Operation Crossbow (1965)

When this WWII film starts off from the point of view of the Nazis you know you've ventured into a different kind of WWII film.  In a strange way you find yourself celebrating their success as they build a rocket piloted by a brave woman test pilot.  It sets up that the villain in this film is cunning and dangerous.  The Nazis are a worthy adversary and its going to take some uncompromising heroes to defeat them.   Enter our uncompromising heroes: George Peppard, Jr, Jeremy Kemp and Tom Courtenay who go behind enemy lines to infiltrate the German factories building rockets meant to destroy England.   Yet this is not a predictable film.  In fact it keeps you on your toes and because of that I found this film a breath of fresh air.  Grade: A-

Spoiler:  Of course when writing about this film I have to comment on Sophia Loren's part.  Having seen so many films of this era, I thought I knew how it would end up.  Surprise, she's murdered.  She's murdered by the good side.   That's right no love story between Sophia and George.   Sophia isn't going to show up at the end to embrace George and give him a kiss.  They killed her, plain and simple.  You gotta love that.

X-Men: First Class (2011)

When I heard they were making a prequel based on the origins of the X-Men I groaned.  Not because it's a bad idea but because I was still hurting from the way they ruined the X-Men franchise with X-Men United: Last Stand, a god awful film that was rushed into production for a fast buck.  Then names like Matthew Vaughn, James McAvoy, Rose Bryne and Kevin Bacon started surfacing as the talent hired for the film and my interests peaked.   What a delightful surprise, a X-Men film that's as good as the originals if not a little better.  So good in fact I hope they pretend the other X-Men films never existed and start over again with more sequels based on these X-Men incarnations.  Sure, bring back Hugh Jackman as Wolverine if you must, I don't care, but give me more from these Mutants with stories that   unfold with careful concern for character development, drama and action.  One of the best superhero films I've seen in a long time.  Grade: A.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) -Revisited

Finally!  The producers of JK Rowling's wizarding world got it right.  When I heard that Chris Columbus was leaving the franchise to spend time with his family I celebrated.   When I heard they hired Alfonso Cuarón to direct my second favorite book of the series my heart skipped a beat and I cried.  (Okay, that's not true but you get the idea, I was very happy and relieved.)  Many thought it strange that they would hire the guy who gave us the very mature film Y Tu Mamá También to enter Hogwarts but I remembered his work from A Little Princess and knew he was the excellent choice.  Upon watching this film again after all these years it's amazing to see the difference.  It's night and day better.  The opening is fast paced and witty.  You have a talking shrunken head dangling from the mirror of the night bus for god sakes, that's awesome.   The plot moves at a suspenseful pace, creating the kind of surprises the other films never accomplished.   The third film is tighter and you can see that they decided to focus on making it more cinematic than faithful.  When Harry Potter flies on Buckbeak I got goosebumps, a scene that's not in the book but belongs in the movie.  Some might say the acting is better in this one because Daniel, Rupert and Emma were growing up and becoming used to their roles but I suspect having a better director did a lot.  Of course, streamlining the story meant cutting some details which I have no problem with except in not mentioning the makers of the Marauder's Map (something that would not have added any time whatsoever) but if that's the only weakness you can't really complain.   To sum it up, this is the first Harry Potter film that is entertaining enough to rewatch.  I'd own this film; it's that good.   Why the producers didn't invite the man who saved their franchise back to direct another one baffles me.  Was it because he was Mexican?  He'd have been the perfect choice to direct the fifth film but alas they didn't and I can only daydream.  Grade: A.

Dumbledore and Richard Harris (Commentary)

Before I see the third film I'd like to mention my take on the casting of Richard Harris as Dumbledore. First let's get it out of the way: he was an exceptional actor and I wish he hadn't died. But in hindsight I feel he was miscast. I can hear a billion Harry Potter fans grab their chests in pain but he was not the best actor for the role. I never really thought he looked the part and I hated his breathy delivery. I've read he was ill during production which makes me realize the producers probably knew he wouldn't make it to the next film. Still you can't fire the guy but its very noticeable that he's struggling a bit. If he was filming the sixth film this would have been great but I realize that's morbid. In someways its good that he was in these first films before the story takes a darker turn. We can think of him as the Dumbledore the "kiddie" versions of Harry and friends meet. His soft voiced gentleness would never have worked for the later films. It's a shame in so many ways. One that he's the only actor replaced in the franchise and two that he's in the two bad ones. I hate it when a great actor's last work almost insults their legend. Here that is certainly the case.

Somewhere (2010) 6/26

Only Sofia Coppola could tell this story, or that's at least what I thought while watching this very quiet and steady film.   Funny and captivating, she writes and directs a story about a famous actor juggling with his career and with being a father to a teenage girl with an insider's eye.   There's a lot going on in this film; it's all subtext and that's why this film is so good, better than its paper thin plot might deserve.  Stephen Dorff is the perfect actor to play this part and he does a fine job keeping his performance subtle and relaxed.  You have to applaud him for his work because many lesser actors would have wanted to "act it up" and chewed up the scene but here he trusts his director and keeps it real.   Then there's Elle Fanning who is starting to emerge as good of an actress as her older sister, maybe better.  I don't expect most viewers to enjoy this film because nothing really happens and it's not laugh out loud funny.  But its art as only film can be and it expresses a mountain of complex human issues that opens up to an array of interpretations.  Yeah, that's right, it's an art film, a personal one from an director who continues to use film as her canvas to explore instead of using it purely to entertain.  Grade: A-.

Freedom by Jonathan Franzen (Novel)

Mr. Frazen's first literary success was the brilliant novel The Corrections and here he returns to form with a novel that's just as entertaining and unpredictable.   From page one he sets into motion a whirling story that flows as fast as thought about Walter and Patty Berglund and the people they love, their son and daughter, their college friend become rock legend as well as a young personal assistant.   The history of their lives is jammed packed with events both comical and sad.  I'd say if you've read The Corrections and enjoyed it, you'll enjoy this one as well.   It's very similar in structure and tone with tangled love stories and well-crafted characters.   There's a reason Oprah selected this novel despite what transpired the last time she selected a book by this author, it's a solid book and a fun read.  Grade: A-.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) - Revisited

When I first saw this film I remember thinking, at least it's better than the first one, and after seeing it again after all these years I was shocked to discover that it's not that much better actually.  The story is better, but only because it's based on a better novel, and it starts off with more action (the flying car scene is pretty cool even with Rupert Grint's overacting), but it's still as boring as hell.  How do you make such a great story as stale as this one?  I know, you hire Chris Columbus to come back and attempt to make a better film.  The problem lies in a "too-faithful" adapation that drags down the cinematic effect of the film and in spreading the plot so thin that you forget in essence this is a mystery first and a wizard film second.  I should state that I don't really abhor Chris Columbus.  I have enjoyed many of his films.  I would like to see him return to comedy and experiment more with his visual technique.   In the case of the Harry Potter films he was just the wrong guy for the job.  He learned some lessons from his first attempt but nothing worthy enough to be noted.  The special effects are top notch though and I loved the spiders scene.  I only wish the plot didn't drag so much.  I always wondered if it was because I had read the book but I've talked to multiple folks who have not read the books and agreed that this one is boring.   Grade: C+.

Spoiler:  I'll admit to being awaken a bit by the final battle with the basilisk but the diary ghost of he-who-shouldn't-be-named is as tame as a gnat.  I wish he had been more menacing but he's not and it takes away from the impact of such a great twist in the plot.   Not to mention the removal of Jenny from the entire film until the end . . . what a waste.

Goodbye, Mr. Chips (1939) 6//21

It's ironic that I start rewatching Harry Potter and then see this classic about a school master in the same kind of boarding school setting.  Of course there is no magic here at least real magic.  Here the magic is in the storytelling and in the impressive way this film shows the passage of time.  We watch the entire adult life of Mr. Charles Edward Chipping, from his first days as a teacher to his last.   Robert Donat's transformation is remarkable.  You can see why he won the Oscar that year.  Sam Wood directed a fine film and while at times it's a little sentimental I can understand how it's considered a classic and would recommend it to most people looking for a feel good story.  I was reminded of Mr. Holland's Opus while watching this and can see imagine this is the film they used as their template. So if you liked that modern rendition than you'll like this one too.  Grade: A-.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) - Revisited

In anticipation of the last Harry Potter film I've decided to go back and watch Harry and friends from the very beginning, to experience their growth from children who can barely act to adults who've figured it out.   So here we go, seven films just in time before the last one arrives in the next month.

The first film is certainly the worst.  I mean, if the last film is as bad as this one then I will be extremely disappointed.   Whoever at Warner Brothers suggested that Chris Columbus direct these movies must not have watched Stepmom or Bicentennial Man.   Just because he was successful in directing Macaulay Culkin in the Home Alone movies doesn't mean he's the guy to direct a kid school movie.  Thankfully the one aspect he (or the producers) got right was the look of the film.  The special effects are pretty great (even if the Quidditch match looks clunky) and the art direction is fantastic.  I remember when I first watched the film I was taken back on the casting.  I mean they really found the perfect actors.  I only wish another director was in charge.  When the great Alan Rickman seems stiff and uninteresting you know something is wrong with the guy in the director's chair. 

I was really not looking forward to watch this film and considering skipping it.  To begin with I never really liked the first book and considered the first film's page to page "faithful" adaptation a mistake. Man, was I right.  It's so boring.  It takes 45 minutes before we get to Hogwarts and by the time it's Christmas I wanted to fast forward (but I didn't).   After falling a sleep twice and wincing at the ridiculous ending I was asking myself why did I keep watching these movies when they came out and I remembered, because I read the books, especially the second book which opened my eyes to the magic of Harry Potter.   That said, I'm dreading the second Columbus directed mess even more.  But alas, I must follow through.  Grade: C-.

Green for Danger (1946)

A world war II medical mystery with a few surprises in its wake.  I must admit to having trouble getting into the film but when the Scotland Yard Insector Cockrill, and narrator, arrive the plot starts to thicken.  It's a fun movie to watch and it will keep you guessing.  If you enjoy British mysteries this is not to be missed.   What's especially fun is the ending which was perfect.  Grade: B+.

Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon (Trailer)

The rule that you should avoid judging something you haven't seen applies here.  I never intend to see the third Transformer movie and so you'll not find a review of it on this blog.  But I have just finished watching the trailer and I must write about it.  When did films stop being stories?  The premise is good, there's some bad Transfomer robots on the moon and they're coming to Earth to take over.  Not bad.  But that's the only positive thing I can think of.  What a mess?  Special effect overload in what looks more like a disaster film.  I expect much of this film's climax has robots battling robots (neither interesting enough to care about) and humans running around like ants trying to survive the destruction.  Excuse me as I yawn.  While the spectacle is impressive it lacks substance and plot.  It's more like watching some stranger play a video game, a loud video game with slow motion Michael-Bay style.   At the theater I was at, many young men in the audience expressed their enthusiasm for this juggernaut of a film.   A "hot" babe helped add to the hype as well.  I was horrified and I can't believe that Spielberg would put his name to this garbage.  But I haven't seen the film, so maybe it's entertaining.   Maybe I am taking things too seriously, may it's just a movie and deserves the hundreds of millions its going to make.  I'll not find out.  Why?  Because the trailer assaulted me with its atrocious simplicity.  Grade: C-.

Super 8 (2011)

J.J. Abrams writes and directs a love letter to Steven Spielberg.  It's Goonies meets E.T. and he succeeds at doing what he set out to do: make a fun summer movie.  Teen filmmakers, Joe and Charles, sneak away at night to film a scene from the Zombie movie they're making.  They have their new actress, Alice, who is their transportation too, and their dreams of Hollywood glory.   But during the shoot they witness an incident that leads them on a mystery and an adventure beyond their imaginations.  Lots of heart and laughs combine for a good time and I was jazzed.  Is it more than a nostalgic nod to movies of the '80s, meaning does it hold up on its own as a film?  I think it does but I would be interested to talk with someone who never watched the very movies that inspired J.J. Abrams.   I suspect most people will be as entertained as I was though and I recommend this highly.  Grade: A-

Spoiler: Okay, but before I move on to the next blog on my list I should add my frustration with some of the silliness of this movie.  Joe and company run through a neighborhood with bombs and guns blazing like it's WWII?   Who are the soldiers fighting?  There's no monster out there and even if it was out there how is blowing up a bunch of houses going to kill it.  If it weren't for a plot point about how the monster somehow can put people into trances and confuse them I would say this could have ruined it for me.  I didn't but come on, all that bedazzling destruction for a monster that lives underground?  At the same time this film isn't about logic, it's about childhood wonder and logic is shoved aside.  I'll swallow that pill I guess.

Anna Christie (1930)

What's this, another movie based on a play written by an amazing playwright?  It's almost like I planned it out that way.  Here the legendary Garbo plays Anna Christie from Eugene O'Neill's play.  Anna Christie and her father, a sea captain, reunite.  Then comes her father's arch nemesis to woe her.  But what secret is Anna Christie keeping from her dark past and will the two men dueling for her affections shun her when they learn it.   Old films like these are examples of how timeless film is.   Sure it feels rustic and slow but its as engaging as ever.  I invite anyone to view this film like a time traveler and remember how films used to tell stories first and spectacle later.   Grade: B+.

Major Barbara (1941)

An adaptation of George Bernard Shaw's play, starring the terrific duo (from Shaw's other works) Wendy Hiller and Rex Harrison, we are introduced to two complex and interesting personalities.  Barbara, the dedicated Major of the Salvation Army whose from a wealthy family and the man who falls for her, Adolphus Cusinsj, who must prove to her family that he's worthy not just of her hand but of being the heir to the family business.  There's great social commentary on both sides of the argument and at the same time an entertaining movie.   Its themes are still as relevant as ever.  Grade: A.

Spoiler:  My favorite scene is when Barbara witnesses her beloved Salvation Army sell itself for her father's donation.   To see her strength and high morals get crushed is a devastating transformation.  What a fantastic performance!

Junior Bonnar (1972)

Peckinpaw directs a modern day western about a bull rider starring the tender-eyed, soft-spoken, tough guy Steve McQueen.  Junior is a rodeo man, content to follow the rodeo circuit striving to ride a bull in eight seconds.  Distant from his family, he arrives to his home town rodeo and reunites with them, especially with his father played with friskiness by Robert Preston.   There are some really great moments in this movie along with some fun characters.  In many ways there's nothing like it, so it feels fresh even with its dated appearance.   If you like films where the town it's filmed becomes a character, where the citizens of said town are as interesting as the main characters, you'll probably love this movie.  I did.  Grade: B+

Edvard Munch (1979)

Very slow and with a stream of conscious editing style that's a bit too repetitive at times, this might be the most interesting film about an artist I've ever seen.   Directed by Peter Watkins, this biography of painter Edvard Much (celebrated Impressionist of the Scream) explores memory and the documentary-like voyeurism of film in a provocative, yet long-winded way.  Narrated by the director himself in a historian-like authority, it's as if you're watching a documentary during a time when such a film could never be made, edited as if memory, but it works somehow.  The actors even glance up and break the fourth wall, opening up their souls while at the same time condemning us for invading their space.  The average film-goer will not like this film.  It's three hour running time alone would bore most people to sleep.  Its unconventional way of telling a story about a character that mostly paints and mopes about the screen will annoy the casual viewer.  I'm on the fence though.  I was almost bored but always fascinated by it.  It's a true work of art that is easy to admire.  I only wish we lived in a world where such artistic risks were celebrated by the masses than just the intellectual folk out there.  Grade: B+