365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 91 - A Single Man

Today's movie was the 2009 film A Single Man directed by famed fashion designer Tom Ford and starring Colin Firth in the Oscar nominated role of George Falconer.

This is the first film by Ford and it is an almost perfect combination of style and substance. Ford delivers the style in superb art direction, costumes, sets and lighting, while Firth and Juliann Moore deliver the substance in two superbly acted roles, assisted by a screenplay also written by Ford. The film belongs to Firth. he is in every scene and his performance is magnificent.

The movie tells the story of a man living the last day of his life. He knows it is the last day, because at the end of the day, when everything is done and well ordered, he plans to kill himself.  George prevents a facade to the world that conceals everything, yet Firth acts in such away that the smallest facial gestures tell us everything. The movie follows George as he goes about his day with the understanding that he is doing everything for the final time. His last sunset, his last hours with his best friend. The director carefully adjusts the tone and color of the film to emphasize the way George is seeing so many things for the first, and last, time.

The film is based on the book by Christopher Isherwood and it held personal meaning for Ford. He financed the film himself to get it made and served as producer as well as director and writer. Coming from a background of photography and fashion design the film is slightly over stylized but it's a small quibble for such a magnificent film that engaged me, moved me and made me want to remember that beauty is found in the smallest details.

At The Movie House rating ***1/2 stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 90 - The Rock

I returned to Alcatraz by watching 1996's The Rock starring Sean Connery and Nicholas Cage.
Directed by Michael Bay (Crimson Tide, Bad Boys, Transformers) and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer (Top Gun, National Treasure, Pirates Of The Caribbean, The Sorcerer's Apprentice) the film is a non-stop thrill ride and the perfect summer blockbuster entertainment. Unlike a roller coaster that slows down near the end of the ride, this film ratchets up the tension and the action until the explosive finale. It is only after it's over that you start asking yourself questions that are better off not being asked.

The film is a superior action film because of the intelligent and witty screenplay, the outstanding performances of Connery, Cage and Ed Harris as a U.S. Marine General who has taken over Alcatraz, with hostages and is threatening San Francisco with VX rockets if the government does not pay up. Unlike more recent films the special effects look realistic and feel as if actual planes, cars, buildings and people are involved, rather than the CGI blue screen effects we get today. None of the actors perform amazing physical feats and Connery and Cage are both bloody and beaten by the time the film ends.

Because the film is so well made I forgive the few implausible aspects and sit back, hold on and enjoy.

At The Movie House rating ***1/2 stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 89 - Executive Suite

I was planning on returning to Clint Eastwood this evening when I switched on TCM (Turner Classic Movies) and came across Robert Osbourne introducing the film Executive Suite. It's a favorite film of mine and I decided to watch it all the way through.

Executive Suite is an all star film featuring William Holden, June Allyson, Barbara Stanwyck, Frederic March, Walter Pigeon, Nina Foch, Dean Jagger, Louis Calhern and Shelly Winters. It tells the story of a power struggle at the top of a large corporation. It was directed by Robert Wise (Sound Of Music, West  Side Story, The Day The Earth Stood Still) and is one of the few Hollywood films that has no musical score.

The film opens with the death of the CEO of a large furniture manufacturing corporation. The film then becomes a power struggle amongst members of the board to see who will replace him. Essentially the film argues what is the most important function of a corporation. Is it to make a profit and a gain for the shareholders, in a sense making every corporation into a financial institution, or is a corportaion something more? Is a corporation responsible to the town it operates in? To the workers who toil there. Is the corporation a place that turns out something good, or is what it turns out just a means to an end?

The film is a bit melodramatic, especially when exploring the personal lives of some of the characters, but it ends on a tense boardroom scene where William Holden delivers a rousing speech about corporate good that too many CEO's have failed to listen too.

The film was made and takes place in 1953 and when you listen to the executives talk you can hear the seeds of many of the changes that took place in corporate America in the last half of the 20th century.

At the Movie House rating *** stars.

Star ratings ****

Recently a reader commented about my rating for The Eiger Sanction.

"You might be getting tired of the movies because this is the first 2 star movie you have done and it really is not all that bad...It sure beats Tarantula...Which brings up a great question..Are all rankings the same?...In other words, can a movie earn a higher ranking than another movie even though it was not as good. I think the instance we have here answers the question in the affirmative...Tarantula is not as good as Eiger sanction, but in its genre it represents well...I think therefore, a movie earns its own rating and is independent from other films."


For me every movie stands on it's own and is rated according to how I felt about the film. Many factors fall into rating a film. The first thing I want to know is was it entertaining? Did it hold my interest and have me involved. I also factor in the quality of the film making. And I might also measure it against other films of it's type, or genre.


Tarantula received **1/2 stars because it is a fun entertaining film. I had a hoot watching it, even though I frequently made fun of the out-dated acting style and special effects. But for a film made in 1955 it holds up and is a good example of the giant monster movie from the 50's, the best of them being "Them!"
The special effects are good enough to make the movie watchable and there are a few moments of suspense. The film is a great example of a good Hollywood "B" picture.


I rated The Eiger Sanction ** stars because it is a thriller that does not thrill. It is too long. The plot makes no sense and it is full of cheap cliches instead of intelligent writing. The mountain climbing is authentic, but the audience member hardly knows what's going on. The film uses tons of exposition dialogue so the audience can have a clue as to what the plot is all about. The surprise "twist" ending does not work at all. It's a bloated big budget picture. Director Eastwood spent so much time learning how to mountain climb for the film that he forgot to focus on the suspense elements of the story. It was hard to sit through and I wanted to reach for the fast forward button many times. This film may have been fun when I was 15, but it sucks now. The novel the film was based on was a spoof of all the James Bond novels and spy fiction of the 60's and 70's. None of that was captured in the film, instead they make the material deadly seriously and make a deadly dull film. Yes the movie is "that bad". I suggest you watch Tarantula and The Eiger Sanction and see which one you had more fun watching.


The Eiger Sanction is not the first film I gave a low star rating too. Prince Of Persia: Sands Of Time, 1941, Sixteen Candles, Spider-Man 3, Twilight Zone: The Movie, The Tooth Fairy and Hook all received two stars or less.

Rating a film is personal and is only meant to indicate how I felt about a particular movie. Other people may feel differently. Ratings are also fluid and subject to change. A movie I would have rated highly when I was younger might not fair so well when viewed again. Also a movie could age well over time and may become more appreciated after repeated viewings. If a movie is rated *** stars or higher I would generally recommend the film for others to see. Below *** stars and matters of personal taste and preference come into play.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 88 - Inception

I went to see Inception today and all I can say is that the film deserves all the buzz and hype it's been getting. It is a fresh new film, structured with layers upon layers of reality, that is so well done that the viewer always understands what is going on, even if they don't quite know what is dream and what is real.

The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio as an "extractor", a man who gets paid to enter the dreams of others and remove ideas that cannot be gotten otherwise. Ken Watanabe is a man that hires him to do something new. Instead of taking an idea, he wants DiCaprio to plant an idea that the owner would think is their own original thought, an "Inception". Along with Watanabe and DiCaprio the film stars Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger and Lucas Haas.

I went in half expecting to see a "Matrix" like movie, but aside from dealing with multiple realities the film is not bogged down in the psycho-babble of The Matrix. Instead it is a pretty straight forward heist movie, a team is assembled and they have a plan and once the heist starts all hell breaks loose. if I had to find fault it's in the simplicity of the action sequences with guns and car cashes. Since all the action takes place inside the dream of one man I think so much more could have been done. The dream world seems to structured and linear. I know when I dream they never make sense.

The film is written and directed by Christopher Nolan and he does an outstanding job of taking the audience along and helping them understand where they are at any given moment. The film sustains an almost constant level of suspense. The last third of the film you literally sit on the edge of your seat as the action in multiple levels of dreaming take place.

It's an original film with stunning visual effects that serve the story. Go see Inception.

At The Movie House rating ***1/2 stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 87 - Escape From Alcatraz

I planned on watching Escape From Alcatraz last night, but I realized I did not own it in my video collection so I settled on The Eiger Sanction. In the meantime I went to Amazon.com and looked up Escape From Alcatraz and for $2.99 I was able to download it to my Tivo for a thirty day rental. No visit to the video store, nothing to return and no late fees. Now you know why Blockbuster is closing stores.

I have never seen Escape From Alcatraz but I knew it was a well regarded film. The film is a fictional account of the only "successful" escape from Alcatraz prison. I say successful because three inmates did make it off the island, but their ultimate fate, did they drown or get away, has remained unknown.

The film stars Clint Eastwood as Frank Morris, the leader of the prison break. The film starts with his incarceration in Alcatraz and follows his life in prison and the planning that leads up to the escape.
The film is directed by Don Siegel who also directed Eastwood in Dirty Harry, Coogan's Bluff and The Beguiled, among others.

Since the audience already knows that the prisoners escape, the success of the film depends on how well the details of the plot unfold. Siegel excels at sustaining a level of tension throughout the film that keeps the viewer thoroughly engaged. Eastwood turns in another excellent performance and the art design and set decoration team deserve a lot for credit. It really feels like the film was made in Alcatraz and depicts day to day prison life.

At The Movie House rating ***1/2 stars.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 86 - The Eiger Sanction

Today's movie was the Clint Eastwood suspense thriller The Eiger Sanction from 1975. Eastwood directed and starred in the movie and most importantly, did all his own stunts.

The film is a convoluted spy story that worked much better in the book of the same name. Eastwood Johnathan Hemlock former mountain climber, art professor and retired assassin. He is called back in by his old agency for one last kill or "sanction". His job is to kill two men who murdered an agent in Zurich and stole microfilm and gave it to the "other side". The first sanction is a easy. One of the men is quickly located in Zurich and killed by Eastwood. The second one is more challenging. The actual identity of the killer is not known. All that is known is that he is a member of a mountain climbing team planning to climb the Eiger in Switzerland. Eastwood joins the team and must determine which man he is to kill during the climb.

The first sanction happens very quickly then at least an hour of the film is devoted to Hemlock getting back in shape to climb the Eiger and also dealing with some unpleasant business with a former military comrade.
The getting back in shape scene features multiple montages that get repetitive. It also features Eastwood doing his own climbing of pillar in Monument Valley.

Then the action moves to Switzerland where the rest of the film is focused on the actual mountain climbing.

The film also stares George Kennedy, Thayer David, Jack Cassidy and Vonetta Mcgee as Jemima Brown.
The film lacks suspense and real tension. Mountain climbing is not the most cinematic of sports and the viewer really does not understand the complicated routines of the climber. The only saving grace in these scenes was Eastwood actually doing his own climbing work.

Not Eastwood's best directing efforts and the book does a much better job of making the convoluted plot seem plausible.

At the Movie House rating ** stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 85 - Tarantula

Today was going to be a busy day with BBQ's and stuff and I didn't want to be watching my movie of the day late at night so i decided on a Saturday morning feature. I wanted to pick a movie that might have played on one of the Saturday morning shows when I was a kid, so I chose Tarantula, because it also fits in with my current Clint Eastwood themed movie program. Eastwood, at the age of 25, makes his first movie appearance as a fighter pilot.

The film is one of the many giant monster pictures of the 1950's including Them! (ants), Black Scorpion (scorpion), Attack Of The Crab Monsters (crabs), It came From Beneath The Sea (octopus) and The Beginning Of The End (grasshoppers). This time the monster was created by scientific experiments rather than a nuclear explosion. A scientist is attempting to create a nutrient that can help feed the world's population. The nutrient he makes using and atomic isotope causes the animals to grow abnormally large. When there is an explosion in the lab the tarantula receives an accidental dose of the isotope as it escapes from it's cage. Loose in the desert it continues to grow bigger and bigger feeding on horses, cattle and men.

The film is a hoot and utilizes some sophisticated make-up and special effects techniques for it's time. What I really enjoyed was researching the poster for this film. they show the spider carrying a woman off in it's jaws or destroying a large city. I also like the pose of John Agar with the machine gun right out of the film Sands Of Iwo Jima.

At the Movie House rating **1/2 stars ( 1/2 star extra for nostalgia)

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 84 - Sudden Impact

I watched the 4th Dirty Harry Film, Sudden Impact, released in 1983, seven years after the last film. The film is the only Dirty Harry film to be directed by Eastwood and stars is partner at the time, Sandra Locke.

This film followed the formula of the second film, with Harry investigating a series of murders, where he is personally acquainted with the murderer. The majority of the movie does not take place in San Francisco, instead it is in a fictional coastal town called Santa Paulo.

In a series of scenes, a trial where the defendant goes free because of lack of evidence, a robbery at a restaurant where harry utters the famous line "Go ahead, make my day!" and at a visit to a mobster's daughters wedding the film quickly establishes the character of Dirty harry for any audience members who have not seen the earlier films.

We also see Sandra Locke as a murderer commit her first crime. later through stylish flash-backs we learn the reason she is tracking down certain individuals and killing them. When the first body is discovered in San Francisco, Harry is sent to Santa Paulo to learn what he can about the victim. When more bodies turn up in Santa Paulo, Harry is on the case and butting heads with the local police chief. He also meets and dates a local artist who the audience knows is the killer he is looking for.

The film once again deals with the themes of justice and victims rights. But the well written screenplay makes the topics flow naturally through the dialogue. The film has a sense of style that the other films didn't and that might be because of Eastwood's directing. The film also has a new updated score by Lalo Schiffrin that is all synthesizer and percussion and very 80's. Uniquely this is the only Dirty harry film where harry allows the suspect to go free.

At the Movie House rating ***1/2

note - I probably will not view the fifth and final film in the series. i saw it once and it is very substandard fair.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 83 - The Enforcer

I continued the Dirty Harry festival with the third film in the series "The Enforcer". This was meant to be the final entry in the series, but based on popular demand Warner Bros. made a fourth film, Sudden Impact, eight years later. Harry Guardino is back as Lt. Bressler, with no explanation to where he was during the second film. And Harry's partner at the beginning of the movie is Frank DeGorgio (John Mitchum) who was also in the first film. The audience is reminded of this by a line referencing linguine.

The first film featured a serial killer loosely based on the Zodiac killer who was active in San Francisco during that period. This film copies the militant activist groups of the day with the People's Republic Strike Force, loosely based on the Symbionese Liberation Army. The militant group steals weapons and then threatens to plant bombs around the city. Their plans escalate to kidnapping the mayor and holding him for ransom.

By this time Eastwood is Dirt Harry and it's hard to separate the two. Harry has no tolerance for idiots and speaks his mind enough that he gets suspended. To add a dramatic twist harry is assigned a new partner, a woman, played by Tyne Daly. The film also deals with women's liberation and affirmative action.

Harry barely tolerates his new partner, not because she's a woman, but because she is inexperienced and did not get the job on merit. But he slowly gains respect for her as she develops the street smarts and saves his life twice. The dynamic between Daly and Eastwood is what makes this film work so well.

The first film had the dark, gritty feel of urban movies of the 1970's and featured a vibrant score by Lalo Schiffrin. This film is looks very similar to TV movies and one hour television crimes dramas of the day. Aside from the wide screen picture it is not very interesting visually. The film features a lively jazz score by Jerry Fielding that is similar to the work of Bill Conti and does not really work with the film. The movie does make great use of San Francisco locations including Alcatraz, which was the sight of militant protests back in the 70's.

Except for Harry using the word "marvelous" the film has no catch phrase. Dirt harry offered up "Do You Feel Lucky" and Magnum Force had "a man has got to know his limitations" but harry would not have another signature phrase until the next film, Sudden Impact, when he utters his most famous line "Go ahead, make my day".

At the Movie House rating *** stars.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 82 - Magnum Force

Today I watched the second Dirty Harry film, Magnum Force. This film expands on the Harry Callahan character by showing us his home life and giving him a little romance on the side. harry is still a cop who works by his own set of rules, but this time he stays inside the law, though he never hesitates to use his gun to dispatch a criminal.

In Magnum Force someone is killing the top level criminals in San Francisco. They are systematically being assassinated one by one. When Harry is put on the case he begins to suspect it might be a cop who has taken on the job of prosecutor, judge and executioner. As he investigates he also deals with a plane hijacking at SFO and an armed robbery at the local Cost Plus market.

The films a good police procedural and makes great use of San Francisco locations but it lacks the freshness of the first film. The film never gives an explanation why harry is still working even though he threw his badge away in the first film.

The film made $44 million at the box office and was financially more successful than Dirty Harry. By making the sequel Eastwood ensure that Dirty Harry would become the character he would be most identified with for the rest of his career.

At The Movie House rating *** stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 81 - From Paris With Love

Today I watched the John Travolta action picture From Paris With Love. The film, released in February of this year, also starred Johnathan Rhys Meyers as James Reese, the personal aide to the U.S. Ambassador to France. He is also a low level CIA operative. One evening he gets an assignment to meet a new partner and help him clear French customs. That new partner is John Travolta as Charlie Wax.

Wax is in Paris to take down a drug dealing operation that is a front for terrorists. The movie kicks into over drive when Wax meets Reese and a trip to a Chinese restaurant turns into a shoot out that leads to many more shoot outs. Half way through the movie it changes tone with a plot twist that I didn't see coming and ramps up the suspense a little more.

Travolta and Meyers do a good job and work well together. Travolta has a lot of fun with the role. He seems to really enjoy this type of character (Face/Off, Taking Of Pelham 123) and it's worth seeing the movie just to watch him.

My big problem with the film is a very common one these days. All the action is done in the computer and the editing room. Nothing really feels authentic. And if it's not authentic there is no real danger or suspense, just noise.

The film is essentially a "B" picture action film with a big budget. Netflix it or catch it on cable if you like chase films with lots of guns or you want to see Travolta in an over the top performance.

At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 80 - Dirty Harry

After watching Eastwood as "the man with no name" I decided to take a look at his most iconic role an Dirty Harry. It has been at least 20 years since I watched this film, and the movie itself is almost 40 years old. I was curious if it still held up.

The movie has lost none of it's luster. It still has that dark, gritty urban feel that was so popular in the 1970's. Eastwood is excellent as "Dirty" Harry Callahan, the police officer who is willing to go it alone and bend a few rules to save a life. The scene where Eastwood says "do you feel lucky, punk?", to the wounded bank robber reaching for his gun, still stands out as a great cinema moment.

The film is very dark, with lots of the action taking place in shadows. It's bolstered by a great score from Lalo Schiffrin and wonderful on location shooting in and around San Francisco. In retrospect the parts of the Mayor, Chief Of Police and Homicide Chief (Harry Guardino) are not as well written as they could be, but it's a small issue.

The "spaghetti westerns" made Eastwood a movie star, but the character of Dirty Harry made him a superstar.

At The Movie House rating **** stars.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 79 - For A Few Dollars More

I resumed my review of "spaghetti westerns" by watching a For A few Dollars More, the sequel to A Fistful Of Dollars and the second film in the "Dollars" trilogy.

Directed by Sergio Leone and once again starring Clint Eastwood as the man with no name. This time the Eastwood character is making a living as "Bounty Killer" bringing outlaws to justice dead or alive. He has competition from another bounty killer, Colonel Mortimer (The Man In Black) played by Lee Van Cleef. Both Eastwood and Van Cleef are on the trail of a desperado named El Indio, who is planning to rob the bank at El Paso.

After the success in Italy of Fistful Of Dollars Leone was able to get backing for the new movie right away. He once again signed on Eastwood to star as well as Gian maria Volte as El Indio. Volte also starred as the villain Ramone Rojos in Fistful Of Dollars. Not only did the sequel go into production right away, but it had a bigger budget and that is it's downfall.

By necessity the first film had a tight script and a short running time and mostly relied on Eastwood to carry the film. With the bigger budget For A few Dollars more adds a second protagonist in Van Cleef, so we don't get as much Eastwood. There are flashback scenes that attempt to give psychological motivations to the outlaw and there are other protracted scenes, like one of Eastwood talking to an old-timer in a railroad shack, that just don't belong. The film is overly long at 2 hours and 11 minutes. Leone does capture an authentic, grimy, dusty feel of the west and the musical score by Ennio Morricone once again stands out.

At The Movie House rating *** stars

Note - many people (including myself) are distracted by the poor dubbing of the English language to the Italian actors. I have found by watching the DVD with the subtitles on I tend to read the words instead of watching the actors mouths and it is much less annoying.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 78 - The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Went to the movies today to see The Sorcerer's Apprentice. This Disney film is taken from the Mickey Mouse scene in the film Fantasia, but it is essentially Harry Potter without the magic, the magic of imagination.

Nicholas Cage is Balthazar a 1300 year old sorcerer who has been keeping the world safe from evil while searching for the heir to the power of Merlin. One day, in NYC, a 10 year old boy wanders into his shop and we learn that this boy is the "prime Merlinian". Before you can say abracadabra, David has let loose Horvath (Alfred Molina) one of the world's most evil wizards and the chase is on.

Fast forward 10 years and David (Jay Baruchel) is grown up and attending NYU. he is a nerdy scientist who has a crush on a college DJ who he knew in fourth grade. Suddenly Balthazar and Horvath  are back in is life and the battle for world domination begins.

The harry Potter films use the same set up, one boy who has the power to defeat all evil, but the films are made with imagination and heart. One feels that Harry Potter is truly awed by the magical world he in habits, yet the special effects never over shadow the human elements of the films.

In Apprentice the special effects are the film. Cage does his crazy man routine, Molina does his sinister best and Baruchel's job is to react to everything. It's only in the last quarter of the film where he gets to do more than complain about everything going on around him.

I loved the idea of taking the scene from Fantasia, where Mickey Mouse loses control of all the buckets and mops and developing that character of an apprentice into something more. I hoped Disney would do a good job with it. The film is well made and the money spent on the CGI was worth it, but the film has no real heart and lacks that extra magical touch that would have made it special.

At The Movie House rating ** 1/2 stars.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 77- Mr. Holland's Opus

I put the spaghetti westerns on pause to watch Mr. Holland's Opus. I saw this film in 1995 in the Long beach theatre and when I came across it on cable and watched few minutes of it I realized I hardly remembered any of it. So I popped in the DVD and watched it from the beginning.

The movie tells the story of Mr. Holland, a man who becomes a music teacher to pay the bills while he works on his composing, his "real job". We watch as he begins to understand that teaching music is his true destiny, that he does for the next 30 years.

The film is enjoyable and it seems to be the perfect role for Richard Dreyfuss, but in the end it plays like a Hallmark movie of the week and I guess that is why it is so unmemorable. The film uses the turbulent 60's and 70's as a backdrop and we know this by the use of news footage between dramatic moments. But none of the issues of the outside world ever enter into the school. Aside from asking one student if he is stoned, the issues of drugs and violence never come up. It's a high school out of reality where there are no bad students.

The film is a tear-jerker and a well made one. It is a tribute to all the hard working teachers who have had generations of kids pass through their classrooms, but everything it has to offer is on the surface. There are no deeper notes to listen too.

At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 76- A Fistful Of Dollars

I am beginning a look at "spaghetti" westerns by watching one of the most famous, 1964's A Fistful Of Dollars. Directed by Sergio Leone and introducing Clint Eastwood to stardom, this film is loosely based on Kurosawa's Yojimbo and features a different type of samurai. The American anti-hero, the man with no name.

In creating this film Leone reinvented the western film. Hollywood was already going through a revisionist look at westerns, but this new type of film with a minimal script and extreme close-ups reintroduced a dying film genre to American and world audiences.

The film tells the story of a man who rides into a Mexican village and discovers there are to families fighting for control of the towns criminal activities, smuggling guns and booze. The man sees an opportunity to make some money by placing himself in the middle of the conflict, profiting from both without taking sides. Until he sees an injustice being done and takes steps to correct it, and that puts him in direct confrontation with the more powerful family.

The script is minimalistic and Eastwood himself cut some of his characters dialogue. We know little about the character. He is American, from Illinois and that is about it. The town coffin maker calls him Joe, but we never learn his name. Eastwood was a minor movie star and a popular TV star when he made the film. It's iconic imagery of the poncho, hat, cigarillo and the squinting glare have all become part of cinema history and made Eastwood an international star almost overnight.

But the film really works because of Leone's operatic directing style. The extreme close-ups and the long distance shots, the use of music to punctuate the scene, the detail to settings on a limited budget, it all worked to create a type of western that had never been seen before and would frequently be imitated.

At the Movie House rating **** stars.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 75- The Last Samurai

I watched The Last Samurai today and once again found myself watching a film that is essentially about two people having conversations with each.

Released in 2003 the film stars Tom Cruise as former U.S. Army Captain Nathan Algren, who is hired on to train a new Japanese army to suppress a Samurai rebellion. Cruise ends up being captured by the Samurai warlord Katsumoto, played by Ken Wantanabe, and as the to men get to know each other a bond and a level of respect begins to form.

Cruise learns the way of the Samurai and joins Wantanabe in his rebellion against the westernization of his country. The film is based on the true story of a French Army Captain who fought alongside the Samurai during the Satsuma Rebellion in 1876.

The film immediately brings to mind Shogun, Lawrence Of Arabia and Dancing With Wolves and those comparisons are easily made. The white outsider is introduced to the culture and customs of another race,  learns to respect them, and then lead them into battle. Except in Samurai the Cruise does not lead them, rather he is recognized as being one of them, something Katsumoto saw when he was captured. Algren is a warrior who has lost his honor and the ways of the Samurai help him find himself again. It's during the period when Algren lives amongst the Samurai that the film really works. The two men have good conversations which helps us understand them. This part of the film had a true sense of life in a small Japanese village.

Director Ed Zwick (Glory) has crafted an excellent film yet somehow I felt let down at the end. The final battle felt like it was lifted directly from Braveheart, with all the blood and slow motion cinematography. Unlike yesterdays' Valkyrie, Tom Cruises star power works for him here. We recognize him as something truly American and we except has he learns the ways of the Samurai warrior.

Who was the Last Samurai? Was it Katsumoto who died on the battlefield? Or was it Algren, the man who took the ways of the Samurai to be his own. And if it was Algren, if he truly was a Samurai, why was he alive at the end of the battle? Because American audiences need a happy ending?

At the Movie House rating *** 1/2 stars.

This concludes my mini Tom Cruise film festival. Since I started in May I have watched Minority Report, war Of The Worlds, Knight And Day, Collateral, Valkyrie and The Last Samurai. In each film he gave an outstanding performance. he inhabits the lives of the people he creates on the screen and he does it with a passion for his work that makes his performances magnetic. All the cynics can trash his personal life, but he is a consummate actor and one of the best "movie stars" of the past 40 years.

At the request of a loyal reader tomorrow I will be watching Sergio Leone's Once Upon A Time In The West.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 74 - Valkryie

I stayed with Tom Cruise and watched the 2008 WWII film Valkyrie. Directed by Bryan Singer and starring Cruise and and a stellar cast of supporting players, the film is very good but I can't help wondering what it could have been.

Before Bryan Singer signed on as a director, the film was smaller in scale and Thomas Kretschmann was chosen for the Cruise role of Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg. Once Singer took the reins, then a big named star was added, hence Cruise joined the production. I think on a smaller budget a much more dramatic, character driven film would have been made. Instead we ended up with a very slick Hollywood suspense thriller.

While Cruise performs the part well I can't help feel he was miscast. He is too "American". Stauffenberg was German nobility, a literate, well educated man, an aristocrat. None of that comes through with Cruises portrayal. The film needed someone that looks noble, Ralph Fiennes perhaps. If the film had been made 35 years ago you could cast Peter O'Toole. Now I understand why they always cast British actors to play Germans in old war movies. But Cruise does bring that same intensity he brings to every film. He never gives a false not in his performance and he carries the film.

The film revolves around a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Since everyone knows Hitler wasn't assassinated (was there anyone watching this movie who thought the plot would work?) the major challenge of the film is to keep the viewer engaged in how the plot was formulated and the aftermath. At that the film maker succeeds. Singer also does a good job of helping the audience understand who is who in the large cast of characters, and like Hunt For Red October, it handles the transition from German language to English very well. Notable in the cast is Billy Night, Kenneth Brannagh, Tom Wilkinson and Thomas Kretschmann.

For me it was the script that fell short. The film was a fast paced thriller and really didn't capture the moral turmoil these people must have been in. they were committing a massive act of treason and everyone seemed to talk about it openly, like it was the worst kept secret in Germany.

At the Movie House rating *** stars

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 73 - Collateral

I missed Collateral when it came out in the theatres. It was during the fall when I was moving to San Francisco. I am so happy I finally had an opportunity to watch.

The plot revolves around a hit man, played by Tom Cruise, who ends up forcing a taxi driver, played by Jamie Fox, to take him on his appointments. But just like 3:10 To Yuma, this film is really about conversations between two men. Jamie Fox is a dreamer who is letting life pass him by. Tom Cruise believes he is living a life of "doing things" but he is really lifeless inside. Fate has brought these men together and eventually into conflict.

Unlike most modern thrillers, the movie does not rely on non-stop action set pieces to drive the film. In fact there isn't a single car chase in the entire movie. And the film is set in L.A., the land of car chases. Instead the film relies on a series of conversations, each almost like it's own short film, that reveals much about the characters, with extremely convincing dialogue.

I loved this movie and wish I had seen it in a theatre. Tom Cruise gives another stellar performance and anyone who thinks his career is over should just watch this film again. And Jamie Fox was just a year away from winning his Oscar for his portrayal of Ray Charles in Ray. Both men give riveting performances, but Cruise is the one to watch.

The film is directed by Michael Mann and he does a magnificent job of capturing the look and feel of Los Angeles. The film has a unique look to it captured by the use of digital cameras. That plus a smart score and use of recorded music really add to the film.

At The Movie House rating ***1/2 stars.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 72 - Knight And Day

Today I went to see the Tom Cruise/Cameron Diaz big summer action film Knight And Day. I went in knowing the film had received very mixed reviews, had extremely poor box office and that every columnist in America jumped on the bash Tom Cruise band wagon. So I was very curious to see how good or bad the movie was.

Turns out it's not that bad, it's not great, but as summer popcorn pictures go it was a lot of fun. The reason to see this film is Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. They deliver the star performances expected of them.

First of all the film is a comedy, not an action adventure film. And both stars play it straight but with a sense of irony.  They know they are in on the joke and they know you are too. In that vein it is very much like Charade or Romancing The Stone. The plot is secondary compared to the inter-action of the two stars. Once again director James Mangold (Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma) shows his strength in bringing out the best of both stars. There is much wrong with the film, but I definitely enjoyed spending time with Cruise and Diaz.

Now here is where the film goes wrong:
A.)The script does not let us spend enough time with these two charmers be for we rush off to the next chase. You can tell the script was written by committee.

B.)The action set pieces are inventive but rely so much on obvious CGI that you never feel any sense of danger. The problem with CGI is that it allows writers to concoct ridiculous stunts that can be created in a computer, but never feel real.

C.) The film's marketing was terrible. Look at the poster. What marketing genius decided not to feature Cruise and Diaz on the poster? I also think that Fox did not know who this movies target audience was.  Instead of selling it as a smart comedy that plays like a big summer action pic, while mocking them at the same time, that would appeal to an adult audience, the movie was sold as a big budget action pic for the under 25 crowd.
This movie didn't fail because Tom Cruise was in it, this movie failed because Fox didn't know how to sell it and they picked the wrong weekend to release it. Early June or late July would have been much better.

The time when stars were paid $20 million to star in a summer blockbuster are over. Stars don't sell movies anymore, concepts do. But everyone who wrote Tom Cruise off when this movie opened will be surprised when he comes back with another successful film. Like every project, he gives this film his all and it's one of the better performances this summer.

At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars.

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 71 -Bananas

At the suggestion of a reader I took a look at Woody Allen's Bananas. The was the second film written, directed by and starring Woody Allen.

All his early influences are present, including an obvious homage to the Marx Brothers. The movie is a perfect example of what Allen calls his "slapdash" approach to comedy. Try anything and everything and see what works.

Allen stars as Fielding Melish, a product tester who falls in love with activist girlfriend (Louise Lasser). When she dumps him because "somethings missing" he decide to visit the totalitarian dictatorship San Marcos, where he gets mixed up with the guerrilla revolutionaries and eventually becomes the new president. He returns to the U.S. seeking financial aid and is arrested by the FBI and put on trial. He also hooks up with his ex-girlfriend and ends up marrying her.

The film features to very funny bits by Howard Cosell, parodying ABC"s Wide World Of Sports. There is also a funny montage as Allen trains to be a revolutionary. The film is mostly gags strung to gather on an absurd plot. Sylvester Stallone shows up in a bit role as a thug on a subway which is very funny.

The movie follows in the steps of Allen's classic mock documentary Take The Money And Run and is not as funny. The movie is episodic and some bits don't work as well as others. There is a bit where Allen orders food for the rebels at a local cantina which is hilarious, but then it's followed by a scene with Allen dining with and trying to woo a female revolutionary that goes on way to long.

The movie is very funny, but it's not Allen's best work. What's missing is a female counterpart to balance him out. Louise Lasser and Allen are too much alike. It's when he started working with Diane Keaton as his muse that his work really stepped up to the next level.

At The Movie House rating ***

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 70 -Sleeper

Today's movie was the 1973 comedy Sleeper. The film is one of Woody Allen's early "funny ones" and Allen not only starred but also wrote and directed the film. A tri-fecta he would accomplish over and over again in his career.

I have been a Woody Allen fan since I saw Take The Money And Run at the Pequa Theatre when I was 10 years old. As Allen grew as a film maker he created some excellent films; Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah And her Sisters, Radio Days, Crimes and Misdemeanors and Match Point to name a few, but I have a soft spot for the early films I saw in my youth.

Sleepers is one of his more brilliant ones. It's a wild slapstick, comedy with a try anything for a laugh feel. Between all the gags Allen still takes time to make humorous comedy on politics, sex, education, religion, God and Judaism. When I thirteen half the jokes went over my head and I still thought the film was hilarious. Now I get all the jokes and understand the genius behind how Allen structures his comedy and the self deprecating humor he uses. he is never afraid to look foolish to land a laugh, or make a joke at his own expense.

His later career was over shadowed by his personal life and I have also found that there are a lot of people that don't "get" him and always skip his films. They don't know what they are missing.

At the Movie House rating ***1/2

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 69 -3:10 To Yuma

Today I watched the 2007 western 3:10 To Yuma starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. The film is based on a short story by Elmore Leonard and is a remake of the 1957 film of the same name.

Movies like this could single handily revive the western genre. Director  James Mangold has crafted a taught, suspenseful picture that is both a western and a character study of two men, who are different, yet very much alike.

The movie is about a struggling rancher who volunteers to be part of a posse that is to put the captured criminal Ben Wade on the 3:10 train bound for Yuma prison.

The movie belongs to Russell Crowe as the stage coach robbing gang leader Ben Wade. But Wade is a lot more than a gunslinger. He is an artist, a student of the bible, a philosopher and most of all an observer of human nature. His gang sees him as ruthless, but mostly he is an opportunist and a pragmatist. He does what must be done. Crowe acts with a quiet intensity and as you watch the film you hang on every word. You know that underneath the confidant exterior there is a mind at work, always thinking, always planning and always studying. Wade knows he is smart. And he sees himself in the rancher Dale Evans who is his captor.

Christian Bale plays the rancher, who prays to God for a small break and God doesn't listen. The drought has destroyed his ranch and the railroad is working to push him off his land. He struggles to provide for his family and feels that he has lost their respect, but most of all he has lost respect for himself. Then after crossing paths with wade twice and each time not backing down to him, he volunteers to join the posse to earn $200 for his family. Bale plays the role with the same seriousness he brings to all projects. He is man at the end of his rope, yet he will not make the easy choice that will allow him to live, but will cost him his last shred of self respect.

While the plot details the efforts to get Wade safely on the train, the movie is really about the relationship between the two men. Crowe and Bale are great together and their is never a misstep in their performance.

There are two other great performances in the film. Peter Fonda as a Pinkerton bounty hunter out to capture Wade and Ben Foster as Wade's loyal right hand man.

The film moves at a fast pace and the momentum is maintained in the quiet scenes because of the tension created by Crowe's character. The movie also has an authentic feel to it. It looks like a western. The town's are dirty and there is dust in the air that makes your throat parched watching it. This is one good western.

At The Movie House rating ***1/2

365+ movies in 365 Days: Day 68 -Despicable Me

I went to an advanced screening of Despicable Me in 3D today, and once again an animated film aimed kids is one of the better films of the summer. Like Toy Story 3, the 3D effects are utilized well and add to the film, rather than show how bad it it. The closing credits include around one long 3D joke.

This film is about despicable villains doing despicable things, such as stealing pyramids, the Statue of Liberty (the little one), cutting in line at the coffee shop and the main villain, Gru, has a grandiose plan to steal the moon. As long as he can get the financing from the Evil Bank (formerly Lehman Bros.)

Gru is the central bad guy, a once great villain who has been usurped by his nemesis Vector. In order to regain his reputation he plans, with his not quite able mad scientist partner Dr. Nefario and his crew of minions, to commit lunar larceny. Steve Carrell plays Gru with a strange mix of eastern European accents and and unbridled joy at his evilness . Gru is rotten to the core and his villainy can be traced directly to his complex relationship with his disapproving mother, played by Julie Andrews.

When Vector interferes with the moon stealing scheme, Gru adopts three cookie selling orphan girls, Margo, Edith and Agnes, to secretly enlist their aid to thwart him. But Gru is not prepared for the consequences of letting these three little girls into his life. Their irresistible charms soon wreck havoc on his secret lair and his criminal enterprise.

The movie is aimed squarely at kids, but there are there are plenty of jokes and sight gags to tickle the funny bone inside the adult kid in all of us.  The countless mischievous minions steal the film from the main villains and you can be sure they will be back in many more adventures. The story itself is derivative of countless other stories about finding the good in all of us, but the animators and director makes it work.

At the Movie House rating *** stars (if you are under 12 add a star)

Despicable Me

At The Movie House is attending an advance screening of Despicable me this evening. Look for the review later today.

365+ Movies in 365 Days: Day 67 -The Great Race

The Great Race is one of the movies I used to watch when I was a kid. It was always on TV around the holidays. It was a loud, wacky movie with plenty of slapstick. I cannot recall when I last watched the film from beginning to end, but it has be at least 35 years. Turner Classic Movies was showing it tonight so I decided to watch it and see how well it held up.

First off, it is a long movie. Two hours and forty five minutes including the Overture, Intermission, Entre' Act and Exit music. The film was released back in 1965 when Hollywood still made movies with Intermissions. The film was written and directed by Blake Edwards and is based on the actual 1908 New York to Paris motor car race. In creating an epic comedy that included a huge bar room brawl, a sword fight, a "Prisoner of Zenda" subplot and a massive pie throwing fight, Edwards was attempting to make the funniest movie ever made. He failed. The movie was a box office success, but a huge critical flop.

Tony Curtis stars as the Great Leslie who is competing against Professor Fate, a Snidely Whiplash type, to reach Paris by motor car. Natalie Wood is a female reporter and suffragette who rides along and Keenan Wynn is Leslie's friend and assistant, while Peter Falk is Professor Fate's dutiful henchman. All of them have a lot of fun hamming it up, but Jack Lemmon acts the entire movie at the top of his voice and it becomes very grating. Lemmon also has a dual role as Crown Prince Hapnick and he has hams it up here as well.

The movie pulls out every slapstick joke imaginable and has multiple running gags. There are some good set pieces, but it is way too long and drawn out. The actual race does not even start until fifty minutes into the film. Once the race begins the movie features three main scenes; travels across the American west, stranded on an iceberg between Alaska and Siberia and in the fictional kingdom of Carpania. During the entire race Lemmon yells and Curtis and Wood argue, while Falk and Wynn suffer silently.

There are a number of smaller roles starring Vivian Vance, Larry Storch, Arthur O'Connell and Ross Martin. Martin plays Baron von Stuppe with elegant evil. He and Leslie have an excellent sword fight. When Leslie is winning Stuppe exits with the line "he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day" then he literally drops out of the picture and does not reappear to finish the dual with Leslie.

I can see why I liked the film as a kid, and there are still a few good chuckles, but in the end it is like one long running gag, and its not that funny.

At the Movie House rating **1/2 stars

365+ Movies in 365 Days: Day 66 -Independence Day

For my movie today i watched Independence Day on Blu-Ray. The picture was very good and the digital sound is excellent. The movie itself is 14 years old and does not hold up against the superior CGI and hyper kinetic story telling of the 21st century. It plays like a 70's disaster movie. The script has too many moments of unneeded humor that always and some plain old bad dialogue.

But the set-up is great and the first 50 minutes hold your attention. The destruction of the White House is one of the most iconic movie moments of the 1990's. There is also a rousing battle in the end. It's in the middle 30 minutes where the movie seriously bogs down.

I enjoy watching the movie but I can't help thinking about what it could have been with a better script and some tighter editing. But in the end the movie does the one thing its supposed to do, be entertaining.

At the Movie House rating *** stars

365+ Movies in 365 Days: Day 65 -1776

I didn't post about the other movie I watched on July 4th, 1776. I rank this film as one of my all time favorites. It is not the best film ever made, nor is it the best musical ever made, but there is a giddy playfulness, combined with serious intent that just makes it irresistible. I can almost imagine the founding fathers singing and dancing as the labored to form this new nation.

Based on the 1969 Broadway musical by Sherman Edwards and Peter Stone that won three Tony's including best Musical, the film is almost an exact recreation of the stage experience. This included using the same director, screenwriter and actors (a rarity for Hollywood).

The film dispels the noble myths that these men were pure in heart and mind and shows them as bawdy, contentious human beings, just like everyone else. Worse than everyone else for even in the Continental Congress, they ere one thing above all else, politicians.

The songs are a delight but they are not the central focus of the story. In fact the play holds the record for having the longest scene with out music of any musical on Broadway.

It's the sharp witted, comical and intelligent script that carries the film, in particular the ironic self-awareness of John Adams, played by William Daniels. Howard DaSilva is a hoot as Ben Franklin and Ken Howard plays a quiet, reserved Thomas Jefferson. What's amazing about the script is how suspenseful it is. We all know Congress declared independence, but the artful way the story gets there is a delight.

When originally released the Nixon administration used political clout to get the studio to cut a musical number and some dialog that cast conservatives in a poor light. The song Cool, Cool Considerate Men and some dialog was removed. The negative was supposed to have been destroyed, but was kept hidden by an editor. In the 1990's Pioneer laser disc released a restored version of the film including the Overture that ran a full 180 minutes. Prior to this there was a VHS Home Video version that was 142 minutes. The official director's cut that is on DVD and shown on TCM is 168 minutes. The fill must be viewed in widescreen since it often includes men talking to each other across a room or mid shots that include three people at one time.

The film is smart, witty, suspenseful and a musical to boot.
At The Movie House rating **** stars

365+ Movies in 365 Days: Day 65 -The Young Victoria, The Taking Of Pelham 123 & 9

The fog came in yesterday and the night was chilly so Fourth of July festivities were held indoors with a triple movie feature.

Fist up was the 2009 film The Young Victoria starring Emily Blunt. Queen Victoria was the longest reigning queen in British history. An entire era is named after her and this film details the early days of her rule and her romance with Prince Albert.

Emily Blunt plays the woman destined to be a queen. She has all the issues any young girl would have, in addition to the manipulations of those who would use or steal her power for their own use. King William (Jim Broadbent) is ill and may die any day. It is possible he will die before Victoria is old enough to become Queen. There are three factions who are attempting to influence and control her. There is her mother the Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her lover Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong). They wish for Victoria to declare her mother Regent to rule in her stead, until she becomes of age. There is King Leopold of Austria (Thomas Kretchmann), who needs the support of Great Britain and sends Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) to woo her. And Finally there is Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany), the prime Minister who influences the young Queen for his own political ends.

The movie tells the the story of how Victoria navigates her way through palace intrigue and ends up finding true love in Prince Albert.

The film moves quickly at the beginning throwing characters at you right and left. The film is told in part flash back and since historically everyone knows Elizabeth became Queen and married Prince Albert, some of the intrigue does not come off. This film joins a long line of films about the British monarchy including Elizabeth, The Queen, Mrs. Brown and Elizabeth: The Golden Age. if you like these you'll like Young Victoria.

At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars.

Next up we watched the 2009 remake of The Taking Of Pelham 123 starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta. I skipped this film in the theatres. I have seen the Walter Matthau/Robert Shaw original and it is one of my favorite "New York" movies. I saw no point in a remake and I saved my ten bucks.

While I'm glad I saved money at the the theatre on Blu-ray it's an acceptable home video experience. Director Tony Scott jacks up the volume and the hyper kinetic pace of this thriller to keep the action moving. Both films are based on the novel by John Goodey.

The basic premise is the same a band of armed criminals hijack a NYC subway train and demand a ransom form the city of New York. The new film dropped the humor of the first and added modern day touches such as the Internet and video streaming. Travolta plays the lead villain, Mr. Ryder as a man on a hair trigger who might kill out of spite and Denzel Washington is the flawed rail center controller that ends up negotiating with the criminals. This film is almost entirely about Washington or Travolta, with one or the other on the screen almost all the time. The hostages, other criminals and city officials are pushed to the sidelines.

The first two thirds of the film work because the pace is fast and the action never lets up. Director Tony Scott uses the countdown to keep the action moving. The movie slows in the third act and never quite rights itself. This movie intensifies the dual between the two men by having them meet face to face and in the end confront each other to.

The rest of the cast includes James Gandolfini doing a good turn as the Mayor and John Tuturro playing an NYPD hostage negotiator.
At the movie House rating **1/2 stars

And finally we ended the night watching the 2009 sci-fi animated film 9. The film is about a dystopian future (or past, is this some odd WWII alternate reality) where man has created machines that turned against them and the world has been destroyed. The only survivors seem to be these rag dolls that were created by a scientist before the end so "some life would go on".

The film opens with 9 coming to life. He is alone in a destroyed home, the scientist dead on the floor. he begins to explore this ravaged world where he encounters 2 another of his kind. Before they can say more than hello they are attacked by a mechanical dog monster and 2 is carried off and 9 is injured. When 9 is rescued by 5 we soon learn there is a group of these living creations each one numbered by the creator and currently hiding out in a destroyed cathedral (Notre Dame?). They are led by 1 who's notion is to stay in hiding and avoid contact with the outside. But 9 is young and inexperienced in this world and leads a rescue party to find 2.

This rescue party accidentally activates the machine that created the robots that destroyed the world and now its soul mission is to destroy the last remaining life on earth, these 9 creatures.

The film is based on an Oscar winning short story of the same name and visually the film is stunning. It creates a world of destruction that staggers the imagination. But unfortunately the plot and dialog falls into standard action/adventure picture mode, that does not do service to the the imagination that inspired this creation.

It's worth a look if you want to see superior CGI animation but if the thought walking, talking heroic rag dolls does not sound like your thing, skip it.
At the Movie House rating **1/2 stars

365+ Movies in 365 Days: Day 64 - Invictus

Today's movie was Invictus, a biographical drama about Nelson Mandela and his first year as President of South Africa. Directed by Clint Eastwood, the film takes a different approach in telling the story about Mandela, by using the game of rugby and the world cup match that took place in 1995. Morgan Freeman plays Nelson Mandela, a role he was destined to play and Matt Damon stars as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the South African rugby team, the Springbokkes.

It's both a political drama and an underdog sports film, a unique combination. Both genres work and could have been separate films. The political drama about Mandela, his years in prison, his rise to the presidency and the ending of apartheid is a story that needed to be told. As a sports drama it works as the underdog team strives to beat the unbeatable team from new Zealand. The outcome is predictable, and if you know your Rugby history, a done deal. I know nothing about the rules of rugby and a sports movie only works if dramatic tension is sustained when filming the sport and the viewer understands what is happening. Eastwood carefully crafts the film to keep the suspense going and makes sure the viewer has a sense of what's going on.

What the film is really about is a country finding a way to heal after decades of hate. A man who needed to bring people together and understood that if he could unite his countrymen around one common thing, the bond between them would grow stronger.

I had only two minor issues with the film. The continued focus on security details helped create a dramatic tension that made it feel like there would be an assassination attempt and no such thing occurred. And during the final match the frequent edits to the various fans watching the game, showing how they were bonding was a bit overdone.

Overall the film is both engaging and inspirational. The wonder of the film is that it plays like a Hollywood screenplay, but the events really happened. You'll finish the movie cheering, but it will also make you think a bit and perhaps do some soul searching of your own.

At The Movie House rating ***1/2 stars.

365+ Movies in 365 Days: Day 63 - Hook

Today's movie was Hook, Spielberg's re=imagining the story of Peter Pan. Robin Williams plays Peter, now grown up and working as a lawyer "a pirate" on Wall Street. He returns to London for a when a hospital is dedicating a new building to his great "nanny" Wendy" During the visit his children are kidnapped by Captain Hook, played by Dustin Hoffman. It is up to peter to remember his life as Pan, and with the help of Tinkerbell, played by Julia Roberts, return to Neverland and rescue his kids.

The movie has a wonderful set up, but it falls flat once Peter returns to Neverland. From the pirate ship to the tree house of the Lost Boys, the whole film feels like a theme park. There is too much of everything and it all looks like plastic The segment with the Lost Boys helping Peter remember who he is goes on much too long and there are just too many lost boys. A large group of boys between the ages of 6 and 12, screaming and yelling, gets annoying pretty quickly.

Julia Roberts as Tinkerbell lacks any real spark of her own to bring the character to life and there is a seen where Tinkerbell makes her self adult sized and expresses her love for Peter Pan, which just feels wrong for the film. The final confrontation between Hook and Pan is disjointed and ends abruptly and is a real let down since that's the build up of the whole movie. Then the movie returns to present day London for multiple conclusions that, while touching, go on too long.

Dustin Hoffman as Hook, hams it up and is the best thing in the film, along with Bob Hoskins as his henchman, Smee. The special effects for the flying scenes are fun, but look old fashioned by today's standards. Robin Williams gets in some good one liners, but for the most part Spielberg keeps him in character.

The film touches on many things, the importance of family, always try to stay young at heart, father and son relationships and keeping priorities in life, but the message and heart of the film is lost in the over the top set pieces. This movie made a lot of money when it was released and I guess it appeals to kids, but for me it is the most disappointing Spielberg film I have seen because it lacks true imagination and magic.

At The Movie House rating ** stars.

I am going to close out my current Spielberg film festival with this film.  From 1974 to 1991 Spielberg directed 12 feature length films. Five of them were serious adult dramas, Sugarland Express, Jaws, The Color Purple and Empire Of The Sun and Always. But, because of the success of Close Encounters, The Indiana Jones movies, E.T. and Hook he was type cast as a special effects, summer blockbuster, action adventure film maker. He has been criticized for being overly sentimental and some say hid films lacked depth and do not take risks. There is some truth to this especially in his first 12 films, but in 1993 Starting with his work on Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, a new Spielberg emerged, creating more serious films with more mature films themes. In a few weeks (or months I'll return to Spielberg and view his body of work from 1993 to 2008.

365+ Movies in 365 Days: Day 62 - Always

The Spielberg film festival resumed with his 1989 romantic drama Always, starring Richard Dreyfuss, Holly Hunter and John Goodman. Always is a remake of the 1943 film A Guy Named Joe.

A Guy Named Joe stars Spencer Tracy as a WWII pilot, who is a bit of a daredevil. He is killed on a mission and finds himself sent back to earth in the form of a guardian angel to watch over the next pilot who takes his place. Unfortunately the next guy, played by Van Johnson, also falls in love with his girl, Irene Dunne. Dunne and Tracy are forced to face issues about their love before both can move on to the next phase.

Always follows the same story line, but updates it to the present (1989) and the pilots are fighting fires and not Germans, and there lies the beginning of the problems I have with this film. It's a nice fantasy to think that men go off to war and when they are killed in action they are sent back by the powers that be, to watch over the next fellow. There is a nobility and sacrifice in the wartime setting that is absent in Always. Some of this is even addressed in lines of dialog in the movie.

Also Spencer Tracy lent the film that sense of moral certitude and gravitas that he gives every performance. He was a commanding, paternal presence in the movies and Richard Dreyfuss is no Spencer Tracy. Very few actors can ever hope to equal him. Currently I can only think of two, Tom Hanks (who used to be compared to Jimmy Stewart until Saving Private Ryan) and Morgan Freeman.

John Goodman and Holly Hunter are capable in their roles and lend some fun to the proceedings, but Brad Johnson as the neophyte pilot is stiff and wooden in his first big screen role.

All the Spielberg touches are there, but I don't buy into the fantasy. The dead don't get to come back to tie up loose ends with those they left behind. It is possible to make a good romantic fantasy ghost story (look at Ghost which came out 6 months later) but Always isn't it!

At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars

Favorite 4th of July Movies

 It's the beginning of July so it is time to take a look at some of the best films to watch over the 4th of July Weekend. Turner Classic Movies will dedicate their programming to Independence day themed films all day Sunday. Happy 4th of July!

#1 1776. This movie as one of my all time favorites. It has everything music, comedy, great drama and wonderful dialog. Based on the Broadway musical it's a bawdy, fun look at a pivotal moment in history. 

At The Movie House rating **** stars 

#2 The Music Man. Another musical this one a look back at old town America and the wonderful Harold Hill who touched every heart with a song.

At The Movie House rating ****stars

#3 is Jaws - Mayor Vaughn to Chief Brody "It's the 4th of July, now you do what you have to do, but those beaches will be open for business" nuff said! At the Movie House rating **** stars

#4 Independence Day - Aliens should know better than to invade the U.S.A. on the 4th of July!

At The Movie House rating *** stars

#5 Yankee Doodle Dandy - The all singing, all dancing James Cagney in the biography of America's songwriter George M. Cohan. At the Movie House rating **** stars

#6 The Patriot - Mel Gibson's ultra-violent American Revolution saga takes a page from the film Shenandoah and features a father who attempts to remain neutral in the war against England, until it lands on his doorstep. At The Movie House rating *** stars.

#7 Live Free Or Die Hard - Bruce Willis returned as Detective John McClaine in this 4th installment of the Die Hard Franchise. Much better than the third sequel and the first to be rated PG-13. The detective has toned down his language in his old age. At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars.

#8 Avalon - Barry Levinson's look at immigration, assimilation into the American way of life and the impact it has on the modern family. At The Movie House rating *** stars

#9 National Treasure - Nicholas Cage is a historian and treasure hunter who searches for a hidden treasure left by the founding father, with secret clues revealed on the back of the Declaration Of Independence. Far fetched entertaining nonsense. At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars

#10 Rollercoaster - marketed as a big time, all star, disaster film, this movie from 1977 is actually a well done suspense thriller. It relies heavily on the performances of George Segal and Timothy Bottoms who deliver the goods. One of four films to be marketed with "Sensurround". The other three were Earthquake, Midway and a theatrical version of Battlestar Galactica. 

At The Movie House rating **1/2 stars