Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, and Eazy E, as they were better known) and fellow N.W.A. members lived every day. The movie then jumps into just how they channeled their frustrations, anger, and musical talents into a form of rap music that became wildly popular while scaring the pants off of the conservative white establishment. The focus on how the music reflected and was influenced by incidents such as the Rodney King beating and other institutional racial injustices is what propels this movie beyond a mere music biopic.

Eazy E's business partnership with manager Jerry Heller is
at the crux of much of the drama. Actors Jason Mitchell
and Paul Giamatti add plenty of power to their dynamic.

The movie is not flawless. A bit of research can tell one how certain details are glossed over or completely ignored (Dr. Dre's abuse of women, for one) or how certain events in the film either did not happen or were manipulated by the writers for more narrative punch. It also comes as no surprise that the movie's executive producers - Ice Cube and Dr. Dre - are painted in the most positive light. The movie also slows a bit when it comes to Eazy E's HIV diagnosis. Still, the lion's share of violent and unhinged incidents depicted can be confirmed with a bit of research, so one should fight the urge to dismiss the wilder elements as pure fiction. Pure truth or somewhat embellished, the movie is extremely well-paced, well-acted, and it remains interesting for nearly all of its 140-plus minutes. This is true even for someone like my wife, who knew very little about the group or its members but enjoyed the film.

Obviously, anyone with a severe distaste for gangsta rap will have difficulty with this film, as it does feature a considerable amount of the music of the era. That aside, and if one can handle the very authentic blue language and hedonism on full display in the movie, then they should give this one a go.