Toy Story 3 (2010)

Leave it to a family gathering with my in-laws to derail my mission of watching every single Disney animated film in uninterrupted, chronological order! Then again, most of you probably didn’t even realize that I have been working towards this goal and it has been taking me longer than it ought to in the first place. Coupled with the fact that this is one heck of a fun movie, I don’t mind going off on a tangent just this once.

First and foremost, I must warn you that this is going to be something of an incomplete assessment of the film. It has been years since I last saw the original Toy Story and I have only ever seen bits and pieces of Toy Story 2. I have been assured by several people familiar with the whole series that the events of Toy Story 3 don’t hinge upon the events of Toy Story 2. If this is true, then it is already a good thing that Disney managed to make each film with a self-contained story. After being brought up to speed on a few of the carry-over characters from the sequel, our journey commenced.

Andy, the child to whom the toys belong, is all grown up and heading off to college. After all these years, Andy is still hanging on to some of his all-time favorites. Andy’s mom tells him that he needs to put whatever he is not taking with him in either the attic, the trash, or donate it to Sunnyside Daycare. Surprisingly, Andy elects to take Woody to college with him and puts the rest of the toys in the attic. The only problem is that he packs the toys in a trash bag, which his mother mistakenly puts out for collection. They narrowly escape but do not realize what Andy had intended.

Having seen the mix-up, Woody tries to convince the gang that Andy really still wants them. Not believing him, Buzz takes command of the dejected toys and they sneak into the box headed for Sunnyside. Woody gets taken along for the ride and they discover a brand new world. The leader of the Sunnyside toys, Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear welcomes them with open arms and introduces them to a paradise of endless play. Woody leaves, determined not to let his original owner down. The rest of the toys soon discover that Sunnyside has a dark side. Word of this gets back to Woody, who plots a daring break-out attempt.

While the story isn’t chronologically consistent (it’s been 15 years since the first and Andy definitely was not a toddler!) that doesn’t really matter. Nobody ever said that time has to pass at the same speed within this story world and that of the real world. All that matters is the story that’s being told. Said story is definitely not what I was expecting. While I recall the original Toy Story having a few dark moments, it was nothing compared to what’s in store for you here.

Toy Story and its sequel (from what I’ve seen of it) are about Woody saving Buzz or Buzz saving Woody. Those films were all about finding a sense of belonging. These themes are still at play here, only Woody is now trying to save everybody, but the sense of belonging plays second fiddle to the toys learning to cope with the fact that they are no longer needed like they used to be. They have to transition into a new role and it is difficult for them to accept their fate. These are far more adult concepts than the first film (and probably the second too) dealt with.

There is no question in my mind that this film was made for the generation that grew up with the first two Toy Story films. Sure, it exists to entertain the new generation that was born in the past 11 years but the Pixar team was wise to give the original devotees a little more than just another rescue to watch. While I usually despise adult humor making its way into children’s movies, none of the double-entendres go too far and there is still plenty of innocent humor for the kids.

Sad as it is that some of the amusing background characters from the first installment are no more, it’s a smart move. Had Andy held on to all of his toys, there would have been too much going on. Toy attrition opens up the door for a bunch of great new characters. Some of them only have seconds to shine, but shine they do! From a melodramatic, premium plush hedgehog to a flamboyantly metrosexual Ken doll, it’s clear that the filmmakers and actors had fun pulling out all the stops.

The animators even pull out a few stops of their own, adding to the Toy Story legacy. The first installment of the series was the first full-length feature film entirely created with CGI. It was bold new territory that looked amazing. The animators take full advantage of the advancements in CGI over the past 15 years and elevate their game even further. The toys have always looked spot on but what floored me scene after scene was the richness of the textures. Some of the materials the toys are ‘made’ out of look real enough to touch. I can only imagine how real it must have looked in a good 3-D showing.

Even though I haven’t seen Toy Story 2, I have to say that I was very impressed with this film. It doesn’t feel recycled or needless. The story is sharp and has something for every age demographic. There is plenty of humor for kids and grown-ups alike and the balance between the two is as good as it gets. The animation still wows and the action will keep you interested start to finish. The fact that, after 15 years, Disney is still capable of making us care about these toys is something special.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Rescue Dawn (2006)

It seems that every war has its share of incredible stories. The intensity of battle brings out the best in some men despite the utmost trying circumstances. The Vietnam War is almost exclusively viewed in a negative light. Tales of atrocities were commonly reported and hold fast in the American psyche. Rescue Dawn is just the opposite. Here is a Vietnam-era tale of boldness and bravery that not only astonishes but uplifts.

German-American Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale), a pilot in the US Navy, is shot down over Laos in February 1966 during a covert mission. Despite his best efforts, he is captured by a communist militia. Since US operations in Laos were illegal, the Laotian government isn’t too keen on being nice. They offer his freedom if he signs a document for release condemning his country. Refusing, he is tortured and taken to a rural POW camp in the middle of the Laotian jungles.

Dengler’s fellow inmates include two Americans- Gene DeBruin (Jeremy Davies) and Duane Martin (Steve Zahn)- and three men of Thai descent. There is little hope of rescue, as America and Laos did not have diplomatic relations, so the prisoners advise Dengle to get used to being chained down much of the time, fed meager portions and to avoid upsetting the abusive guards. Refusing to concede, Dengler plots a bold escape that could lead them all to freedom.

The first thing that struck me about this film is the way it looks- old. I don’t know if it’s due to the equipment director Werner Herzog chose to use or just an immaculate attention to detail, but this films looks about 20 years older than it really is. Oddly enough, this older look makes the whole film more visually believable. I see no digital grading to make the jungle greens pop or any of the crispness that modern film-making technology lends to a film. It all looks very old-school and I love it.

Another key factor is that everything looks authentic in this film. The sets are almost all on-location and everything down to the costumes and hair styles of the characters (pre-capture that is) looks era-appropriate. Herzog avoids falling into the trap of allowing any modern elements from creeping into his historical picture. This prevents any action or war movie clichés from putting a crimp on the intense tale being told.

Filming on location in Thailand really gives the film the mood it needs. The thick jungles surrounding the POW camp are haunting with an abundance of heavy mist and animal noises. Inside the jungle you can’t help but feel claustrophobic as the dense vegetation threatens to swallow up our subjects. As vile as the Laotian prison guards are, Rescue Dawn shows just how menacing an antagonist nature can be.

Christian Bale, Jeremy Davies and Steve Zahn are well up to the task of taking on the jungle though. The transformations they put their bodies through to look like starving, unkempt POWs are shocking. Christian Bale seems to be the modern master of dire and determined protagonists. Jeremy Davies exudes a chilling aura as the lone doubter of the escape plan. He speaks with the freakish conviction of failure that can only come from someone who has been cooped up for too long. It’s Steve Zahn though who surprises the most here. Normally seen in humorous or outlandish roles, Zahn is perfect in his muted performance as the most shell-shocked of the bunch.

The only minor fault I could find, which didn’t even come close to taking me out of the mood, was an instance or two of sub-standard effects in a few early scenes. I can understand using some CGI instead of tracking down or rebuilding working models of Vietnam era airplanes. Some things are just easier with today’s technology even if they don’t look perfect. The rest of the film is paced, shot, acted and directed fantastically.

War-time and action escape flicks aren’t exactly anything new. It’s the perfect sub-genre for thrilling audiences but it has also grown stale thanks to an abundance of inferior films that just don’t work. That leads to some critics and moviegoers to cry foul when they feel a film like Rescue Dawn is predictable. Werner Herzog can’t help it that Hollywood has thrown nearly every conceivable permutation of escape flick at us already. If we want to be honest with ourselves and the film, all we can do is judge the film by its presentation. The ‘based on a true story’ tagline almost always adds extra weight and meaning to these kinds of productions, especially, in this case, when we watch a story unfold that most people have never even heard of.

Rescue Dawn is a flat-out tour de force of everything done right in a wartime escape movie. You will find yourself cringing at the brutality of the POW camp, on pins and needles in anticipation of the escape and on the edge of your seat as it unfolds. In many ways, this film is like a Vietnam version of The Great Escape but I won’t even think of comparing the two further. Both are true stories that probably fudge a few historical facts here and there but they both make for compelling drama. Track this gem down and treat yourself to one of the best war films since Saving Private Ryan.

RATING: 4 out of 5

The Hurt Locker** (2008)

For all the clamoring about James Cameron’s Avatar during 2009, there were always audible whispers about this gritty little war film. Critics loved it and lined up in droves to throw their annual society honors at it. Sure enough, The Hurt Locker became something akin to The Little Engine That Could. While war films are by no means strangers to Oscar glory, this eventual Best Picture winner took a long and winding path to playing David to Avatar’s Goliath.

For Sergeant First Class William James (Jeremy Renner), war is a drug. As frustrating as his duties may be, diffusing improvised explosive devices in post-invasion Iraq is what makes the man tick. James takes over as the team leader of a three-man Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit after the previous leader was killed in action. His new partners, Sergeant J.T. Sanborn and Specialist Owen Eldridge get more than they bargained for with James. He knows his stuff and is willing to take on risks that his crew views as reckless and a danger to all of their lives.

The rest of the film is a series of vignettes, each one showing a dangerous assignment or encounter that befalls the EOD squad. As Sanborn and Eldridge get closer to the end of their tour of duty they become increasingly frustrated with James’ wildcard antics and tempers flare. From diffusing a number of frighteningly complicated artillery bombs to being ambushed in the middle of nowhere, there is very little rest for this war-weary trio.

To call this film intense is an understatement. Director Kathryn Bigelow and her team of filmmakers pull out all the stops to present an in-your-face experience. The opening segment presents you with the grim reality of war- there are no guarantees that anyone gets out alive. We take this prologue into our journey with James and his new partners. Never are we given the option of taking comfort that all three will make it to the end of their tours. This leaves you with a constant unsettled feeling that is frustrating to no end but also a terrific achievement.

One critical ingredient to The Hurt Locker’s effectiveness is its lack of a Hollywood star on the EOD team. Jeremy Renner became a big deal after this film but he and his co-stars were relative unknowns in the industry, mostly nabbing supporting roles in modestly successful films. This gives the characters an everyman feel. They look, talk and act like regular people, making it easy for audiences to connect with and care for these men. They’re no angels, but how effective would a film about a squeaky-clean bomb squad really be?

The way the film is shot adds to the anxiety and emotion. Rarely does the camera cut away to a safe distance. Instead we are forced to take in all the fear, anger and confusion in an up close and personal way. Time rarely skips ahead in each vignette and when it does it’s never by much. This prolonged exposure to the realities of war is draining and just might leave you as breathless as the soldiers.

We get only the briefest of glimpses into the struggle for soldiers to reintegrate back into society. In this case, war and the skills learned during combat are drugs that cannot be given up. Some may view this as pro-war propaganda but it’s really just a case of ‘old habits die hard.’ Anyone engaging in a specific line of work for a long time will struggle to adjust to a new setting that is fundamentally different. If anything, this should raise awareness for supporting our troops when they return to the States to move on with their lives. While it is certainly frustrating to watch, I think the filmmakers are subtly making valid points for us to pick up on.

Despite laying a few ideas before us, The Hurt Locker does not take any kind of political stance on war. It’s not pro-war even though characters like James enjoy what they do. It is also not anti-war despite all the carnage and frustration we see. This is a rare thing, especially for a film centered on the Iraq war. Several films about the recent conflict have been released but many faltered in their one-sidedness. The Hurt Locker plays out like a polished documentary. The audience is like an embedded reporter, sticking beside the soldiers through all the trials and tribulations. There are no sides to take, no inferences to make; all we can do is digest what befalls us.

Filming on location in Jordan with hundreds of Iraqi refugees as background extras adds an enormous amount of realism to the film. There are no pre-fab sets or obvious special effects to create scenes of desolation and endless sand. The actors aren’t just acting as if they are struggling with their environment; they are living in it. That’s real sweat, real heat fatigue, and real dehydration on the screen. That kind of authenticity can’t be beat.

There are only a few pieces to the puzzle that didn’t fit right for me. There is one scene where James leads his EOD trio on an unauthorized reconnaissance mission during the night. This sort of bold action does not make sense to me. It emphasizes James’ rogue status but it doesn’t feel like anything a real soldier would do. There also aren’t any emotional revelations in dealing with ‘addiction’ to war. The soldiers play it close to the vest and just deal with getting through their assignments. We see growth and development on a team level but not on an individual level.

Perhaps this is what held me back from throwing The Hurt Locker into the upper echelon of my rating scale. It’s expertly filmed, perfectly cast, and the writing flows with spot-on realism. The heat of battle is largely an emotional vacuum (save for aggression and fear) but it would have been nice to see a little more internal struggle. I have not yet seen all of the 2009 nominees for Best Picture but I have little doubt that any of them can compete with the intensity of this very worthy winner.

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

(This film premiered at the Venice Film Festival in 2008 but did not get distribution in America until 2009, allowing it to compete for the 2009 Oscars)

Avatar* (2009)

This is it- the biggest movie of all time! Boasting one of the largest budgets in film history, a legion of devoted fans, revolutionary 3-D technology and (as if I could forget) the highest box-office gross of all time. There’s no doubt about it- films don’t get much bigger than James Cameron’s Avatar. But is it really one of the greatest films of all time? Is this sci-fi adventure and the technological wizardry behind it really, as some have proclaimed, the future of film?

Set 150 years in the future, Avatar is the story of a paraplegic soldier’s chance at redemption. Jake Sully’s recently-murdered twin brother was to be part of a special mission to the Alpha Centauri star system. His brother was a scientist preparing to travel to the moon Pandora, where he would use a remote mental link to operate the body of a native creature (known as the Na’vi) specifically designed to mesh with his mind. Rather than lose out on the millions of dollars it cost to produce the Na’vi avatar body, the RDA Corporation, who are funding the project to help smooth over relations with the natives while mining for a precious mineral, hires Jake as a replacement.

After arriving on Pandora, Jake is faced with conflicting motives. Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) finds him an inadequate replacement for his brilliant scientist brother. The head of RDA’s security force and the company on-site administrator see him as a chance to gather valuable information on the Na’vi. They promise to fund an expensive surgery to restore Jake’s legs if he’ll report to them regularly on the natives. The largest deposit of the valuable mineral is located underneath a giant tree the Na’vi use as their home. RDA wants access to the deposit without starting a war that will turn off stockholders. All plans go awry when Jake is separated from the team on his first outing. Attacked by vicious, wild animals, Jake is saved by the Na’vi. Initially wary to his presence, they grow to accept him and Jake grows to sympathize with his new-found, blue-skinned friends.

James Cameron spent years both developing the kind of 3-D filmmaking equipment he wanted and waiting for CGI technology to advance to the point he needed in order to make Avatar a fully-realized product. Cameron’s patience and innovation are quite possibly unparalleled and they pay off gloriously in terms of technical achievement. Instead of using 3-D to throw stuff out of the screen at the audience, Cameron uses it to add miles of depth to the background. Yes, a few things pop out at you but Cameron never uses it purely as a gimmick.

The flora and fauna of Pandora are impressive. Cameron fills his world with lush vegetation that looks fantastic by day and mesmerizing by night. The animal life is creative, though some of the creatures have features that don’t seem to make sense for such a dense jungle setting. On the whole though, Pandora is a feast for the eyes. Even the Na’vi are impressive and the use of motion capture really brings each character to life. The only times the technology really betrays Cameron’s intents are when human characters are digitally constructed and when characters or creatures move quickly off the screen. In the case of the latter, I am not sure if the blurriness I saw was something that plagued all screenings or if the 3-D projectors being used in the theater I went to simply weren’t the best on the market.

As impressive as Cameron’s blitzkrieg of effects on your eyes may be, the fact that most of this world is artificial kept me from drinking the Kool-Aid and joining the shameless masses of Avatar devotees amusingly called ‘avatards.’ You can throw all the special effects and CGI you want on the screen but the simple fact remains that, in stories involving flesh-and-blood people (or in this case humanoids), there is just no substitution for the real thing. Sure, all the characters’ movements were plotted and performed by real people but it’s harder to care about them when they are ‘painted’ over by computer effects. It’s difficult to put into words but there is some kind of visceral quality lost in the translation that is motion capture.

Another key ingredient that Avatar lacks is a unique and compelling story. You’ve heard plenty of people call this movie a hybrid of a number of films- Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Fern Gully, etc. It seems that the deeper you root into sci-fi, the more borrowed elements you will find in Avatar. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s extremely difficult to make a film anymore without borrowing or paying homage to what has come before in your particular genre. The problem here is that the ‘going native’ narrative has been done enough times that it is extremely predictable. Even if you never saw the original theatrical trailer that gave away every major plot point in chronological order, you never have much doubt as to what is going to happen.

This brings me to the crux of the matter- Avatar is not the future of film. A technical bonanza, yes; the future of film, no. Here’s why: the 3-D technology Cameron created improves the movie-going experience without actually improving the movie itself. It’s really cool to look miles beyond the edge of the movie screen but it’s not an essential element to telling the story. It’s just an extra ingredient to make the theater experience a little more special. Think about it- stripped of its 3-D effects, Avatar is just an environmentalist action movie with good computer animation. Until a film actually needs to utilize the third dimension for story purposes, 3-D is still technically just a gimmick (albeit a revamped and smartly-employed one).

Avatar could have very easily been made without all the whiz-bang technology James Cameron slaved over but I seriously doubt that it would have been received in the same way. He had a story that he wanted to tell and he knew he needed massive amounts of CGI to do it. Cameron also knew that computer animated films are a dime a dozen anymore so he decided to step up the game a notch or two. The story and characters aren’t the main attraction here. It’s really an advertisement for the next generation of CGI and motion capture technology. Cameron is offering us a new way for films to be made. Will all films need 3-D? Certainly not. But when a film comes along that deserves the 3-D treatment, it’s a safe bet that it will be worth getting lost in.

Don’t get me wrong- Avatar is still a good film. Over-hyped, but good. It wears its politics on it sleeves, which might aide in winning or losing you depending on your ideology, but most of that can be shrugged off for the sake of taking in a colorful action movie. And let’s face it- when it comes to action, James Cameron is one of the best in the business.

Repeat viewings won’t be able to recapture all of the magic (at least not until everyone has 3-D TV’s) because Avatar was meant to be seen in 3-D. If you didn’t see it in 3-D, you missed out. But fear not! Cameron is currently planning two sequels, so there will be future opportunities to see his creation in all its glory.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Gran Torino (2008)

Promising it would be his final acting role, Clint Eastwood goes out with a bang as a racist retiree who decides to clean up the neighborhood. A powerful and gripping ‘issues’ film, Gran Torino does not hold the key to solving the racial divide in America nor does it claim to. What it does deliver is a gritty, realistic look at gang-ridden suburbs and fantastic performances from all the major players.

Walt Kowalski is a hard man. His work on the Ford assembly line has left him with a gorgeous car, a 1972 Gran Torino, which he treasures. His upbringing and service during the Korean War has left him full of racist notions that he almost giddily dispenses in foul-mouthed tirades. The recent death of his wife has left him on his own. His children don’t care much for him, which is fine; he thinks they’re a bunch of selfish brats anyway. On top of it all, the neighborhood has gone to pot. Most of the homes once owned by ‘respectable’ white auto workers are now populated by low-income residents of Hmong descent.

After Walt catches the neighbor boy attempting to steal his beloved car, things change. To make up for his would-be crime, Thao Vang Lor works odd jobs for Walt, who puts him to good use fixing things and doing yard work around the neighborhood. When the Hmong gang that pressured Thao to steal Walt’s car start making their presence felt, Walt decides to push back in an attempt to protect Thao and his sister. The gang underestimates the ornery old man and matters escalate all the way to an explosive climax.

Let’s get the negatives out of the way first. Some aspects of the film are predictable. An old racist overcoming bigotry to care for his minority neighbors? Yeah, we’ve seen that before. Youth foolishly taking on a wily old soldier? Sure, it’s been done already in one form or another. The resolution? Most of you will see what’s coming a long ways off but there are enough surprises for you that keep the ending fresh. So there are a few weaknesses inherent to the story. Most of what Hollywood produces is at least partially derivative anymore (the fact that genres exist should tell you this).

It all comes down to the execution and, unless you’re an extreme cynic, Gran Torino will knock your socks off. If this truly is Clint Eastwood’s final time in front of the camera, it is a bittersweet swan song. Clint channels some of his most iconic curmudgeons to bring Walt Kowalski to life and never lags for a second. At 78 years old (during filming), Clint still has all the grit and spit necessary to dazzle you. He may have gone soft over the last decade but he never lost the acting chops that have made him a legend. This is full bore, hyper-masculine Clint freakin’ Eastwood. Anybody got a problem with that? Didn’t think so.

As hard and fierce as Kowalski is, it’s clear that Clint had a lot of fun with this role. On top of this, he has a reputation for being an actor’s director. He knows the craft and his passion certainly helped the supporting cast of unknowns step up to the plate and deliver. The younger leads don’t look like they are in over their heads next to Clint. In fact, they exude the acting confidence to take him head on. That is a hallmark to Clint’s ability to connect with and get the most out of his actors.

This is not a film for the faint of heart or for the politically correct. There is a fair amount of intensity and violence in Gran Torino. If you’re not prepared to see what havoc gangs can unleash, don’t watch this film. It might be wise to avoid this film if you are trying to shelter yourself from racial epithets- Eastwood’s Kowalski pretty much uses them all. You might even learn a few new ones to boot. As repugnant as Kowalski’s racism is, the absurd amount of derogatory remarks he throws out is actually amusing in an Archie Bunker kind of way. It’s been said that we laugh at what we don’t understand. Perhaps that’s why I found Kowalski hilarious- there’s absolutely no understanding the depths of his bigotry.

Gran Torino was critically praised yet passed over by the major award circuits. Part of me understands this because the film is loaded with clichés and predictability. But the way Clint takes all these perceived negatives and cranks out a powerful and emotional film worth watching is awe-inspiring. Perhaps no one wanted to honor his portrayal of the world’s biggest racist but the fact remains- Clint Eastwood rides off into the sunset having delivered one of the best performances in his career.

I think that everyone should see this film. Even if it makes you squeamish with its violence or shatters the shield of political correctness society tries to place over our ears, you will be better off having seen Gran Torino. Clint clearly has plenty of gas in the tank when it comes to acting, so it’s sad that this is his last acting role. Then again, how many actors get to go out on top quite like this?

RATING: 3.75 out of 5

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

Previously I listed the 2002 stinker The Master of Disguise as the worst movie I have ever seen. Believe me when I tell you that, scary as it may seem, it does actually get worse. I’m not even going to tease you about this one- Manos: The Hands of Fate is quite possibly the worst film ever made and hands down the worst I have seen so far. I warned that anyone reading my review for The Master of Disguise would get punched by me if I discovered that they still watched that dreck. If I discover that you have read the following review for Manos, I will simply stare at you in pity.

A couple and their young daughter are traveling through the country when they take a wrong turn. Instead of their intended destination, they stumble upon a run-down house with unusual inhabitants. The caretaker is a creepy man named Torgo. He stammers around with large knees and mutters incomprehensible nonsense most of the time. Another man, known only as “The Master” hides in the shadows plotting to take the woman as his own. Torgo falls in love with the woman and promises to protect her for his own from The Master.

After discovering The Master in his sleeping quarters with a slew of zombie-esque female servants, the couple tries to leave. This plan goes awry as The Master and his wives are determined to take what is due to them. In the end, Torgo is mutilated when he tries to protect the woman from The Master. Her husband fairs no better and ends up The Master’s new servant as his wife and child become part of his den of zombie wives.

Not only is it derivative, Manos: The Hands of Fate is also painful to watch. Travelers stopping at the wrong place is not a new plot and certainly wasn’t back in 1966. A creepy sorcerer-like man with a crew of zombie wives probably makes it stand out after the clichéd lead-in but Manos’ lead-in is horrible. For at least two or three straight minutes (possibly even longer) you are forced to watch the couple drive around, gazing out of their car windows, driving through beautiful country sides and off into the distance. Apparently these opening minutes were supposed to include the film’s credits. Why the credits were scrapped but not the plodding opening minutes is a mystery larger than that of who is the master and why does he have zombie wives? Strike one.

The innocent family is fine. Sure, the husband is a nitwit who doesn’t act like a true man or father, but he plays convincing enough prey. Torgo, as I found out, was supposed to be some kind of satyr creature but the actor wore the leg devices backwards (explaining the huge knees) and never wore the footwear designed to make him look hoofed. On top of this, the actor stammers around and delivers his lines as if he were high. (Further research on the making of the film only seems to confirm this) The result is that the character is full-on creepy but totally nonsensical, making it seem even more ridiculous that the family would impose upon him to stay the night. Strike two.

Then there is The Master, a Frank Zappa lookalike who wears a flamboyant red costume with a giant hand on it. He never says too much but has mastered the art of the ominous stare. His powers are- well, we never really see what his powers are, how he uses them or to what purposes they serve aside from collecting a horde of zombie-esque wives from ill-fated passersby. We see so little of him, in fact, that we can only rely on his equally impressive collection of ominous stares that he is one bad dude. Strike three.

The populo minutiae are equally disappointing. First there is a young couple who are constantly making out along various roadsides for no seeming point whatsoever. (The truth is that the actress in this scene was supposed to play a larger role but broke her leg- the director just found a way to keep her in the film) Then there are the police who hear gunshots and strange noises off in the distance but turn back once they reach the edge of darkness. (The reason behind this is that the film was shot at night and the actors literally couldn’t see if the ground in front of them was safe) Strikes four and five.

Hold on- did I really just get to strike five already? I haven’t even begun to rip apart the atrocious production values! (They stink, by the way) Granted, Manos: The Hands of Fate is an independently produced film. It was written, directed and produced by Harold P. Warren, a Texas manure salesman. He also stars in the film as the head of the family falling victim to The Master. Thankfully, Warren realized he was better at selling crap than making movies and never made a follow-up.

You may think it harsh of me to lambast a low-budget, independent film. There are tons of burgeoning filmmakers who don’t have access to Hollywood’s bankrolls. The difference is that most of these burgeoning filmmakers actually have an ounce of talent. Manos is merely a collection of horror clichés wrapped with a ribbon of wackiness. There is never a sense that the filmmaker knew what he was doing. To say that the pace lags suggests that it ever even gets out of first gear. When it’s not insufferably boring and slow, Manos confuses the bejeebers out of you.

All of this and I even watched the Mystery Science Theater 3000 lampooning of it! The MST3K guys say it best during their treatment- minutes into the film, one of the characters shouts out “Do something!” at the screen. This comment could be appropriately inserted to a majority of the film’s 74-minute run time. This is sad. If you don’t watch the MST3K version, Godspeed you brave, brave soul. Then again, be warned- if you don’t turn it off during the opening non-credits sequence out of sheer boredom, you may end up staring lazily off into space like one of The Master’s zombie wives.

Manos: The Hands of Fate is 74 minutes of strikes. I knew this was said to be one of the worst films ever made when I watched it but I thought that meant a Plan 9 From Outer Space kind of bad. I was sorely mistaken. This is one movie that even I will never ever watch again if I have a choice. Consider yourself warned!

RATING: 0.25 out of 5

W. (2008)

Common wisdom suggests that hindsight is 20-20. But how soon is too soon to attempt hindsight? Director Oliver Stone takes on that question with W., a biopic about George W. Bush. Never before had a Hollywood film been made about a sitting U.S. President’s time in office.* Given all the flak Bush faced during his two terms in office, what with a controversial election and an unpopular war in Iraq, many wondered whether or not Stone was attempting to craft a serious biography or merely stoking the anti-Bush flames during a crucial election year. The answer surprised just about everyone.

W. never lingers too long in one era. The film begins in 1966, where Bush is being initiated into a fraternity at Yale University. We see glimpses of his young adult life, filled with arguments and issues with his accomplished father. Flash-forward to 1977, where Bush decides to enter the family game of politics. He loses his first bid for Congress but makes a name for himself by bringing in the most votes ever for a Republican in his Texas district. We jump ahead next to the 1980s. While jogging, Bush collapses and has a religious experience. He becomes a born-again Christian, helps his father during the 1988 presidential election and becomes part-owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

After laying all this foundation, the films jumps into more familiar territory. Bush runs for Governor of Texas, though against his parents’ wishes. This later propels him to running for President and two of his most defining moments: 9/11 and the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Stone devotes extra time to the meetings and counseling between Bush and his staff before making the call to invade Iraq. The film ends after Bush’s infamous ‘Mission Accomplished’ speech, leaving out any details of Bush’s second term in office.

Whatever you may think of it, W. is an interesting look at a controversial public figure. Uncompromising is the best word I can find to describe it but not in the way that you may be thinking. Oliver Stone is known for his very liberal political leanings, so many wondered if he was even capable of creating an accurate depiction of Bush’s life. While Stone does include a few of Bush’s less-flattering moments in W., he never piles it on. Those negative moments (binge drinking in college) are balanced with positive moments (meeting his future wife) and everything is shown from a neutral perspective. It seems like Stone was able to keep his personal opinions of the man out of the picture while nailing down pivotal life events that make Bush tick.

Josh Brolin may not look exactly like George W. Bush but he hits the accent, mannerisms and facial expressions quite well. His performance does walk a fine line between acting and imitating though, as Bush is played up to be more dim-witted and naïve than he is in real life. I can actually let this slide because Bush always carried himself in public as a regular guy and attempted to project a casual demeanor. That’s the Bush America knew from their TV screens from news coverage, sound bites and collections of his more amusing moments.

There’s more to Brolin’s Bush than what American’s know, however. Supposedly based on information gathered from sources close to the Bush family and administration (but notably not anyone with an actual firsthand account of the events depicted), we get to see the troubled side of Bush’s life. A rebellious young man, the eldest (but not the favorite) child in a large family, struggling to earn his father’s respect while being his own man; the long road to achievement and success; and the struggle to make the decision to invade Iraq. Seeing these events play out humanizes the man and you just might find some of your preconceived notions of him changed.

Elizabeth Banks does a fine job as Laura Welch Bush but several of the supporting players either don’t fit right or don’t get the job done. James Cromwell barely looks like George H. W. Bush and it seems like he never even tries to recreate elder Bush’s voice or mannerisms. On the flip side, Richard Dreyfuss has the look of Vice President Dick Cheney but completely overdoes it. It is clear that he relishes portraying a man that he hates (Dreyfuss is notoriously liberal) but his sneering, shifty performance is comical at best.

Then there are Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice and Toby Jones as Karl Rove. Newton appears to take the MadTV approach to her character (no, it’s not even good enough to suggest a poor Saturday Night Live act)- horribly stereotyped and totally off-character. Jones’ Karl Rove is a creepy Gollum-esque man who is constantly coming out of the shadows to whisper advice into Bush’s ear. You would think that these head-scratching hack jobs would derail the film completely but they only appear a few times (but enough to be memorably bad).

Again, I come back to the only way to describe this film- interesting. Some on the right will claim it goes too far to make Bush look bad. Some on the left will think it fails to go far enough. The rest of us will tilt our heads to the side and quietly wonder what exactly we just watched and whether we had any right to expect anything out of this film. It's only due to its uncompromising nature that I can put my finger on a rating and I'm not even sure if it's the right one, to be perfectly honest.

W. doesn’t make any advancements for film or acting but it makes a niche for itself in the biopic genre. It will be interesting to see if films about sitting Presidents become a trend or if Oliver Stone’s oddly-timed biopic will become little more than a footnote (or even an afterthought) of cinema history. I guess, as with what history’s assessment of George W. Bush’s presidency, only time will tell.

RATING: 3 out of 5

*Documentaries don't count and the only other film released about a sitting President was PT 109, which was about John F. Kennedy's time during World War II and not his time in office.

Swing Vote (2008)

Every four years, Americans take to the voting booths and elect a President. Some races have been landslide victories while others have been flat-out nail-biters. Candidates and pundits like to tell us that every vote matters and Swing Vote latches onto that election-time mantra. The result is an amusing, thought-provoking, and subtly cynical look at the American electoral process.

Bud Johnson (Kevin Costner) is a single father in New Mexico. He doesn’t strike you as the kind of man who has a lot of ambition. He lives in a trailer, he drinks too much, and he just got fired from his latest blue-collar job. When the Presidential election comes around, Bud’s daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll) tries to get her father excited about his civic duty to ‘help shape the country’s future’ by voting. Bud promises he’ll vote, seeing as it means so much to his little girl. Realizing that her father isn’t going to vote, Molly sneaks into their polling place and attempts to cast a vote for her father. Just as the vote is being registered, the polls close and the machines are unplugged.

The next morning, Bud and Molly wake up to find that the election is down to the wire- a virtual tie! In fact, the whole race comes down to New Mexico and the popular vote was tied as the polls closed. However, authorities learn that when the poll shut down the voting booths, Bud’s vote was in process but not recorded. This means that he needs to re-cast “his” vote, which will determine the outcome of the entire election. Over the next few weeks, Bud is hounded by the Republican and Democratic candidates, courted by campaign advisers, and scrutinized by the media. In the end though, he has to make a choice.

Let’s face it- the likelihood of this scenario playing out in real life is virtually nil. Sure, some elections have come down to a matter of a few thousand votes in the past but it’s a statistical improbability that a state's popular vote would be separated by just one vote. But Swing Vote is not trying to present this as a serious situation; it’s merely asking ‘what if?’ By keeping things light, the filmmakers are able to keep viewers interested and they are also able to get plenty of jabs in at politics and the media.

I loved watching the flip-flopping that the Democrat and Republican vying for Bud’s vote resort to in a shallow attempt to win him over. Republican incumbent Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer) and his Democratic challenger Donald Greenleaf (Dennis Hopper) end up switching their stances on ideological issues as the media reports Bud’s casual remarks about several hot-button political issues like abortion, immigration and the environment. It’s funny but it’s also sad because it shows just how shallow politics can be. I highly doubt party big-wigs will ever make such dramatic policy changes but it emphasizes the fact that professional politicians will say and do just about anything to get elected.

I must also take the time to give the filmmakers credit for playing their story out largely right up the middle. Let’s not forget- this is Hollywood we’re talking about here. This film could have easily been critical of just one side of the election. Fortunately, swipes are taken at both Republicans and Democrats. I approve of this equal-opportunity skewering because neither party is faultless or blameless. Ever.

I do feel like the film has a slight bias to the left though. Much of the media scrutiny that Bud is faced with revolves around his fitness to be the one to make such a crucial decision. He’s not the brightest crayon in the box and fits the lower-class bumpkin mold that seems to be a stereotype of Republicans and conservatives of the South and Southwest. The media pundits take aim at the fact that Bud has never shown any enthusiasm towards political decisions. I couldn’t tell if this cynical look at the main character was meant to reinforce how elitist and out of touch the media is or if this was a way for the writers to get their own opinions out in a veiled way.

Swing Vote is critical of everyone to a point. The politicians are obvious targets and the media are rightfully portrayed as vicious and opinionated. But it’s hard to tell where the filmmakers draw the line for calling us, the electorate, out. Because his decision matters the most, Bud is expected by everyone to research the issues and stances of the candidates. It’s only natural for everyone to want the crucial voter to be informed but this also makes a likely majority of the public to be hypocrites.

How many people actually research their choices before voting? How many simply read the propaganda sent in the mail or airing on TV commercials? I certainly hope people seeing this film will come away with it determined to take the civic duty more seriously. The filmmakers probably have this same goal in mind. Perhaps they are not looking at Bud the same way the media does. Lord knows that millions of “Bud Johnson’s” vote every year. Maybe the message here really is apolitical.

Still, Swing Vote leaves a semi-bitter taste in your mouth because it does paint a slightly negative picture of the general public. As a part of the general public, I take some offense. Sure, we’ve got a lot of work to do before everyone in the country can make accurately informed decisions but we’re not all as bad as Bud Johnson. The truth is, though, that every single one of us could be found 'objectionable' by our peers if put in the same situation.

You’ll laugh, you’ll squirm, and you’ll never believe this premise to be possible. In the end though, Swing Vote is worth watching, especially as our election cycles grow ever more contentious.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Thankfully, after the angst-ridden Order of the Phoenix, the Harry Potter series gets a lot less hormonal and a little more interesting. Where Phoenix was almost pure stall tactic, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince features a significant amount of setup for the seventh and final installment of the wizarding saga. While it may run short on stand-alone plot, Prince has enough pop, sizzle and intrigue to make up for it.

While Harry Potter is in his sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Lord Voldemort is gaining power and influence throughout the magical world. Harry keeps himself busy with a lot of things: captaining the Grffyndor Quidditch team, crushing on his best friend’s sister, mastering Potions class thanks to the margin notes of a former student calling himself the ‘Half-Blood Prince,’ and not to mention secret meetings with Headmaster Dumbledore regarding Voldemort’s past. You know, just another year in the life of Harry Potter.

Meanwhile, saucy Slytherin student Draco Malfoy has a secret assignment from Lord Voldemort. Despite his best efforts, Harry figures out that he’s up to something. Naturally, everyone dismisses Harry’s suspicions of Malfoy because the two have been rivals for five years running now. Harry finds himself torn between exposing his fellow student and helping Dumbledore uncover a terrible secret about Lord Voldemort’s past that could be the key to his undoing.

While this sounds like an awful lot to inject into one film, it’s actually not. Half-Blood Prince is two and a half hours long. Learning about Voldemort’s past is stretched out throughout the film but the titular Half-Blood Prince component is largely glossed over and the big reveal is anti-climactic. The book featured more build-up for the Prince and the film fails to deliver that. Everything else is wedged somewhere in between these pieces.

My initial take on this film was that it was every bit as much a piece of filler as Order of the Phoenix. Additional viewings have brought me back from that assertion. While all the romance, class work and suspicion of Malfoy are mostly superfluous, Voldemort’s history is important to take in. It may seem like a big waste of time but it’s laying the groundwork for the next chapter. In terms of setting up back story and mythology, Prince is very much like Prisoner of Azkaban. Cogs are set in place and pieces are put in motion. It’s subtle at first but easy to recognize later on.

Half-Blood Prince is not, however, Prisoner of Azkaban’s equal. Where the third installment had a footloose quality to dispensing the necessary information, Prince holds your hand similar to Dumbledore assisting Harry through the apparation process. The information given to us is more important than before and its nature is much darker so the filmmakers take care to make sure we download and process it properly. I was a little dissatisfied with this approach but it was also one of the shortcomings of the book, so we’ll leave it there.

As important as uncovering Voldemort’s secret is, there is a surprising lack of urgency presented in the film. Perhaps it only comes off that way because I have read the book and know what’s coming, but I was hoping for Harry to be a little more frantic in his approach- you know, the way he persistently goes after Malfoy. That whole plot line was a little uninteresting because in the book it was unclear what Malfoy was up to. In the movie, there is no subtlety and Malfoy’s methods are revealed early on (though the ends he is working for remains a secret until the final reel).

I like the brooding tone of this film. It works because Harry is now 16 years old and author J.K. Rowling wrote Harry very age-appropriate for what he is tasked with. I wasn’t as crazy about the first two Potter books or films because I’m not big into childrens stories. I understand that the target audience was for kids but I can’t help but prefer a dash of darkness, having cut my popular fiction teeth on Stephen King. The filmmakers go a little overboard on the digital grading but they get the mood right nine times out of ten here.

I like Prince for bucking a few trends for Potter stories. First, Voldemort only appears in flashbacks. Just like Prisoner Azkaban, Harry isn’t predictably thrown into some kind of confrontation with the Dark Lord in the end only to miraculously escape. It’s nice to be outside of Voldemort for a change. Second, I actually enjoyed the further reduction of Hogwarts classroom instruction. All the spells were cute in the beginning but alliterative charms and cleverly coined incantations sound goofy coming out of the mouths of teenagers.

One thing I didn’t like about the film was the ending. A key scene from the book is cut out that provided both a moderate amount of resolution and a terrific launching point into the seventh and final chapter of the Harry Potter series. Instead, the filmmakers deliver an awkward fade-to-black moment that works on a ‘okay, things are really uncertain now’ level but there is no driving force leaving us to believe that we are about to embark on the final leg of the journey.

In the end, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is par for the course. You would think that it would be easier to judge this film, having digested five films before it. The story is sufficient enough to not be disappointing but the effects are a little off too much of the time. Perhaps I will be better able to put my finger on this film once I see how all the groundwork laid out here plays out in the two-part finale, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Until then, this one is right up the middle.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Wizard of Oz* (1939)

Having only started rating films eight years ago, I’ve seen far more movies than I have rated here on my site. There are plenty of big name films that I have seen but have not re-watched in order to rate over the last few years. I grew up watching and loving The Wizard of Oz. For a long time, I have known that this film deserves my highest rating. It was just a matter of sitting down to take it in again.

Dorothy Gale resides in Kansas where she feels ignored by her family and persecuted by an old woman who hates her dog, Toto. Dorothy sings of a world ‘over the rainbow,’ where everything is paradise and longs to see it. When a tornado ravages the countryside, Dorothy is whisked away to the Land of Oz. Intrigued as she is by her new surroundings, Dorothy seeks to go home to Kansas.

Through the guidance of Glinda, the Good Witch of the North and the Munchkins, Dorothy learns that she must travel to the Emerald City and seek the help of the powerful Wizard of Oz. Along the way to the Emerald City, Dorothy meets a variety of colorful and helpful characters while also drawing the ire of the Wicked Witch of the West. Many hazards lie in Dorothy’s path but she takes them on with the help of her new friends, all of whom discover the very qualities they believe themselves to lack.

Everything about The Wizard of Oz is fantastic. The sets, the costumes, the music, the themes- it’s all there. I’ve never read L. Frank Baum’s classic story that this film is based on but it is clearly the root of its success. It’s hard to believe that this film was a box-office flop on its initial release. Over the years (and thousands of TV airings) America fell in love with this captivating and charming fantasy tale.

Before watching this film to rate it recently, my last viewing of The Wizard of Oz involved playing it to Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon album. While not as mind-blowing as the process is hyped up to be, it only serves to reinforce how amazing this film is. Without the dialogue to listen to, you can focus on the little details like the intricacy of the costumes or the fact that someone had to be walking around on a catwalk high above the set to make the Cowardly Lion’s tail swish around. If you ever have the chance to synchronize The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the Moon, do it. It’s a fun little experiment.

Sure, you could probably find a few cynics who will find minor details to pick at with this film but the legacy of The Wizard of Oz is so enormous that any minor flaws are easy to forget. That’s just part of the magic of this film. I can’t think of any other movie capable of eliciting the ‘warm fuzzies’ quite like this one. Not everyone may like The Wizard of Oz but there is no denying that it is one of the all-time greats.

This was an easy review and a tough review to write. Everything about this film oozes greatness, making it impossible to put into words. If you’ve seen the film, you know exactly what I’m talking about. I’m thrilled to declare The Wizard of Oz, only the sixth film in eight years, worthy of my highest possible rating.

RATING: 4.75 out of 5