The Jazz Singer (1927)

Sometimes it’s difficult to unravel the legacy and history of a film to find its true merit. Some films have such a strongly-established myth of greatness that viewers feel disappointed if it fails to live up to all the hype surrounding it. Oscar winners fall into this trap all the time and any film listed among the ‘greatest’ examples of the medium do as well. So do films known for being the first of some kind. For the better part of a century, The Jazz Singer has been propped up by the fact that it was the first ‘talkie’ film. While this technical milestone is certainly worth remembering, it’s also a bit misleading.

Growing up in the Jewish ghettos of Manhattan, Jakie Rabinowitz (Al Jolson) is expected to become a synagogue cantor like his father. The boy has different plans, however, when he falls in love with the jazz music played in saloons and cafes. The boy displays a natural singing talent but his father and his Jewish community are shocked by his behavior. After being disciplined by his father for disobedience, Jakie runs away in pursuit of his dream of becoming a jazz singer.

Years later, Jakie (now going by Jack Robin) is a rising star, singing in cabarets and clubs on a nightly basis. Attracting the attention of a few big stars, Jakie earns a shot at the big time vaudeville circuit in his hometown of New York City. He writes home to his mother to share his happiness and success and stops by for a visit between rehearsals. His homecoming is welcomed by his mother, who is glad to see her son is happy, but his father wants nothing to do with him. When the elder Rabinowitz suffers ill health, Jakie’s mother and the Jewish community put him in a difficult position. They ask him to put his heritage ahead of his career by performing the Kol Nidre at synagogue on Yom Kippur- directly conflicting with opening night of his big shot.

Call me crazy but I was expecting more talking out of the first full-length ‘talkie’ film. The Jazz Singer is more like a silent film with a few musical numbers. Most of the ‘dialogue’ still occurs within title cards like a traditional silent film. Every now and then, in and around the songs, there is a bit of dialogue. Usually it is just Al Jolson saying a few words but there is a scene where he talks for a few minutes with his mother. The incorporation of synchronized musical numbers and the synchronized dialogue was groundbreaking because synchronized sound had only been used in short films and to provide soundtracks up until that point.

The story itself isn’t that exciting but it is worth noting that The Jazz Singer is one of the earliest films to depict a child spurning his family to pursue an artistic dream. This has since become a Hollywood cliché, especially the stern, elder father proclaiming “I have no son!” Perhaps this is why I was unable to become fully engrossed in the film- it’s been remade to death! But this, on top of the incorporation of sound in a full-length film definitely gives The Jazz Singer a rightful place in film history.

Firsts are always worth respecting because they are usually the innovators and oftentimes impact whatever comes after it. There is no doubt that this is true for The Jazz Singer. Not only would this bold production launch the sound era but it also gave audiences a new way to appreciate music. Now people wouldn’t have to go to the theater to see musicians and performances. In just a few years time, Hollywood would perfect the art of the early movie-musical and pave the way for popular musicians to break into new mediums. This whole concept and trend owes its existence to this film.

Just because something is the first, however, doesn’t make it one of the best. In fact, this film has plenty of shortcomings. Sound synchronization and Al Jolson’s talents are the main attraction here. The sets and action play out like a stage production for the most part. The camera typically stays static and director Alan Crosland never employs intentional framing to emphasize any moods or action. Granted, at this point the Unchained Camera technique was in its infancy but employing some of the new cinematography techniques could have helped the film be even more special.

The story itself is uncomfortable to a point. Yes, Jakie runs away and becomes a rising star, but the homecoming component just doesn’t fit. The man is guilt-tripped into putting his career in jeopardy. I can understand him wanting to make peace with his father but I felt that his former Jewish brethren were asking too much. Would they rather him be Jewish and miserable or successful? I’m not condoning the selling out of one’s beliefs for personal gain but Jakie never displayed any real passion for his heritage as a boy. I don’t see how his mother and others could use his religion to tug at his heartstrings so much.

Perhaps there is something of a generation gap with the understanding of Jakie’s decision. Young people today aren’t bound to their heritage or intent on pleasing their parents like they used to be. Maybe that’s how it worked in the 1920s but it just screams of unjustified guilt trip to me. There may be a happy ending for all parties but it seems like an unnecessary dilemma for our protagonist to endure.

Did The Jazz Singer change the film industry? Yes. Is it a good film? Yes, for the most part. Would anybody remember it had it not been the first ‘talkie?’ Probably not. There you have it- had the production been delayed or slated to be the second film of the sound era, the aura that hangs around this film would not exist. Perhaps it’s harsh and unfair to suggest that its status as the first ‘talkie’ is the only reason anybody remembers it, but I am fairly confident that that is the truth. An interesting watch for film buffs but probably not very exciting for everyone else.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)**

Despite a simple premise that has been replicated too many times to count, this is a beautiful film. There’s something inherently charming about silent films for me. Perhaps it’s because it seems quaint to look back at films from simpler times. Everyone has a soft spot for nostalgia and, as a film lover, silent films represent an innocent age for the industry, before films became obsessed with special effects, sex and violence. Then again, all one has to do is watch Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans to realize that the all-but-forgotten films of this era did tackle serious and potentially controversial issues.

A nameless couple lives in a small countryside village. The Man is having an affair with a Woman From The City. The Wife is aware of her husband’s indiscretion but says nothing, shedding tears when he isn’t looking. The Woman From The City grows tired of sharing this country boy and asks him to run away with her- kill his wife, sell his farm and move into the exciting City. The Man protests at first but gives in to her persuasiveness. The Man tells The Wife they are going for a trip to The City by rowboat. Thinking her husband is showing affection, she is overjoyed.

Far out into the water, The Man comes close to drowning his wife but cannot go through with it. He realizes deep down that he loves her. When they reach The City, The Wife attempts to run away, terrified of her husband’s plot to kill her. Their journey into The City brings about the rediscovery of their identities and the rediscovery of their love for each other. The two must battle the commotion of The City, nature and more temptation in order to make their love last.

There is a lot going on in this film. On the surface it may seem generic and clichéd but you have to look deeper to appreciate old films like Sunrise. Director F. W. Murnau’s European expressionist style drips from every frame. The use of shadows, camera angles and forced perspective creates a vivid fantasy-like world that our characters inhabit.

Unlike other silent films, Murnau lets the story tell itself, keeping the use of title cards to a bare minimum. This forces the actors to step up their game a notch. Their faces tell the tale fantastically. Janet Gaynor won Best Actress at the first Academy Awards for her role as The Wife and it’s clear why. Silent films are often panned by modern audiences because of the need to over-emote and exaggerate expressions but there is very little of that here. Gaynor’s expressions of sadness, heartbreak and joy feel genuine. George O’Brien should have been considered for Best Actor, because his performance is marvelous. His cold stare as he prepares to drown his wife pierces and terrifies in a way few films have managed to replicate since. Simply put, Murnau delivers silent film acting at its finest.

The dearth of title cards does another unique thing for the film. It allows and invites the audience to process, understand and analyze the film on their own terms. If you want to see just the surface, you will see a redemptive love story. If you want to go deeper, you will discover at least a half-dozen themes: virtue vs. lust, small town values vs. big city vices, isolation, man vs. self, man vs. temptation, and the list goes on. Is it any wonder that this film won the first and only Academy Award for Best Picture of Unique and Artistic Production? The award was merged the Best Picture- Production award the following year to create one definitive Best Picture award, but seeing how the awards were split makes perfect sense when comparing Sunrise to its inaugural Oscar counterpart Wings.

Murnau also delivers the goods with his work behind the camera. He and his cinematographers use some innovative techniques for 1927, including a tracking pan that follows the actors through a swampy set. Putting the camera in motion like this revolutionized filmmaking when Murnau first utilized it in Germany three years before coming to America to make this film. I haven’t seen very many films from the 1920s and earlier yet but even I was able to recognize how radical this technique was for the early days of film. Murnau also employs flawless superimpositions in scenes where The Man is being tempted by thoughts of The Woman From The City. Again, this is mind-blowing stuff for the 1920s.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans lays it all out and lets you pick up from it whatever you want. It’s a multidimensional film accessible to everyone. That alone is a triumph in storytelling and style. It’s a shame that this film had to come around at the dawn of the ‘talkies’ because Sunrise could have been the prototype for a new era of silent films. The advent of sound took Hollywood a step forward and two steps back artistically but it would rebound in due time. It’s a tragedy that this film is not talked about outside of film scholars and historical circles.

RATING: 4.5 out of 5

Inception (2010)

Ladies and gentlemen, class is in session! For the next two and a half hours, Christopher Nolan will be your teacher. Turn on your thinking caps and watch closely. For those of you in Hollywood, please take notes- creative and original thoughts are not dead in the industry after all! Inception is not just a triumph in modern filmmaking but also a masterpiece for storytelling and pushing the envelope.

Dominick Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are ‘extractors.’ They use special technology to enter the minds of others through dreams in order to steal secrets. This corporate espionage is profitable but dangerous work. After failing an assignment, one of their targets (Ken Watanabe) turns the tables on them with a job offer. Not only does he offer a hefty sum of money, he also tells Cobb he can use his connections to clear his name of all charges in relation to his wife’s death, allowing the extractor to finally return to the US and be with his children.

There’s just one catch- instead of stealing a secret, Cobb must plant an idea in the mind of corporate rival Robert Fisher, Jr. (Cillian Murphy). This is an infinitely more delicate and dangerous assignment but Cobb will do anything to return to his children. Assembling a specialized team (including the acting talents of Ellen Page, Tom Hardy and Dileep Rao), Cobb constructs an intricate plot three dream layers deep. Time is limited and the team is being hunted by agents of Fisher’s subconscious defenses, leaving no room for error whatsoever.

To call this film intricate is an understatement. Wrapping your mind around the rules of dream-sharing and extraction comes easy enough but director Christopher Nolan invites you to go even deeper. The multi-layer plan is harrowing and you have to stay sharp in order to keep track of which level you’re watching, as action on all dream levels is intercut. If you’re not prepared to think as much as you observe while taking this gem in, it’s very easy to get lost. Perhaps this is why I am especially fond of this film.

Trying to make a popular thinking man’s film is a tall task. Most of what Hollywood produces anymore is sophomoric at best in an attempt to hit as wide an audience as possible. It’s almost a case of the chicken and the egg. Which came first: Hollywood’s shameless cranking out of easy-to-digest films for broad audience appeal or a broad demand from audiences for easy-to-digest cinema? Either way, Hollywood has been coasting for far too long and the few visionaries willing to make films with deep thought attached are slowly waking people up to this truth.

Christopher Nolan has been nudging his viewers towards more than just simply watching movies. Most of his films to date involve some interesting philosophical or intellectual discussion within the film, causing you to think with the characters and for yourself. But does Nolan stop there? No. The questions he poses in his films and the issues and scenarios he raises will keep you thinking long after the movie is over. Here is a director capable of getting his audience to enter into discussion after the credits roll and then segue that discussion from the film to the concepts within the film. How many other directors are able to get you talking about heady issues like dreams, perspective and the subconscious?

The technology behind dream sharing is utter science-fiction but it’s presented in such a matter-of-fact way that it’s never an issue. It’s usually hard to sell a lone element of sci-fi in a film but it is handled brilliantly here. Unlike The Matrix, where a whole world of technology needed constructing and explanation to sell the idea, Inception slips this vital technology right under our noses. We just breathe it in and immediately believe it. Perhaps it’s because we know it’s all about dreams. Perhaps not. Whatever the reason, Nolan’s ability to sell us on his world is critical and the fact that virtually no one complained about it makes him a master magician.

This film rolled around for years in Nolan’s mind and his passion for the story really comes through. He wisely adds an element of subconscious mystery and emotional torment to Cobb that prevents the film from being little more than a heist film with a twist. Leonardo DiCaprio rises to the occasion and delivers one of the best performances of his career. The rest of the cast performs just as admirably and they really exceed expectations. DiCaprio is the biggest star in the film but he never overpowers the rest of the players. Ellen Page shows that she can play more than just quirky youthful roles and Joseph Gordon-Levitt proves that his best acting days are not in his past.

Another display of great filmmaking is how few special effects are used during the film. Despite the bizarre nature of dreams, Nolan keeps everything very realistic within the dream world. This keeps you immersed in the action and fully invested in the characters. They’re not jumping between buildings or traveling at superhuman speeds. Nolan’s rules for dream behavior require a realistic approach. Watch the fight scene in the rotating hallway knowing that there was no CGI involved and you will be awestruck.

Action, suspense, emotion, intelligence- it’s all here. I did initially dock the film a bit for what seemed like a few poor effects shots in the subconscious limbo world but a second viewing may see those points given back. Inception is a film worthy of a second viewing. Heck, it’s worth an unlimited number of viewings. This is an instant classic and already the leading candidate for best film of this new decade. Christopher Nolan singlehandedly gives moviegoers hope that Hollywood can still make movies that move us. Let’s just hope that Hollywood is sharing the same dream.

RATING: 4.25 out of 5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

I’m starting this review off with a disclaimer: this is going to be an incomplete review. The reason? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is an incomplete film. Unlike the first six Potter flicks, Hallows Part 1 is an unfinished story. After seeing Part 2 in July 2011, I will be able to give you a true assessment of the last and most ambitious installment to one of the biggest franchises of all time. Until then, please accept these reflections of the first half of the tale…

In the wizarding world, adulthood comes at age 17. Harry has been on the fast-track to maturity his whole life, but the cutesy fun and enchantment of Hogwarts is behind him now. Lord Voldemort’s strength and influence are growing beyond measure. After a daring escape from his aunt and uncle’s house, Harry teams up with his pals Ron and Hermione on a secret mission to locate and destroy Voldemort’s remaining horcruxes, artifacts that contain pieces of his soul.

The road is long, dangerous, and pushes the teenagers to their limits. Relationships must be mended, obstacles overcome, enemies defeated. In many ways, this is the Harry Potter film I have been waiting for. No more silly school scenes with ghosts romping through the hallways; no more lessons from alliteratively-named professors involving absurd-sounding spells; and no more help for Harry. The young wizard and his friends are out of their element and totally clueless about what to do. Harry has done a good job relying on instinct and improvising over the years but reality hits him now like a cold brick in the face.

Hallows Part 1 is interesting because there are stretches of time that are slow and sprawling while other parts all but suffer from information overload. It’s an intriguing balance because the film never feels as long as it really is. This is good because the audience doesn’t get restless, but bad because, when the credits roll, we’re still capable of taking in more. It doesn’t help that the cutoff point is also unsatisfying.

Having read the book, I had a few ideas of how the film could be split with momentum to bridge the gap. No matter where the filmmakers decided to make the cut, Part 1 was always destined to feel incomplete but I think they got it wrong here. Harry’s progress is limited at best and we fade to black with a tragedy for Potter & company but a triumph for Voldemort. It’s a pessimistic and deflating way to say ‘come back next summer for the conclusion!’ Maybe I was foolishly hoping for a Lord of the Rings kind of ending because those films found a more organic jumping point than strict adherence to the books would have dictated.

Staying true to the book is a noble task, even though a myriad of minor details and set pieces are either rushed over or changed, but it may also hurt Hallows in the long run. There is no self-contained story arc within the first half of this tale. Discovering the truth behind the Deathly Hallows is the closest thing we get but that only develops in the second half of this film. Despite a minor victory or two along the way, nothing is resolved and we leave Harry just as clueless as when the film began.

There is also a problem of perception for the audience to work past. Fans of the book series, especially those who read the book shortly before taking in the film, will be dissatisfied by some of the little changes. Comparing a movie to its source book is inevitable but it’s also wrong to do. Film and the written word are two entirely different beasts. Even I have to admit that, all along, I have been basing my ratings for the Harry Potter movies partly as adaptations of the books.

This is unacceptable as a movie lover because books are almost always better because they allow you to create your own artistic vision for the story. When watching (and in my case, reviewing) a movie, you should only be concerned with whether or not the film functions properly and tells a good story; don’t let the details they leave out from the book affect your opinion of the movie. How good was the story the movie told? That’s all that matters.

As far as movies go, Hallows Part 1 does pretty well. Most of the visual effects look sharp and the use of more handheld cameras really pays off in capturing the gritty reality of Harry’s new life in hiding. The locations selected for Harry’s cross-country trek are beautiful and haunting in their isolation. Finally, the young stars of the series carry themselves differently this time. They’re clearly up for the challenge of making a more adult Harry Potter film.

More adult it certainly is! With a little more salty language and a surprising scene involving some supernatural sensuality, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is not for anyone under the age of 15 (at least that’s my opinion). It’s a pretty bold departure from the tone and style of previous installments but it’s the right move. After a little bit of stalling and a fair amount of set up between Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, we finally come to the meat and potatoes. We have to wait until next July for the rest of the main course, but at least it is finally here.

I don’t know if I will re-watch every Harry Potter film before seeing Deathly Hallows Part 2, but at some point I will definitely need to re-evaluate them all. This way I can be sure that my ratings for each film reflect their accomplishments as films and not as adaptations. I’m reserving too much judgment on Hallows just yet because the story isn’t finished. I did dock it a quarter-point though for not explaining the existence of the mirror fragment Harry gazes at throughout the film. I know where it’s from (and so will anyone who has read the books) but this was the first appearance of it in any of the films.

I will probably grade Part 2 as a stand-alone component as well and then write up a true review for both halves combined. One consistent review for one consistent storytelling and filmmaking vision only seems right. Until then, you better believe I will be eagerly awaiting the final chapter.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Iron Man 2 (2010)

I labored over what rating to give this film, I really did. I didn’t buy into the hype of its solid predecessor, probably to the ire of a few comic geeks and fanboys, but I still acknowledged its merits. Now shed of the restrictions that come with an origin story first installment, the Iron Man franchise is given a chance to expand its territory and flex a little summer movie muscle. Fortunately, Iron Man 2 doesn’t fall flat like so many sequels before it have.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has an awful lot on his plate. Since revealing himself as Iron Man, he has spent six months using his unbeatable suit to bring us as close to world peace as possible. What thanks does he get for this? Firstly, the US government is jealous and trying to force Stark to hand over his suit designs for military use. Second, a Russian man named Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) creates his own arc reactor and deadly weapons to exact revenge on the Stark family name. Oh, and there’s also the nasty little fact that palladium core of Stark’s mini-arc reactor is poisoning him, with death just around the corner.

There are other bumps in the road as well. A shifty defense contractor is willing to hire Vanko as a consultant in developing new mechanized drones to one-up Iron Man. Stark also continues his rocky relationship with his personal assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Finally, he’s being hounded by a mysterious organization called S.H.I.E.L.D. as well. With all of this going on, what the heck is a superhero to do?

Here’s my beef with Iron Man 2- the main conflict between Stark and Vanko (and later a team of artillery-laden drones) is more or less a retread. The fact that Iron Man has brought about world peace illustrates the fact that the only thing that can possibly pose a threat to him is another super-suit. In Iron Man, second-in-command of Stark Industries Obadiah Stane built a similar arc-reactor-fueled suit in an attempt to take out Stark/Iron Man. This time around it’s Vanko with a suit-like weapon and an eventual full suit of his own.

The only difference here is motivation. Stane sought to eliminate Stark because his reckless behavior and crisis of conscience were bad for business. Vanko just wants revenge because his father was cast away with no credit for designing the original arc reactor with Tony Stark’s dad back in the day. Revenge is a perfectly acceptable motive (and honestly, it’s way cooler than greed) but you can’t deny that the means of exacting that revenge are a smidge redundant. It works for this sequel but Iron Man is going to need to come up against a different kind of villain in the future if the series is going to stay fresh.

Vanko isn’t the only storyline in the film, which is a helpful distraction. The pursuit of Stark by S.H.I.E.L.D. is interesting because it throws very different personalities together that create sparks and some witty banter. His struggle to find a new power source for the arc reactor in his chest is interesting and it fits the mold of superhero sequels in that it makes Stark reassess himself and his priorities. Fortunately this (and a little daddy issue resolution) is as serious as Iron Man 2 gets.

Batman Begins ushered in a new era of ‘serious’ comic book films. Iron Man is a breath of fresh air because, while still playing things rather serious and realistic, the filmmakers pump in a lot of sarcasm and fun into the mix. Instead of sulking over his new-found responsibilities, Tony Stark embraces his role as Iron Man. He plays it up for the camera and genuinely loves what he does. He’s a bit narcissistic but that’s part of the character’s allure.

Another reason Iron Man is so different is that he doesn’t have a secret identity. There’s no duality here like with Batman, Superman or Spider-Man. Tony Stark has one consistent personality in and out of the suit. He’s not trying to blend in. He’s already told the world he is Iron Man and is milking it for all it’s worth. None of the other major superheroes walk around exposed like this and it makes for a completely different story experience.

Chances are, Iron Man 2 is everything you were hoping for in a sequel- it’s bigger, louder and every bit as fun, if not more so. It’s not as deep as the first installment, but did it have to be? We know what Stark stands for- peace, justice and a party every other night. The filmmakers aren’t bogged down with crafting an origin for half of the film so they fill it with what the summer movie crowd likes- explosions, special effects and a little bit of silliness. I mean, seriously- Daft Punk’s “Robot Rock” playing during a fight scene? Chuckle City my friend.

In many ways, Iron Man is the ideal summertime popcorn superhero. Deep thinkers can hold off for the next Batman movie and fanboys can always latch onto the next B-list or lower superhero flick that gets made. Iron Man made it cool for superheroes to be a little corny again. Iron Man 2 feels like the kind of movie the filmmakers wanted to produce the first go around but couldn’t because they literally had to do an origin story. The plot is undoubtedly a tad repetitive but I think I’d rather watch this sequel again over the first one any day. Besides- I can’t think of another time when I have ever seen my mother-in-law bobbing her head to AC/DC songs. That alone has got to count for something.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Crass, crude, offensive, politically incorrect- pick any negative adjective you like and it could probably be applied to Ben Stiller’s action-comedy Tropic Thunder. Despite any complaints people may have about the content of this film, Stiller manages to balance the potentially offensive with the undeniably amusing.

A Vietnam War veteran’s book is being turned into a major Hollywood film. The dysfunctional cast includes Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller)- a former action star trying to resurrect his dying career; Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr.)- an Australian method actor looking to snag his sixth Oscar by undergoing a pigment alteration treatment in order to play a tragic black soldier; Alpa Chino (Brandon T. Jackson)- a popular rapper looking to segue into screen stardom; Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black)- a drug-abusing comedian looking to break his type casting; and Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel)- a young actor getting his first big film role. Personalities clash, the first-time director is in over his head, and the production is weeks behind schedule and in danger of going over budget.

Profane studio executive Les Grossman (Tom Cruise) orders the director to pull it together or his career will be finished before it even starts. Taking the grizzly Nam vet’s advice, the director rigs hidden cameras in a remote Southeast Asian jungle rigged with explosives for special effects. They then drop the actors in the middle of the jungle with a map that will lead them to a helicopter and a list of scenes to act out along the way. Armed with prop rifles that only shoot blanks, the squabbling actors find themselves in real war-like conditions when they discover they’ve been dropped into the middle of the Golden Triangle- a hotbed of heroin production and dangerous drug lords.

The film starts out with fake previews and commercials for the various cast members. Alpa Chino has an ad for his brand of energy drink, Speedman gets a preview for his latest installment to an action franchise, Portnoy has a preview for a flatulence-happy family akin to The Klumps, and Lazarus gets a plug for his latest Oscar-bait film about a pair of 18th Century gay monks. While seemingly random at first, they set the tone for the kinds of characters were going to be watching for the next 100 minutes. In hindsight, I must admit that the amount of absurdity packed into these shorts is more consistently funny than the rest of the film.

Don’t get me wrong- the rest of the film is funny but it’s not continuously funny. All of the actors play their parts well and it’s beyond fun watching the unabashed skewering of the major types of actor egos and attitudes. Stiller and company go for broke and hold absolutely nothing back in their relentless actor-bashing. This leads to several politically incorrect discussions that ruffled special interest feathers, while also making some very interesting observations about the industry.

Case in point- Lazarus admonishes Speedman for going “full retard” with a serious role he took to gain credibility as a dramatic actor. He dispenses a list of actors who went ‘part-retard’ and won awards but those who go ‘full retard’ never do. Offensive? Possibly, but the conversation is about belittling actors, not belittling those with disabilities. Plus, it’s an R-rated comedy for crying out loud!

The other controversial element is Robert Downey, Jr. playing in blackface. Technically though, Downey is playing an actor who is playing in blackface. That doesn’t make it any less shocking but it opens the door for some hilarious back and forth between Lazarus and Chino- the real black actor. You can’t help but admire Downey’s devotion to such an absurd concept. He shows no sign of hesitation and delivers every line with the utmost seriousness. The part of Lazarus could have sunk this film had it been put in hands less capable than Downey’s. He and Tom Cruise really steal the show.

Tropic Thunder is laced with references to war movies and action flicks but this isn’t Hot Shots redux. Instead of merely referencing scenes from popular genre films, Stiller takes time to build a satire of those moments. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a few throw-away jokes and deliberately-placed clichés though. Sadly, it’s this same lampooning of war movies where the film gets stale. Predictably, the actors have to band together and learn to function as a unit, just like real soldiers would. It’s a necessary component of the story because it helps the actors break down some of their barriers and pretensions but it also slows down the humor.

While Tropic Thunder is a pretty good film, it’s built the wrong way. As the film progresses, the characters get more serious and bond, which causes the film to decrease in humor. You want a film to be consistently funny the whole way through, if not get funnier towards the end. While it may achieve the right kind of action movie climax, it fails to reach a comedy climax. There are plenty of moments that will leave you in stitches but most of them come before the half-way point. It’s worth seeing, if you can stomach a mountain of obscenities and political incorrectness, but it doesn’t quite live up to the hype.

RATING: 3 out of 5

No Country for Old Men** (2007)

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert when it comes to film. I am passionate about it and I try to learn about the craft and its history when I can. Every now and then a movie comes along that makes me feel like an outsider. In some cases it boils down to too much hype or my subjective opinion. These cases are easy to identify because there are usually a number of professional critics and moviegoers who share my outlook. Then there are films like the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men. Praised for its artistry and themes by many, I stand confused and wonder if I missed something.

While hunting, Llewellyn Moss comes across the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong in the wastelands of West Texas. Moss finds all but one man dead and makes off with over $2 million in drug money left at the scene. Later that night, he suffers a guilty conscience and takes water back out for the lone survivor to ease his suffering. This decision proves life-altering, as men connected to the botched deal show up to reclaim their money at the same time. Moss escapes but leaves his truck behind. The drug lords use the plates to identify him and hire a vicious hitman to track him and the money down.

The hitman, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), is inventive, super-intelligent and relentless. Using a transponder hidden in the money, Chigurh tracks Moss down and they begin a deadly game of cat-and-mouse spanning both sides of the border. In the midst of all this, aging lawman Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) does what he can to protect Moss and his wife, finding himself always one step behind and picking up the pieces of a new breed of lawlessness he can’t comprehend.

I’ll put a little praise out there first- Javier Bardem is spectacular as Anton Chigurh. He earned his Oscar, no questions asked. The cold indifference toward his victims is chilling enough but Bardem really gets across how smart the man is too. Here is not just a desensitized killing machine; Chigurh ponders philosophy, determinism and chance with his victims. Nothing creeps us out like a bad guy smart enough to be a college professor and yet doesn’t bat an eye while killing someone.

Here’s the trouble- Chigurh is the kind of frightening villain that requires a strong protagonist. Lewellyn Moss is not that person. Even without passing moral judgment on his actions (leaving a man in the desert heat, taking money that isn’t his, and not reporting a crime scene), Moss does not come across as a likeable guy whatsoever. He’s stubborn, defiant and I’m pretty sure he was poaching instead of hunting. Nothing he does early on tells me I should care about this man.

But then Chigurh comes along and all but forces you to care about Moss. Not because he’s in the right or in any way an innocent victim, but because, subconsciously, we know that we shouldn’t pull for the psychotic killer chasing him. It makes for a frustrating experience. When Chigurh comes close to his prey, the intensity ratchets up and you can’t help but find yourself on the edge of your seat. You want to shout at Moss to stop being such an idiot, but you’re still on the edge of your seat.

Speaking of Chigurh catching up to Moss, this is just one example of how much chance and luck fills the story. Moss coming across the carnage of the drug deal is believable. Going back to give a dying man water hours later is a stretch at best (and also did nothing to redeem Moss’s character for me). Obviously, Moss needs to go back or there would be no story, because the drug lords wouldn’t have tracked his plates and Chigurh probably never would have found Moss with his transponder. Said transponder is the lone element of the film that reminds you that the story takes place in the 1980s. Chigurh had to be less than a quarter of a mile away from the cash in order to pick up a signal. He may have been able to track Moss down over time but, frankly, he got lucky to find him at all.

The only likeable major character in the film is the lawman. He spends most of the movie wondering what’s gone wrong with the world that criminals keep getting more violent and using more frightening means to do their dirty work. His musings on crime and violence are interesting but they’re also made a moot point later in the film when another former lawman tells him that all the old-timers say the same thing when a new generation finds ways to break the law. The question is still out there as to whether or not crime will ever stop getting uglier but the answer is that ‘uglier’ is all relative anyway.

While much of the film is an exciting game of cat-and-mouse, the third reel leaves something to be desired. There’s some finality and resolution but that last reel feels anticlimactic in a number of ways to me. I understand that not every story needs to have a clear-cut ending but the film seems to end too suddenly after a very slow stretch of dialogue. It’s one of those endings that make you go ‘huh?’

No Country for Old Men is a very good film about very sketchy people. Maybe Hollywood and the Academy enjoyed embracing their darker side with this film. That could explain why it won Best Picture. Or maybe it just wasn’t a strong year for Oscar nominees. Whatever the reason, I don’t quite see what everyone else saw that made this such an award-worthy film.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Invictus (2009)

Hollywood finally gets around to casting Morgan Freeman in the role few would doubt he was always meant to play- Nelson Mandela. This Clint Eastwood-directed biopic is not what you might expect. Rather than a straight biography of Mandela’s rise to power, the larger focus here is sport and diplomatic relations. It may seem like an odd choice for Eastwood to pursue but it all makes sense in the end.

South Africa, 1994: apartheid has fallen and Nelson Mandela has been elected president in the nation’s first truly democratic elections. Whites, accustomed to being the ruling class, find themselves overwhelmed by the country’s black majority. The newly empowered black populace wants to make up for years of oppression by punishing whites and whites are terrified that this is their unavoidable fate. As president, Mandela steps in to unite both sides, determined to serve all South Africans and not just those who put him in office.

Mandela looks to the near future for a chance to bring the country together. In 1995 South Africa will play host to the Rugby World Cup. Mandela meets with the South African team captain François Pienaar (Matt Damon) and asks him to help unite their people through sports. They take the skeptics and dissenters head on. The team, despite being despised by blacks as a symbol of apartheid, makes in-roads with many as they travel the country and teach young black children how to play rugby. The lone black player on the team serves as the children’s rallying point and hearts across the country begin to warm to the scrappy set of underdogs as the tournament grows closer.

Biopics like this are a slippery slope. History has documented Mandela’s successes and failures as President of South Africa, so I can’t judge this film based on Mandela’s push for diplomacy and unity. That’s historical fact. It’s easy to get caught up in the emotion of his plan but that’s not what makes this film good. It’s the presentation of this story that matters.

The story itself is true, so very little can be said about the writing. However, the pace moves pretty well, with only a few slow spots along the way. Thankfully, the fact that it’s based on true events eliminates the bitter taste of what would otherwise be called clichés. Sports dramas are particularly vulnerable to clichés- underdogs, come-from-behind wins, powerful and tide-turning speeches by a coach or player. All of these things have come to be predictable, sometimes to the point of rolling our eyes.

The difference is always whether the story is true or not. True underdog tales may feel predictable but why would anyone make a movie about a team that remains terrible or falls far short of its lofty goals? The way I see it, if it’s a true story, you can’t say that it’s full of clichés; only that it is filled with truth.

Matt Damon (bulked up even further from his Jason Bourne days) does well as the South African rugby captain. He seamlessly portrays Pienaar’s journey from wide-eyed and overwhelmed by Mandela’s vision to a confident leader pushing his team toward greatness. Morgan Freeman is still the big draw here though. He captures all of Mandela’s sly wit and craftiness that reminds me of Ben Kingsley’s more charismatic moments in Ghandi.

Eastwood proved he could capture sports in action with Million Dollar Baby’s boxing scenes and he doesn’t disappoint here. We don’t just watch the action from the sidelines. Clint finds ways to take us on the field, giving viewers an up-close look at a brutal sport that is still foreign to most Americans. The physicality and pacing of the games work to the film’s benefit, giving us a healthy dose of adrenaline in the midst of diplomatic scheming.

I was caught off guard with the final match of the World Cup though. Unless I missed something, it wasn’t made clear that it was the final match until the trophy presentation. A little more clarity could have helped hammer home the importance of the action. Other than this, there isn’t much to complain about with Invictus. Audience familiarity with underdog sports dramas may water down the impact of the rugby team’s accomplishments but only a cynic could brush off the diplomatic triumph.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

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