Quantum of Solace (2008)

After beating the odds quite grandly with a successful reboot of the James Bond saga with 2006’s Casino Royale, Daniel Craig is back as the world’s favorite spy. While this tale of revenge and deception travels at the speed of a bullet, it confuses more that it astounds. Certainly not the worst follow-up act in the Bond collection, but Quantum of Solace falls well short of the bar set by its predecessor.

Picking up only hours after Casino Royale left off, Bond fends off pursuers while bringing Mr. White in for interrogation. The questioning goes awry but tips off MI6 to the existence of a vast, international criminal organization called Quantum. Bond’s investigation of a Quantum mole within MI6 overlaps in his quest for vengeance for Vesper Lynd’s death. The trail leads him to a billionaire environmentalist and green resources magnate assisting with a coup in Bolivia. The clock is ticking while Bond frantically tries to connect the dots.

Daniel Craig continues to be in league with Sean Connery as one of the best James Bonds in the series multi-decade span. Bond is still very much rough around the edges. Refinement is something left for future installments to produce. That’s just fine with me, frankly. All the gadgets and cheesy lines got old after a while. It’s nice to see a Bond who is believable as a cold, calculating government assassin. The supporting cast is not as strong this time around but that may also stem from the fact that the characters involved aren’t as unique or interesting as they could have been. Power hungry billionaires and rogue generals feel a bit recycled (though the writers have quite a thankless and difficult task in keeping Bond fresh after 21 previous films).

I love the introduction of the Quantum organization. It sets up countless future missions for Bond to embark on and helps ratchet up the suspense. Who can you trust anymore when MI6 is infiltrated by a shadow organization with nearly unlimited resources? Other strengths of the film are some artful editing and cinematography. The entire Tosca sequence is marvelous, especially the chase and shootout sequence sans sound effects. The operatic overlay was a brilliant decision. The opening sequence begins beautifully, though it does descend into a barrage of quick cuts that make the progression hard to follow.

This overabundance of editing follows through much of the film. I can understand wanting Quantum to move a little quicker than Royale but the filmmakers went a little overboard in making this the shortest film in the entire Bond series. Some story elements get rushed beyond comprehension and believability, making the film hard to follow at times (especially when they use a horrid, unreadable yellow font for translation subtitles). With Bond more out for revenge than displaying his cocky swagger, Quantum occasionally feels more like a conventional action flick than a Bond film but it comes back around in the end.

Ultimately, your preference for this film will be determined by whether or not you liked Casino Royale. If you enjoyed it, as most people seemed to, this will probably come as a minor disappointment but still an enjoyable Bond film. If Royale wasn’t your taste for Bond, then you probably disliked this entry even more. As someone who holds Casino Royale as one of the best Bond flicks in the series, I find Quantum of Solace to be an underwhelming follow-up but still a modestly satisfying tale of deceit, redemption, and revenge.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Eat Pray Love (2010)

With all the Oprah love heaped upon the memoir this film is based on, not to mention the fact that it stayed on The New York Times Best Seller list for nearly four straight years, one would expect this film to have something going for it. For me, many film critics, and about half of the general populous, it doesn’t. Fans of the book and Julia Roberts’ films may consider this a splendid tale of one woman’s quest for enlightenment and balance in her life. The rest will probably see Eat Pray Love as a shallow travelogue for the 1%.

Elizabeth Gilbert (Roberts), is a successful and wealthy freelance writer, contributing to magazines and newspapers across the country. Her husband is a boring man though, leaving her dissatisfied with her life. After a heated divorce settlement, and a rebound relationship that doesn’t pan out, Elizabeth uses the advance money from her next book to fund a year-long trip including stops in Italy, India, and Indonesia. Each stop along her trek is designed to guide her towards self-discovery, self-understanding, and ultimately inner peace.

It’s all a very interesting idea but the execution fails miserably. For starters, stories and movies about rich people who are unhappy with their lives going on self-discovery journeys to find purpose and meaning just don’t work anymore. Perhaps it’s a sign of these difficult economic times that we live in. Perhaps I’m just that cynical. Whatever the case may be, not enough work is done to make Roberts’ character likeable in any way. Sure, she’s the focal point of the film, but main characters do not get de facto support from audiences anymore.

Gilbert’s behavior is often times annoying because she lacks any conviction in what she does. She doesn’t even try to work on her marriage; she just leaves the man because he doesn’t want to go to all her book events and swanky parties. She only gets involved with Eastern spirituality because her post-divorce lover tells her how great it is. She doesn’t actually believe in any of it but immerses herself in it because it’s the only thing she can think of doing for the religious/spiritual leg of her journey. It takes a couple of sharp-tongued, tough-willed people to call her on her posturing and fad-hopping. Instead of this being an indictment of this modern trend, it merely spurns her on to her next destination. All this while spending more money than normal people earn in a year, mind you.

There are just two redeeming qualities about this film. First is Javier Bardem- I would easily watch his scenes again. His character has more emotional depth than Gilbert could ever hope to strive for. His genuine pain and loss is such a contrast to Gilbert’s narcissism. This is a character they should make a movie about, not Gilbert. Second, the settings are wonderful. Lots of beautiful locations were scouted for this film and the cinematographer captures their beauty quite well.

One solid performance and pretty scenery do not a winner make. Maybe the book is better than the film. I certainly hope that is the case because I don’t think I could stand to read about Elizabeth Gilbert’s life if she really was as whiny and self-indulgent as Eat Pray Love suggests. I can only envision a narrow target audience for this film if you really know what it’s about. Thanks to trailers and studio advertising, this film looks much more interesting and fulfilling in a two-minute series of clips than its agonizing two-hour plus run time. If nothing else, this film will make you feel better about yourself when you realize it takes less time, money and whining than Elizabeth Gilbert suggests to ‘find yourself.’

RATING: 2 out of 5

Date Night (2010)

In a TV-comedy dream pairing come true on the big screen, funny guy Steve Carell and funny gal Tina Fey join forces in this madcap comedy. Perhaps an homage to the screwball comedies of yesteryear, Date Night has all the wit, action, and heart to please just about any willing viewer. It may not be an instant classic or live up to all the hype of its lead pair, but it’s got it where it counts.

Phil and Claire Foster (Carell and Fey) are in a bit of a rut. Married with children, approaching middle age (if not already there), and caught in a boring and repetitive suburban New Jersey routine, they are looking for a little excitement in life. When they go to a hip restaurant in New York City and steal a table from a no-show reservation, they get far more than they hoped for. In a case of mistaken identity, Phil and Claire find themselves running for their lives from gangsters and crooked cops.

It’s not so much the fact that mistaken identity comedies have been around forever that hurts this film. Rather, it’s the fact that two of the top funny people in the TV/movie business are in this film and the end result is not wall-to-wall funny. Yes, there are a lot of laughs to be had here but those laughs are not always the hearty belly-laughs that signify a great comedy. Carell and Fey are only working with the lines they’re given, so a fair amount of the blame needs to go to the scriptwriter for giving such moderately funny lines to such a dynamic duo. Still though, you would think that talented comedians would have tried a little ad-libbing to improve a scene or two.

Another attribute of the film that works both ways (good and bad) is the inclusion of so many colorful supporting characters. On one hand, it helps distract the audience from the fact that Carell and Fey aren’t being as funny as they ‘ought’ to be. Mark Wahlberg is hilarious as the shirtless security guy who repeatedly comes to the Fosters’ rescue. At the same time, it’s the kind of over-the-top stereotype character you aren’t surprised to see in a chase-comedy. A lot of the supporting roles are like this, which makes for some good initial laughs but the conceit wears out the longer you’re exposed to these folk.

What holds the film together is the likableness of the Fosters. Unless you’re deeply cynical towards middle-class, white suburban couples, it’s easy to root for them. They’re nice people who are just trying to keep life interesting- something most of us yearn for at some point in our own lives. It may help to be married, possibly with children too, to pick up some of the subtler quips and nuances. Young adults expecting something Hangover-esque will be disappointed but the rest of us will, at the very least, enjoy ourselves.

That’s the kind of movie Date Night is- one where you’re likely to enjoy yourself if nothing else. That’s certainly not a bad thing but it doesn’t make for a very memorable viewing experience. It’s a movie you wouldn’t mind tuning into if you come across it on the TV or, if you own it, one that you can pop in just about any time for a few easy laughs. While it would be nice for Hollywood to get back to making great films consistently, there’s also a need for more above-average comedies like this one.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Part 2 (2011)

After six and a half films in the span of a decade, what, really, is left to write about the Harry Potter series? The final installment provides the ending the series needed and deserved. For the first time in the whole series, I’m approaching a Harry Potter film the right way. I’m not concerned with its merits as an adaptation of the book. That’s a debate for another time and another website. I’m focusing on the technique, execution and realization of this story on film. With that as my starting point, I can proudly report that Harry Potter goes out with a crowd-pleasing bang.

After learning about the Deathly Hallows in Part 1, Harry, Ron, and Hermione set out to locate Lord Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes. Their journey is beset on every turn by danger. The young-adult wizard school pals stage a break-in at Gringotts Wizarding Bank and set their sights on a final good-vs.-evil throwdown with Voldemort and his army of dark wizards in the corridors of Hogwarts.

I doubt I could spoil this film for many people at this point. If you’ve read the book you know what happens. Same goes for anyone who already saw the movie. If, for some reason, you wanted to see this movie but haven’t yet, all I will say is that you are in luck. Unless you’re a purist to the books and live in a bubble where only tiringly literal adaptations like Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets make the grade, you will be pleased with what director David Yates fits into its 130-minute runtime.

On its own, Deathly Hallows Part 2 still comes up short simply because it is half a movie. While Part 1 was mostly build-up, Part 2 sees all of that energy released in a flurry of action, battle sequences, and hundreds of the magical spells and enchantments that we’ve come to expect. I wasn’t crazy about where the first installment left off because it lacked appropriate momentum. Part 2 makes up for that in droves. While there is still uncertainty about the location and appearance of the remaining horcruxes, gone is the sense of aimless wandering. Urgency is the theme for both sides in the looming magical war. This sense of urgency ratchets up the anticipation and the tension.

As with all the other Harry Potter flicks, Part 2 uses a bit too much CGI at times. Unlike some fantasy adventures, this film lucks out because the magical world is largely separate from the real world, making some of the less than stellar effects amenable. If your story is supposed to take place in the real world, audiences expect things to look real and interactive. Pure fictional settings are a gift and a curse because you can set your own rules. This leads to some filmmakers going overboard though. Since Harry Potter’s world is half-real and half-fictional, the filmmakers are able to blur the line of expectations quite well, giving them all the latitude they need to tell their story.

We had to wait several months for this concluding chapter in the Harry Potter film saga. It is well worth the wait and Part 2 undeniably improves upon Part 1. The truth is, though, that they are companion pieces. Neither film tells a complete story, so you have to take them both in at the same time to really get the full picture. In time I plan on re-watching all of the Potter films in order to give them objective reviews uninfluenced by my memory of the books. At that time, I plan on rating Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- the complete version, not as a two-parter. This way I can judge it not as a sum of its parts but as the epic conclusion it was always destined to be.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Super 8 (2011)

What do you get when Steven Spielberg produces a sci-fi fantasy flick directed by J.J. Abrams? The answer: About as much as you’d expect- a unique fusion of all the best elements of E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Cloverfield, and Lost. Yes, despite tall odds, Super 8 is both a tender coming of age story and a riveting mystery adventure. As an added bonus, it’s all wrapped up in a delightfully nostalgic 70s setting.

A few months after his mother’s death, 14-year-old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is just trying to enjoy being a kid. It’s 1979 and all Joe and his friends want to do is make a zombie movie with a super 8 camera. While trying to film a night scene at an old train station, Joe and the gang witness (and record) a monstrous train wreck caused by one of their high school teachers. When strange things begin happening around town and the US Air Force starts taking over, Joe, his friends, and the adults in town all try to figure out what is going on.

Enough cannot be said about the talented group of child actors chosen for this film. Most of the boys had little professional experience on their resumes, which makes all of their performances flow with a realism that is lacking from more polished Hollywood child actors. The adult side of the story is pretty much the Kyle Chandler show, which is just fine by me. As a fan of the TV show Friday Night Lights, I think I would enjoy hearing Chandler read from a phone book.

Another triumph of this film is all the little details. I myself did not grow up in the late 70s, so I can only trust J.J. Abrams to recall correctly the sights and sounds of the era of his youth. The details I’m talking about are the nuances of childhood that transcend generations. The boys all swear around each other as if they’re showing off a shiny new toy they’ve discovered. The body language is also spot on with all the teen angst, romance, and the kind of foolhardy attitude that would lead a teen boy to rush headlong into danger.

Only a few things don’t work well for this film. First, the train crash the kids witness is utterly absurd in both its physics and duration. It looks cool but there’s no way that happens in real life. Second, Abrams cannot get away from using special effects and CGI to bring parts of his story to life. Despite all the technological advancements over the years, there’s still no way to make an overabundance of CGI look realistic. Whether it’s Abram’s choice or done to meet the demands of the movie-going public, there’s not enough Spielbergian restraint on showing us more than what subtle special effects can pull off. Anytime the illusion of reality is broken, it hurts a film in ways that can rarely be made up for, especially for a film with a real world setting.

Will Super 8 go down in history as an iconic sci-fi film? No. Did it set out to accomplish such a lofty goal? No. All Super 8 wants to do is make us feel nostalgic for more innocent times when kids were kids (and actually played outside), people were less cynical, and our minds could still be captured and held in awe by heartwarming tales of the supernatural. To that end, this film is a success.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

The King's Speech** (2010)

Featuring a powerful one-two punch in the acting department and a solid supporting cast, all one needs to do is see this film to understand why it claimed Best Picture at the Oscars. While younger audiences may yearn for something more contemporary and faster-paced, The King’s Speech mirrors its subject matter with a measured pace that is both satisfying and rewarding.

The film follows Britain’s Prince Albert, Duke of York (Colin Firth) along his journey to Kinghood (as George VI) in the 1920s and 30s as he struggles to overcome his pronounced speech impediment. Helping him through his struggle to sound like the leader of his people is Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a quirky Australian actor and speech therapist. In confronting his client’s stammer, Logue also helps Albert/George confront feelings about his brother Edward and other memories that influence and exacerbate his speaking issues.

Let’s not kid ourselves here, this film is all about Colin Firth’s performance. It is darn near flawless. People work for years to conquer speech impediments, making it difficult to accurately determine how much progress Albert/George makes as we jump through the years. The way Firth pins down the intricacies of the stammer is impressive because actors are notorious for underplaying and overplaying disabilities to movie-ruining effect. Firth’s performance makes this film, no doubt about it.

Fortunately, this film is not like many biopics in that it is not a one-star show. Geoffrey Rush is delightful as Logue, providing most of the humor opposite of Firth’s pathetic and angry straight man role. Helena Bonham Carter isn’t given much to work with as the Queen Elizabeth (the Queen Mother, not the current queen) but it’s a refreshing break from her usual eccentric roles. Guy Pearce is perfectly slimy as Edward, the weasel who makes Albert/George’s life miserable as a person and as a royal.

As something of a history buff, I am probably better able to appreciate this film’s sets, costumes and visual effects than some in my generation. Period details are often lost on people uninterested in things that aren’t flashy and hip. So if you can’t get into the story being told in The King’s Speech, you’ll be too bored to appreciate the subtle and intricate details the filmmakers are careful to include.

There may not be anything in the way of unique or fancy camerawork on display in this film but the story doesn’t require it, so that cannot be considered a negative. Younger audiences may be turned off by the old school approach the filmmakers are going for but if you’re over the age of 21, chances are you will be able to see this film for what it is- a great true-life story told through great performances. In short, a great film.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Just Go with It (2011)

While waiting for this film to entertain me, the darndest thing happened- the credits rolled. That’s my cynical take on Adam Sandler’s first “comedic” offering in 2011. A more balanced approach would go something like this: Just Go with It is an uninspired film suffering from lazy writing and made worse by performances by all but one of its stars.

Adam Sandler stars as Danny, a plastic surgeon in LA. When picking up girls, he pretends to be stuck in an unhappy marriage. Lo and behold, Danny finally meets “the one”- Palmer (Brooklyn Decker). Trouble is, she doesn’t want to be any part of what she thinks is adultery. Instead of coming clean, Danny tells her he is getting divorced from his wife soon. This leads Danny to go to extremes to sell the ruse. For a fee, he enlists the services of his single-mom receptionist (Jennifer Aniston) and her kids, but gets much more than he bargained for.

The first and most critical mistake made here is Danny’s characterization. I know we live in morally ambiguous times but there’s absolutely nothing likeable about a man pretending to be unhappily married to attract women. The fact that he is willing to use a nice woman and her children to that very end is borderline reprehensible. Oh sure, there’s a good natured twist at the end of it all but that ending is so obvious from the start that the journey is hardly worthy of the final destination.

The script is full of the kind of situational gags, physical comedy and toilet humor Sandler fans have come to expect. Sandler, however, appears to run on autopilot through the entire film. It’s hard to tell if he is bored with the film or if he’s forgotten that it takes effort (not just his presence) to produce comedy. In her first film role, it is clear that Brooklyn Decker is more accustomed to strutting around in bikinis than acting. Paper-thin as her character may be, Decker fails to do more than look pretty.

Jennifer Aniston, however, saves the film. Instead of trapping herself in the confines of romantic comedies and roles too serious for audiences to accept her in, Aniston lets her hair down and seems to be having a ball here. Her character’s frustration with Sandler brings out the best from her natural sass and charm. She gets and delivers the best lines in the film.

Despite Aniston’s best efforts, Just Go with It falls flat. Having made his millions already and ventured into more challenging roles recently, it seems Sandler is content to ride the coattails of his own success here. Unfortunately for him, the fact that he is in the film does not automatically make it funny. Aniston’s solid performance cannot win out over Sandler’s weak performance and Decker’s non-performance, leaving you with only a couple of giggles and an occasional chuckle, but never any hearty laughs. This is simply not acceptable from a comedy.

RATING: 1.5 out of 5

The Jungle Book (1967)

Despite premiering two years after his death, this was the final animated film that Walt Disney had direct involvement with. His presence is felt quite heavily, leaving this film a combination of Walt Disney’s last stand for his artistic vision and his last will and testament to the art form that he helped create.

Using Rudyard Kipling’s story collection of the same name as a launching point, The Jungle Book focuses on a young human named Mowgli. Lost in the jungles of India as a baby, Mowgli is raised by wolves. When his adoptive family learns that the human-hating tiger Shere Khan has come back into the region, they decide that Mowgli must be taken to the nearby human village for his own safety.

A very wise panther named Bagheera is tasked with getting the boy to safety. Mowgli does not understand why he can no longer stay in the jungle with all of his friends and rebels. This leads to a string of encounters with a number of colorful characters: Baloo the bear, “Colonel” Hathi and his elephant herd, “King” Louie and his ape friends, the treacherous python Kaa, and even Shere Khan himself.

If you’ve been following my recent reviews, you know all about my complaints against Disney’s switch to the Xerox technique to streamline the animation process. I’d like to think that Disney himself wasn’t impressed with the end result either and called for something different to be done with this film. Perhaps this is why the Xerox use is kept to a minimum, allowing The Jungle Book to use all of Disney’s techniques to maximum effectiveness.

An overwhelming amount of this film is animated in the old Disney way- artists make their animation sketches and then re-drawers trace over the best lines to produce a crisp and consistent product. The Xerox technique does rear its head occasionally but its sparse use only comes about in scenes where the technique actually helps the film look good. Specifically, scenes involving Colonel Hathi and the elephants make good use of the Xerox technique. Elephants are wrinkly creatures to begin with, so guide lines merely look like wrinkles. During scenes with lots of cuts and lots of quick motion, the Xerox technique works great. When a scene calls for a static shot or slow fluidity, the traditional process is used.

Another issue I had with the last two Disney films is the use of loosely defined blobs of colors instead of a wide swath of detail. The Disney team manages to hit the best of both worlds at all the right moments. In the depth of the jungle, it makes sense for line and form to blend together with the myriad of colors. Lots of greens, yellows and tans run together and actually help give the jungle its vague sense of depth and thickness.

The story in this Disney version has been criticized for being little more than vignettes but I disagree. Each story segment teaches the reluctant Mowgli a lesson or two about why it’s dangerous for him in the jungle. Try as he might to fit in, he finds that he just doesn’t belong there after all. There is maturity and character development involved here for both Mowgli and his animal friends, and each segment moves him one step closer to joining the other humans in the nearby village.

I would be remiss if I were to ignore one of this film’s biggest highlights- the songs! As with the best of Disney’s hits, The Jungle Book features a terrific score and plenty of toe-tapping tunes. I’m not talking one or two good songs. There are at least four songs that will stick with you. Half of that is due to the magic in the music itself and the other half is in the presentation. The Jungle Book also features one of Disney’s best casts of characters in the studio’s history.

My only reservation with this film is the fact that I watched the 40th anniversary DVD edition. The colors were remarkable for a 40+ year old film. This leads me to wonder if a little touch-up work took place. Baloo the bear looks remarkably light grey but he is more a dark grey in older promotional posters. This potential tinkering with the product doesn’t take anything away from the film’s merits though.

Looking ahead in the chronology of Disney animated films, it seems clear to me that this is the last truly great Disney film for quite some time. Everything comes together in all the right ways. Lots of color, great songs, loveable characters- it’s everything you want in a Disney film. The story may not be as heartwarming as the masterpiece fairy tales but The Jungle Book was the right film at the right time. With Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs as its counterpart, this film stands as a splendid bookend to Walt Disney’s career and his genius imagination.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Song of the South (1946)

Anyone from my generation and earlier is familiar with the classic Disney song “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” (and I certainly hope that the younger folk are too). Most people, however, aren’t familiar with the film that it comes from. The reason why? Song of the South has never been released on home video in the United States. You can find VHS and DVD copies in other countries but unless you order it from abroad, you’re out of luck. Is the racial content of this Reconstruction Era film really bad enough to warrant this self-imposed cinema embargo?

Little Johnny is excited to make a trip to his grandmother’s plantation but this joy turns to sadness when he learns the trip is due to his parents spending some time apart. When his father departs for Atlanta, Johnny decides to run away from the plantation and make his way to Atlanta. While passing the dwelling place of black farmhands, Johnny is mesmerized by the storytelling of Uncle Remus (James Baskett). The former slave ultimately talks the boy out of running away and a friendship is born.

Over the next few weeks Johnny continues to visit Uncle Remus, hearing more and more tales about Br’er Rabbit and his foes Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear. He also befriends a girl who lives nearby. For every conflict and issue that arises, it seems Uncle Remus has a story with a lesson that will come in handy.

Let’s talk about the elephant in the room first, shall we? This film is harshly criticized for white washing the treatment of slaves in the Civil War era South. Disney has long claimed that this film takes place after the war. Does that make its representation of Southern blacks as chipper field workers any better? Certainly not. Does this tarnish the film? Yes, a bit. Is Disney’s refusal to release the film on home video in America justified? It depends.

Do we want young African American children emulating the vernacular and mannerisms on display here? Absolutely not. Then again, shouldn’t our society be filled with enough positive African American role models that these characterizations seem dated, hollow, and false? If we’re not yet at the point, culturally, where Uncle Remus is nothing more than a silly fictional character then we’re doing something wrong. I understand not wanting to risk filling impressionable young minds with the wrong ideas, and it is Disney’s choice. No one is suing them to keep it off shelves, so this line of discussion is really a moot point.

As a piece of art, Song of the South is pretty decent. It builds on Disney’s previous experiments between live-action and animation. James Baskett does a phenomenal job in these fusion scenes. Sometimes it’s hard to remember that he is interacting with nothing at all. His enthusiasm and devotion to the character of Uncle Remus provides the foundation needed for the film to work. Sure, Johnny is the main human character, but Uncle Remus is the star.

The animation is bright, colorful, and full of detail. It doesn’t do anything above and beyond what was being included in the Disney animated ‘package films’ of the 40s but it definitely helps break up the somewhat boring live-action elements. Nothing against little Johnny, but his daddy issues don’t make for a compelling story. Is it any wonder that this film is remembered more for Br’er Rabbit’s high jinks than for the maturation of little Johnny?

The other clear highlight is the music. Disney cranks out a couple of gems with this film, not just “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah.” These tunes are every bit as fun and airy as Uncle Remus himself. And, stereotyped as his demeanor may be, it’s exactly that laid back attitude that makes this film enjoyable. Forget little Johnny. He serves as little more than a vehicle to carry us between Uncle Remus’s wonderful stories.

As art, Song of the South is pretty good. The live-action scenes are nothing to write home about but the hybrid scenes and the Br’er Rabbit tales are splendid. Culturally speaking, this film is probably better left on the shelves until America moves further into a post-racial society.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Grand Hotel** (1932)

Hard as I try to put older films in their proper context, sometimes I’m left feeling as if I missed something. Such is the case with Grand Hotel. It’s one of those early Oscar winners that no one really talks about anymore. Depending on what you look for in a film, you might feel that this fact is either a real shame or perfectly understandable.

Set in the Grand Hotel in the heart of post-World War I Berlin, this ensemble feature plays out a series of interconnected storylines. Having blown away his wealth and living as a charming but petty thief, Baron Felix von Geigern (John Barrymore) moves in on an all-too-trusting Otto Kringelein (Lionel Barrymore). The terminally ill Kringelein is dying and has come to the Grand Hotel to spend his last days in luxury. Sure enough, Kringelein’s cold-hearted employer, General Director Preysing (Wallace Beery) is at the Grand Hotel as well. Using an attractive stenographer named Flaemmchen (Joan Crawford), he seeks to close a very important and lucrative business deal.

The Grand Hotel is also abuzz over a celebrity guest. The Russian ballerina sensation Grusinskaya (Greta Garbo) does her best to keep up appearances while suffering anxiety over the decline of her young career. All of these characters and their motives intertwine over the course of 48 hours. Friendships are made, tempers flare, and romance is in the air, resulting in events that will change attitudes and outlooks on life forever.

While doing a little background research on this film I found that it was among Hollywood’s first star-studded ensemble films. To be sure, of the five main characters, Wallace Beery is the only one who lacks instant name recognition for me. The rest are obvious A-listers from Hollywood’s Depression era. This almost certainly worked in the film’s favor when drawing audiences in. Who wouldn’t want to see several of the best actors in the business on screen together?

This hodge-podge of the acting elite also works against the film in unexpected ways. Nowadays ensemble films are commonplace and many of the finest actors have been in one or two. Top billing on a film was everything back in the day, however, so being part of an ensemble cast must have been a little awkward for this group. At times it seems as if each of these five stars overacts a little, especially when sharing moments with one or more of their co-stars.

Perhaps the members of the Academy saw this unspoken competition to be the audience’s favorite for what it was. Despite all the star talent, Grand Hotel received zero acting nominations. In fact, it has the dubious honor of being the only Oscar winning film to receive no other nominations besides Best Picture. The acting snubs I can understand but I am astounded that this film failed to earn any technical nominations.

Five main characters and a number of interconnected storylines add up to a lot of editing. The icing on the cake comes with the cinematography though. A large lobby set was constructed, allowing crane cameras to swoop up, down and around to follow characters or move seamlessly between them. A conversation plays out between two characters by the railing and we pan a few feet away to see another character listening in on the conversation. Then the camera cranes up to join another character as they head back to their room. It’s these clever techniques that really give the film a sense of flow and hammer home the interconnectedness of the hotel patrons.

Does the story hold your interest? That depends on how much you love old Hollywood acting. A number of plot elements had been done before and have been done since. This familiarity of the plotlines makes it difficult to fully immerse yourself into the film. I would hope, however that viewers take note of all the intricate camera work for a film made in 1932.

If you like ensemble films, this one should be on your list simply because it’s one of the first. Comparing it to more recent ensemble productions shows you how far we’ve come in this interesting sub-genre but it will also show how much current all-star vehicles owe to their predecessors. Grand Hotel is more of a thrill for those who watch film for the technical aspects. Those who watch for entertainment and performance might come away underwhelmed.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Sword in the Stone (1963)

After a jazzy romp through modern London, Walt Disney jettisons us back in time for a medieval fantasy. Tales of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table are ripe for film adaptations. The House of Mouse takes a kid-friendly approach by adapting the first installment of T.H. White’s series The Once and Future King. By doing so, Disney finds plenty of ways to dazzle the eyes but they come up short in the quest to dazzle the mind.

When King Uther Pendragon passes away a sword appears in a London courtyard. It pierces both an anvil and the stone beneath it. An inscription on the sword declares "Who so Pulleth Out This Sword of this Stone and Anvil, is Rightwise King Born of England." Centuries pass and the stone is forgotten about by most. Forgotten, that is, until a young squire pulls the sword out without realizing what it is.

Did I just give the ending away? If you know nothing about King Arthur, then I apologize. For the 98% of you who already know this tale, you should know that this film has almost nothing to do with the titular sword. It merely bookends the tale of young Wart (Arthur), a peasant boy adopted as a student by the roaming wizard Merlin. Wart balances Merlin’s creative lessons with being a squire for his foster brother Kay, a wannabe knight.

Maybe it’s because I never read the book it’s based on. Maybe it’s because I’m not an aficionado of British fantasy literature. Maybe it’s because I’m an American. Whatever the reason, The Sword in the Stone just doesn’t do it for me. There are a number of cinematic weaknesses present but it’s all the style missteps that hurt it the most.

The Xerox animation technique that Disney started with One Hundred and One Dalmatians still looks rough. It helps the Middle Ages setting look appropriately grim and gritty but the sketch lines inside the animated characters are still distracting. The outlines of the characters flow well but the lack of consistency and continuity inside those lines makes the final product look a bit sloppy. That is not a word that should be used to describe a Disney product.

While One Hundred and One Dalmatians contained very few songs, this film tries to inject a little musical whimsy in its reels. The end result leaves a lot to be desired. None of the tunes are memorable and the most noteworthy song "Higitus Figitus" feels like a poor imitation of "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo." This is an even larger detriment than it initially appears, given that this movie is geared more towards kids. If the kids don’t come away humming the tunes, you’ve missed the mark.

Very few Disney films up to this point have focused so sharply on children. Peter Pan was the last production to do so but that was released a decade before The Sword in the Stone. Disney films have always played well with younger audiences but they have always worked for adults as well. This film marks the first sharp divide between content directed at children and content directed at adults. Merlin drops references to a number of people, places and ideas that will go over younger kids’ heads.

On the flipside, parents might not be as mesmerized with the colorful animation, especially not if they’ve seen plenty of Disney films before this one. That’s not to say that the animation is inferior. The Xerox technique is still heavily flawed but the animators pull off a few neat tricks throughout. Merlin’s lessons all involve turning himself and Wart into animals. When they transform, they still retain some kind of identifiable characteristic to provide a reference point. This is also the case when Merlin engages in battle with Madam Mim. All of their transformations flow seamlessly.

Despite its highly regarded source material, the story feels incomplete. From the beginning it’s obvious that Wart will be the one to pull the sword from the stone. There is no central conflict driving the story from Point A to Point B though. Merlin’s lessons are little more than fanciful vignettes to provide Wart with wisdom before he realizes why he needs it. These lessons have nothing to do with Wart’s reason for pulling the sword from the stone, so these sequences could, cynically, be viewed as candy-coated time killers.

The only magic in The Sword in the Stone lies within what Merlin conjures up on the screen. For whatever reason, none of the pieces typically found in the Disney ‘formula’ click this time around. While it still showcases plenty of skill by the animators, this is one of the few truly passable Disney films. It might keep the kids occupied for an hour twenty but if you have any favorite Disney films, my advice is to stick with them.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

The Descent (2005)

Movies like this really bug me. Why spend the first half of a film building up real character development and legitimate tension if you’re going to squander it on cheap scare tactics and an antagonist that is utterly unbelievable? I enjoyed much of this horror film but try as I might, I just can’t give it the benefit of the doubt.

A year after losing her husband and daughter in a car accident, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) is taken on a spelunking trip by her friends Juno (Natalie Mendoza) and Beth (Alex Reid). They hope the trip will help their friend recover from the depression she lives with. Along with three other women, they head into the heart of the Appalachian Mountains to explore what they think is a well-marked cave system.

Not long into their expedition, a tunnel collapse cuts off their only way out. Juno comes clean with the group and informs them that she thought it would be exciting to explore an unknown cave. With no way of calling for help, the women are forced to move deeper into the caverns in search of another way out. Claustrophobia and the dark soon become the least of their concerns when they realize that silent predators are stalking them in the shadows.

I’d like to sing a few of praises before laying into the failings of this film. First of all, I found it refreshing for a horror film to have an all-female cast. Is it a potentially manipulative move? Sure, but for the first half of the film there is no manipulation to be found. We learn a little about each of the characters and they are all likeable in one way or another. I’ve said it ad nauseam but it bears repeating- people are hard-wired to be concerned about women in danger. The fact that the script backs up that automatic concern with likable characters places it well ahead of most horror films.

One other ‘triumph’ is that, despite a cast of young women, The Descent never succumbs to lesbian hookups to appease the largely male-centric horror audience. There are subtle glances and non-verbal cues that suggest one of the girls might be a little bi-curious but the restraint employed saves the film. There is also no nudity in the film, which is a major accomplishment for a horror film featuring six beautiful women. All of this comes during the first half of the film, which builds it up into something that seems both plausible and acceptable.

The cinematography during many of the early spelunking scenes is quite good. You’d never know that the caves and tunnels are all set pieces. I especially liked the lighting. All too often you’ll find movie scenes in dark places are, remarkably, lit to the point that the audience and the characters can still see much of their surroundings. Not here. Tight camera shots and lighting based mostly off of the girls’ helmets and flashlights really build up the tension of claustrophobia.

The convincing woman-vs.-nature conflict plays out well, as the ladies struggle past a number of daunting obstacles. In fact, there is very little horror in the first half, which is a good thing. Sane horror fans never ask for the carnage to begin right away. This film might have been better had it just been about their struggle through the cave. It was convincing enough and would have afforded more opportunity to taut filmmaking.

But no, this is a horror film! Knowing that Sarah sees something lurking in the shadows is creepy enough. Hearing their strange noises in a dark, foreign cavern as the creatures follow our characters is doubly creepy. Seeing the freakish creatures? Not so scary. You would think that the legacy of Jaws and Alien would have convinced people that less is more. Sadly, we see too much of these baddies and far too often. They look like Gollum on steroids and are capable of crawling on the walls and ceilings like Spider-Man.

We are meant to believe that these creatures are humanoids that evolved over years spent in the dark, cold environment of the caves. What’s not clear is whether these creatures evolved from explorers that got trapped in the cave a century or more ago or if they pre-date those poor souls. Either way, anyone with a shred of common sense (or even a basic understanding of micro-evolution) will shake their head in bewilderment. Everything else about this film is so right on- why throw something so out there into the mix? Just make them inbred hillbillies or a satanic cult that uses the caves for sacrifices. Anything but zombie-esque humanoids!

The more I think about it, I shall show some remorse on The Descent. I was going to give it a lower rating but thinking about all that it did right makes it seem unfair to punish with low marks. That being said, this film could have easily scored a full point higher. That’s how much damage one heinous decision can do for a film. The first half? Pretty awesome. The second half? Formulaic nonsense. Pick a direction and stick with it. Until then, count me out.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Social Network* (2010)

What is the price of being a genius? To me, this is a central theme of 2010’s most talked-about film. This theoretical cost of intelligence is different for each person. For some it is financial. For others, it is relational. Others still cash it in for power. Occasionally, as happens in The Social Network, all three collide to form a train wreck that is fatiguing to watch but too interesting to turn away from.

After getting dumped by his girlfriend, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) gets himself good and drunk and retaliates by posting viscous blog entries about her. That same night, he hacks into many of Harvard University’s student databases to create a website where Harvard students can select who they believe is the hotter of two female students displayed on the screen. This little stunt explodes in popularity overnight, crashes the Harvard network and earns him six months academic probation. It also attracts the attention of the wealthy Winklevoss twins (Armie Hammer). They approach Zuckerberg and recruit him to help code a Harvard-only dating website they have devised.

The membership exclusivity of the Winlkevi site resonates with Zuckerberg’s longing for an invite to one of Harvard’s ultra-exclusive final clubs. This plants a seed for a different kind of website in his mind, a seed that he fully intends to cultivate behind the backs of the Winklevi. With his friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) funding the project, Zuckerberg embarks on a history-making venture that sees him crossing paths with some of the wealthiest and most powerful investors in the nation. The end result is Facebook- an international sensation that becomes a financial success and a legal nightmare.

Virtually everyone knows about Facebook. It’s current, it’s hip, and the younger generations cannot comprehend why anyone isn’t or wouldn’t want to be on it. That being said, most of Facebook’s 700+ million users have, at one time or another, complained about its ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ approach to site changes and upgrades. This love-hate relationship, along with society’s bizarre (and, frankly, dangerous) tendency to envy and despise successful people, allows the filmmakers to produce something that is not for the Facebook faithful. Rather, it is geared more toward those who are looking for further reasons to hate on Mark Zuckerberg and his empire.

As a champion of proper context, it should be noted that this film is a highly sensationalized account of Facebook’s founding. It is based off the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, who set out to write the most interesting Facebook story possible, not the most accurate. No current Facebook employees were consulted during the writing of the book or the making of the movie, so you have to take this film with a huge grain of salt. That does not mean that you cannot enjoy watching it.

The smartest thing this film does is avoid a standard linear narrative. Instead, the narrative is broken into segments covering key points leading up to Facebook’s launch, success, and the lawsuits filed by the Winklevoss brothers and Saverin afterwards. Rather than simply saying ‘here’s the story of Facebook,’ we watch as Zuckerberg is forced to relive his dealings with the Winklevi and his former friend/business partner. Old wounds tear open during these proceedings, sending us back and forth through time. In this way, the audience gets the chance to judge this fictional Zuckerberg as he reckons with his own personal failings. The editing and cinematography during these segues and jump cuts are a real treat for the trained eye.

Jesse Eisenberg does a tremendous job as the unrepentant Zuckerberg. He talks, acts and sneers exactly like someone capable of programming a complicated website while drunk. The matter-of-factness in his delivery does the real Zuckerberg some justice. This is not the story of some average punk kid who gets extraordinarily lucky. The Social Network is a tale of a mind-bogglingly brilliant individual who gets extraordinarily lucky.

Eisenberg’s performance is backed up by a solid supporting cast. With a little help from the visual effects department, Armie Hammer does a splendid job portraying the entitlement-high Winklevoss brothers. Their smug and pompous demeanor is even less tolerable than Zuckerberg’s. Justin Timberlake will surprise many with his performance as Napster founder Sean Parker. He’s the perfect shoulder devil for the new millennium. Finally there is Andrew Garfield, who comes off as a natural with his frustration, anxiety and hurt. Eduardo Saverin is the only character worth any genuine sympathy in the film but director David Fincher deserves credit for not letting Garfield make the character too tragic. This is a story about a few children of privilege going to battle against each other, after all.

Is this fictional Zuckerberg an arrogant creep who knows he’s smart and is unafraid to mock you with his intelligence by waving it in your face? Could he rather be an exceptionally skilled young man who was led astray by paranoid and greedy business associates? The filmmakers certainly seem bent on leading you toward the former assumption but the film contains enough of a gray area for you to make your own decision on the matter.

The Social Network is a very well put-together film. The acting is splendid, the writing is crisp and appealing to modern audiences, and the pacing is just right. There are a few odd decisions made with camera focus here and there but the rest of it seems to fit. It’s always difficult to judge a contemporary film on its costuming and set design because you only take notice of it if they get something wrong. Time will be the judge of that aspect of the film and the entire film itself really. This film answers the question ‘is it too soon for a Facebook movie?’ Definitely not. The question now becomes ‘will this movie matter in 20 years?’ If Facebook continues to be a staple of our daily lives, the answer will be yes. If not, this film will become little more than a stylish footnote on yet another passing trend.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961)

For the first time since the 40s package films, a Disney movie does not begin with the opening of an old book. This is just the first of many differences in a new era for the studio. Whether they were aiming for a complete overhaul of everything Disney or not, there is something about this film that feels completely foreign, and I’m not talking about the London setting. Fewer songs, a new animation style, a simplified artistic vision, and a modern setting may shock fans of Disney’s two golden eras but the end result maintains the Disney standard of excellence.

Pongo, a Dalmatian, lives with his human, Roger, in London. After Pongo finds a wife for both himself and Roger (Perdita and Anita, respectively) he becomes the proud father of 15 puppies. He and his wife are thrilled at their blessings but their joy quickly turns to concern. Cruella De Vil, one of Anita’s former schoolmates, is mysteriously obsessed with acquiring the puppies at any cost.

After Roger refuses to sell the puppies to Cruella, she has a few of her lackeys break into the home and steal them. Desperate to reclaim their children, Pongo and Perdita use a country-wide network of dogs and other friendly animals to put out an alert. Thus begins a harrowing rescue attempt fraught with danger, not only from the winter-ravaged English countryside, but with Cruella De Vil hot on their tails in pursuit.

After all the lush and detailed art direction throughout the 50s, the animation of One Hundred and One Dalmatians is more than a little jarring. While they don’t abandon the multiplane camera, very little depth is put into the scenery. Disney’s emphasis on foreground characters grew during the preceding decade but this film takes a huge leap to keep the audience solely focused on the foreground.

Background elements like furniture and other décor are merely blobs of color with simple lines sketched over them to give the appearance of shape. Instead of a visually round environment, the only trace of three-dimensionality is with the characters and any objects they directly interact with. I spent much of the film in mental rebellion against this cost-saving venture.

The other major change is with the animation of the characters themselves. Beginning with this film, Disney became fully invested in the new Xerox photographing technology to cut costs. Prior to this move, Disney’s animators would sketch out characters on paper. These sketches would be given to re-drawers, who painted precise lines on animation cells. The Xerox method allowed the studio to eliminate the middle man and copy the sketches directly to the cells.

The end result quite literally resembles a moving sketchpad. By skipping the re-drawing phase, many of the animators’ reference and structural lines make it through to the final product. If it were an intentional move, it might be worth some merit but this effect is merely a by-product of an imperfect but cost-saving technology. The combination of this process and the art direction give One Hundred and One Dalmatians an unpolished look never before present in a Disney film.

This gritty/dirty quality is distracting at first but it actually works given the film’s modern setting. It helps make the city of London look appropriately blemished, while giving an edge to the countryside sequences. Fairy tales and fantasy adventures call for very crisp and clean environments but that same approach wouldn’t work for a story set in the real world. Even Lady and the Tramp had a bit of an edge to its street scenes. That doesn’t make this double whammy completely amenable, just tolerable.

One Hundred and One Dalmatians is still a fine Disney story. It promotes family values, persistence and kindness. Cruella De Vil is a little over the top and her motivation for snatching the puppies is kept a secret for too long. Knowing that motivation in advance really makes the timing of the reveal seem wrong. Leaking it a little earlier would help raise the dramatic tension during Pongo and Perdita’s search and rescue attempt.

The high point of the film has got to be the jazzy score. The opening itself is invigorating but a kind of free-wheeling attitude pervades much of the incidental music. This makes the film feel more contemporary than the actual setting of the film, I think. This might be one of the only of this film’s artistic decisions I can really get behind but the Disney team gets good marks for picking the perfect story to make these big transitions with.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Love and Other Drugs (2010)

The last decade has seen a positive trend in romance films. Instead of the insipid, paint-by-numbers rom-coms of the 90s, the new millennium sees filmmakers working hard to create an even weirder hybrid- the rom-dramedy. It is, thankfully, no longer acceptable for a romance to just be serious or just be goofy. The problem is that very few filmmakers have figured out how to make this new balance work. Such is the case with this film.

In 1996, Jamie Randall (Jake Gyllenhaal) sees his budding career as an electronics salesman evaporate after getting caught having sex with his boss’s girlfriend. His well-to-do brother hooks him up with a job at Pfizer as a pharmaceutical salesman. Through his natural charisma and the tutelage of his regional manager (Oliver Platt), Jamie masters the art of wooing receptionists and sweet talking doctors into prescribing Zoloft and Zithromax.

Life throws Jamie a curveball when he meets Maggie Murdock (Anne Hathaway), an early onset Parkinson’s patient. She is reluctant to enter into a serious relationship with anyone due to her illness but Jamie works his charm on her. Maggie reciprocates by exposing Jamie to the other side of the pharmaceutical rat race, as she helps senior citizens make periodic trips to Canada to purchase cheaper prescription drugs. Jamie finds himself conflicted, especially after Pfizer’s release of Viagra makes him one of the top sellers in the company.

There are a number of good things going on in this film. You catch a glimpse of the cutthroat and unscrupulous (though oftentimes amusing) world of Big Pharma sales. On the flipside, you see the unfortunate side effects to all the patents, research, and marketing expenses- these new miracle drugs are so expensive that those who need it most cannot afford it. Then there’s the love story between a woman with heart-breaking condition and a man with every reason to avoid dating her. Sounds like a lot, right? Well, it is.

Love and Other Drugs is partly based on the book Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman. It’s one of those clever insider exposés that kept the book industry afloat between Harry Potter, Twilight and Dan Brown books over the past decade. The whole romance aspect is made up to make the story more appealing, which is certainly an accomplishment. Knowing this fact almost makes me think better of this film. Almost. Individually, I like each component of this film. As a collective whole, Love and Other Drugs is an uncomfortable and borderline boring experience.

Both of the film’s young stars perform well. Gyllenhaal exudes the Generation X slacker lifestyle with ease and it’s clear that Hathaway did her homework when it comes to Parkinson’s symptoms. She’s never over-the-top spastic but also never makes the life of such a person look easy. It’s not so much the characters but the performances of them that keep you interested in the film.

In reality, Jamie Randall is the kind of cocky, successful creep that nobody likes, let alone falls in love with. Sure, he may be cute and charming but he leads a hollow life. This is addressed in the film as his relationship with Maggie grows. Maggie, on the other hand, is an enigma. She’s willing to throw her body around for sex before the grip of Parkinson’s gets the better of her but she refuses to let anyone get close to her emotionally. I can understand not wanting to let someone get attached to you because eventually they’ll be more of a caregiver than a partner, but her lifestyle strikes me as self-destructive. You never get a sense for where or how this attitude developed, leaving her side of the story incomplete.

The first half of the film is witty, sleazy and everything you would expect from a snarky insider story. How much of the sales trade is played up for show is unclear, but it’s enough to keep you from supporting Jamie’s line of work. Jamie grows on you though, so you all but come to accept it as an extension of him. Then the second half of the film kills the party. Maggie’s life makes things serious and gloomy and it almost feels unnatural when Jamie begins to turn on a profession that offers him a generous paycheck and access to all kinds of top-of-the-line medicines.

Then there are the little details- the factual errors that drive me crazy and cost a notch or two on the rating scale. The film opens in 1996 with Jamie working in an electronics store. He’s trying to sell a couple of girls on a boombox that clearly belongs in the 80s. It also happens to be blasting out a Spin Doctors tune three or four years past its prime. The store also contains a few products that didn’t exist yet (widescreen flat panel TV’s and slim digital cameras- really?). They might as well have tossed a copy of Grays Sports Almanac in for good measure. Most people will totally miss this but you’ll definitely be asking yourself how Maggie can afford such a spacious, albeit rundown, studio apartment on waitress wages.

The good news is that Love and Other Drugs has decided to be a grown-up romantic comedy. The bad news is that it still hasn’t decided what it wants to be as a grown-up romantic comedy. This leaves the audience to question a lot of the filmmakers’ decisions, which is never a good thing. If you want to be a story about a slacker salesman who mellows out after finding the right woman, fine- tell that story. If you’d rather be a story about a guy who falls in love with a woman despite her failing health, fine- tell that story. Trying to do both at the same time simply doesn’t work.

RATING: 2.25 out of 5

Cimarron** (1931)

The fourth film to win Best Picture and the first of only three westerns to do so, Cimarron is a tale of how the West was tamed. It features big action sequences, a vast landscape, and tackles complicated moral and social issues of the Old West. What it doesn’t have is staying power. Here is a film that, while immensely popular initially, has not aged well one bit.

Yancey Cravat (Richard Dix) is a Western man’s man. He feels the call of the wild and untamed wilderness and seeks to conquer it. Several years after settling the Kansas Territory, Yancey grows restless for a new challenge. When the US government opens up the Oklahoma Territory for settlement, Yancey forces his wife and son to join him as they once again try to make a home and successful enterprise out of new and dangerous land.

I can see how the need for escapist cinema made this film popular in the 1930s. That time period wasn’t too far removed from the Land Rush of 1893 depicted in the film. Perhaps at the beginning of the Depression there was still an urge to go West and make something of yourself. That mindset no longer exists today, however, and this is only one of many generation gaps that sabotage this film.

Yancey Cravat is the kind of hyper-masculine hero that only exists in fables anymore. Why? Because society now (rightfully) expects men to take responsibility for their actions. There are several references to a wild past, suggesting Yancey might, at one time in his youth, have been something of a rebel and not on the side of the law. He’s a crack-shot who is respected among some of the more notable hustlers and thieves of the region. Perhaps the trade-off for conquering a woman was settling down. It seems Yancey did so on his own terms in Kansas, because when he mentions the Oklahoma Land Rush to his wife, she seems to know exactly what it will entail.

Is Yancey arrogant and selfish for putting his own desire for adventure above the safety and security of his family? The current answer is yes. Back in the day, people might have sided with Yancey. His argument is that they could live their already comfortable lives in Kansas or make an even better life for themselves in Oklahoma, where there is no established bureaucracy to work around. Naturally, once they make something of themselves in Oklahoma, Yancey gets antsy for something else to conquer. It’s this farsightedness that makes it hard to like Yancey.

When you don’t completely support your main character (or in the case of a villain, completely hate), it’s hard to stay interested in a film. The glory days of wandering testosterone are long in the past and fail to resonate with modern sensibilities. Does this make Cimarron a bad film? No, but it makes it darn hard to watch.

Cimarron mostly scores well with me for technical reasons. The Land Rush sequence is epic in scope, featuring hundreds of carriages and covered wagons racing across the open plains. The rising city of Osage is impressive because everything looks authentic and it is interesting to see how the façade of the town changes over the film’s 40-year time span. That kind of attention to detail is worth noting.

Unfortunately, technical achievements will only carry you so far. The stereotypical portrayals of American Indians, Jewish peddlers and black servants are kept mostly in the background but they are noticeable. This is all added on top of the fact that only half of our lead couple has a firm grasp on what really matters in life. The end result is one those early Oscar winners that you just can’t quite put in the proper context. It’s a shame that some of the earliest Best Picture winners have been all but forgotten about. The same cannot be said about Cimarron.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Sleeping Beauty (1959)

After four solid or better films, Walt Disney and his master craftsmen go out of the 50s with a bang. The combination of a classic fairy tale, gorgeous animation and a tremendous classical score, is it any wonder that Sleeping Beauty is perched high among the best of the studio’s work? Not only is this film one of my personal favorites from the Disney Vault, but it has all the credibility to back up the millions of fans who adore this picture.

A kingdom rejoices at the birth of a daughter for their King Stefan and Queen Leah. Everybody turns out to bestow a blessing upon the dear child- a neighboring king, dignitaries and magical fairies. The joy comes to an abrupt halt when an evil sorceress named Maleficent crashes the party. She places a curse upon the child, dooming her to die on her sixteenth birthday. After Maleficent disappears in supposed triumph, a good fairy does her best to counter the witch’s curse. In an extra effort to protect the child, three fairies take the girl away to raise her in the woods until her ill-fated birthday has passed.

On Princess Aurora’s sixteenth birthday, the fairies’ plan begins to unravel. The truth of her royal standing is hard for the beautiful girl to take, especially after falling in love with a handsome man in the forest earlier that day. To make matters worse, Maleficent has discovered the fairies’ hiding place and swoops in on them to execute her murderous plans. It’s up to the fairies and the handsome man from the forest (a prince, no less!) to save Aurora and restore happiness to the kingdom.

Can Disney do fairy tales or what? These classic tales of beautiful damsels in distress under the oppressive hand of witches and evil step-mothers allow Disney to pull out all the animation stops to create worlds as vivid and beautiful as the ones that exist within our minds. This time around, the Disney team takes an unexpected turn with their work. Many of the backgrounds replicate the look and feel of Middle Ages artworks. Trees and flags are tall and slender, there is a strong emphasis on vertical lines, and the detail is rich and all of it remains in focus.

The richness of many of the backgrounds makes it hard for the foreground to compete, leading the characters to have a flatter look than in previous films. This has been an ongoing trend for Disney productions throughout the 50s. The drive to cut costs hasn’t sacrificed too much quality yet though.

Disney’s obsession with this project comes out best with the music. Instead of risking comparisons to Cinderella by flooding the film with catchy tunes, Sleeping Beauty is built around a pre-existing score. Piotr Tchaikovsky’s gorgeous ballet composition sets the pace and tone of the film. I don’t if know the music used in this film was used at similar moments in the ballet but it matches the action and mood perfectly.

It is clear to see where Disney takes creative liberties with story elements and character personalities. Purists may complain but half the fun of watching the Disney version of a classic fairy tale is to see what little twists are put in. Sleeping Beauty makes bold steps forward while also remembering the classic films that came before it. Just like Snow White and Cinderella, Princess Aurora is friends with all the animals she meets. There is also a clever reference to Fantasia when the fairies are cleaning their cottage.

While the flat animation may not bother most (heck, many won’t even really notice it), it does hold Sleeping Beauty back a hair for me. With the art direction and the music, this film could have topped Cinderella. Instead, they are merely equals for vastly different reasons. Solid story plus Disney’s ingenuity equals a spectacular treat every time. This film marks the end of an era for Disney. Their second classical era closes out with a triumph that makes you yearn for the ‘good old days’ with every film released since.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Raising Arizona (1987)

If ever you wondered what inspired movie and TV show writers to cram endless amounts of intellectualism into characters of decidedly average means and intellect, this absurdist comedy is almost certainly on each and every list. I am sure that there have been numerous witty films using the same character-dialogue pairing as Raising Arizona. Given how near-sighted much of the film and television industries have been recently when looking for inspiration, however, the popularity of this early Coen Brothers film makes it an easy target for imitation.

Herbert “Hi” McDunnough (Nicolas Cage) is a petty thief who speaks like a literature and linguistics professor. Every time he is arrested for robbing convenience stores, he flirts with the same policewoman (Holly Hunter). Over the course of several arrests, he learns that she is newly single after a painful breakup with her fiancé. Upon his latest release from prison, he proposes to his beloved Ed (short for Edwina) and the two marry and settle down in a trailer in the middle of the Arizona landscape.

The pair is desperate to have children but they learn that Ed is infertile. Given Hi’s criminal history, adoption is also out of the question. After seeing a story about a local business tycoon and his wife celebrating the birth of quintuplets, Hi and Ed plot to kidnap one of the youngin’s under the logic that these people have more kids than they need or can manage. Keeping and caring for the child prove to be a challenge as Hi and Ed are beset by the police, a demented bounty hunter, and two of Hi’s bumbling prison pals who just escaped and are looking to make a quick buck with the reward money.

The nice thing about Raising Arizona is that it never plays out under false pretenses. From the very beginning, the characters’ behavior and the writing makes it clear in no certain terms that this film is not to be taken seriously. The trouble with this approach is that it doesn’t guarantee that some viewers won't try to take it seriously anyway. On the flip-side, this absurdist nature of this film’s comedy doesn’t allow for audiences to turn off their brains and chuckle it up for an hour and a half. You do get to turn off a great portion of your brain while taking it all in, but you also need to turn on a very small, specific part of the brain that doesn’t get used often enough.

Nicolas Cage espouses his lines with a dreamy, gentlemanly swagger. His prison pals speak in a similar manner but are nowhere near as eloquent as Hi. Ed, on the other hand, speaks a more normal language. She gets her moments of wordy glory but her common tongue and her spitfire personality plays well against Hi’s drifter-esque mentality. It’s the collision of these attitudes, speech styles and behavior that generate most of the laughs.

Some will find the wordplay over the top and unnecessary. But I ask you, what would this film have going for it otherwise? It would just be a kidnapper comedy with outlandish characters that don’t make sense. If nothing else, the Coen’s verbose script acts as a gateway to accepting the rest of the film. If you can gel with the script, all the gags and situational humor will be easy to digest. If you can’t get past the dialogue, you’re less likely to swallow everything else.

Much of the physical comedy is recycled from nearly a century of cinema silliness. The execution of these gags is always where comedy films rise and fall. Raising Arizona makes them work. The corny, pseudo-intellectual dialogue butters you up enough that everything else in this film is funny by default. The Coen Brothers know their broad target audience will already be having fun with the film and they continually go for broke with what moviegoers typically expect from a comedy.

Is it perfect? No, but you’ll most likely laugh your way through any logical flaws (if you really are determined enough to apply logic here) and other minor mistakes. That is the sign of a classic comedy that will be appreciated by generations to come. Raising Arizona is a fine blend of blue-collar and elitism, the likes of which may be imitated for years to come but never successfully replicated.

RATING: 4 out of 5

Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987)

Amadeus** (1984)