CLEOPATRA (Cecil B. Demille, Paramount, 1934)

When I started watching CLEOPATRA (Cecil B. DeMille, Paramount, 1934) I'll admit I was not overly impressed. What first caught my attention was the body of Claudette Colbert. How much of it we got to see, how revealing the costumes were and how sensual a figure she was as the titular Cleopatra. As the movie revealed itself I quickly came to understand that this was an entirely a film of its era, blatantly racist and misogynistic, utterly ignoring anyone from a different ethnic background than white and giving no credit whatsoever to women, other than as objectified sexual beings. But slowly the film wore me down and quickly I realized that for 1934 this was an epic film on a grand scale. And slowly the DeMille traits started to present themselves to me and I realized that in its day this film was utterly remarkable. Flawed but a true blockbuster in every sense. The film is titled CLEOPATRA and any mention of this film needs to begin with the lovely Claudette Colbert. The film begins with our heroine Cleopatra being taken to the desert where she is to be stranded and left to die. She causes too much discord amongst the royalty of Egypt and she needs to be silenced with the impending arrival of Julius Caesar (Warren William). So our first images of Cleopatra is Colbert scantily clad in what appears to be just strips of cloth placed around her breasts. Now I know my film history and 1934 is the year the Production Code was instituted by Hays. I later read that DeMille had shot much of this film before the Code took effect. And it shows. The costumes that Colbert wears throughout the film are barely strips of cloth as mentioned. Other women, servants particularly, wear even less. It is an interesting dichotomy to what we expect of film almost eighty years ago. And this film is entirely from its time. The film is blatantly racist in tone and I am fairly certain I never saw anyone ethnic in the film at all. In fact as we are taken back to Rome, the white patrician class that is gossiping about Caesar and Cleopatra makes a joke about Cleopatra "being black" and they all laugh. As if being a queen from Egypt who is black is utterly unimaginable to these people. Also being marginalized throughout the film is women. When Antony (Henry Wilcoxon) and Caesar discuss the arrival of Cleopatra they are disgusted by the thought of a woman ruling them, that women are beneath men and barely capable of survival on their own. Even later as Cleopatra seduces Antony she gives up her identity to him whispering "I'm no longer a queen, I'm a woman". She can't be both so she allows herself the role of being Antony's woman. The film is such a striking dichotomy to what we are treated to today. I compared the film to the HBO show Rome which aired just a few years ago. Now we as audiences demand authentic portrayals, historical facts or at least the semblance of effort in getting close to the historical record. The film has awful portrayals of every historical figure in the film (of particular note would be the awful representation of Brutus - just bad) and any accuracy to the film historically is highly questionable. This dichotomy represents a change in our outlooks, our core belief systems and values and particularly in what we expect from entertainment. I will say this though, there does exist a similarity in the lavish Production budget expended on the film and what is made today. And the opulence and extravagance of a DeMille film is entirely on display on the famed set piece he crafted to the film, Cleopatra's seduction of Antony on her pleasure barge. As her seduction comes complete every aspect of the production screams "spare no expense". The set design; opulent and extravagant. The costumes; flamboyant, risqué and rich. The performances; over the top and larger than life. The choreography and composition; meticulously planned and executed as only DeMille could. This set piece is extraordinary for 1934, as DeMille's camera slowly pulls back to reveal every aspect of his rich Production design on full display. When it came to historical epics with lavish budgets and high production values, no one comes close to DeMille. Not even Cleopatra.

A DANGEROUS METHOD (David Cronenberg, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011)

What an interesting film A DANGEROUS METHOD (David Cronenberg, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011) turned out to be. For the most part the film was quite simple. Interesting story, some really good acting, the awesome Keira Knightley. Yet they chose to add in some CGI that just made the film unwatchable at certain moments. Still these moments weren't so bad as to detract from a really good film. The film is simple and beautiful. Throughout the film great settings and locations are used. The film is set in early 20th century Austria and only in Europe can you have this coverage of old world charm mixed with antiquated architecture. Cronenberg crafts simple shots and composition using easy and simple camera movement and uncluttered composition to his sets. He also has a nice pace to the film. The films subject and dialogue might be a little too stodgy and slow for some viewers so this pacing really helps the film move along. He also keeps the film at a nice length, not bloating the film with unnecessary extras. The narrative to the film is rather intriguing, particularly seeing the infancy of modern psychological practice. Our contemporary world has embraced this practice and to see its beginnings is interesting. What Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Freud (Viggo Mortensen) are practicing is a dangerous method indeed. The continual analysis they subject themselves to as well as their non stop analysis of everyone around them obviously could lead to problems. Fractured familial relationships, jealous and bitter feuds and even adulterous relationships with patients all come about and show just how dangerous their method is. Ultimately it is the characters in the narrative which draw you into this world so readily. Fassbender and Mortensen are always putting out quality performances but Knightley is the best performer of the three. I love her voice always and of course she looks great. But she aggressively attacks this deeply sexual role as Sabina and just gives a layered performance, a great performance. The one mark against the film was their use of CGI at certain moments. As Jung and Freud sail to America this poor CGI is most evident. First we see Freud walking against a night skyline that simply looks like they had him walking on a set with a painted backdrop. Next they show the ship sailing into New York City harbor and the CGI is just awful again. Take out these sequences and change them. You have taken great pains to establish a great film with beautiful locations, settings, costumes, actors et al. Change the sequences so you don't have to use this obvious unauthentic imagery. It is so very frustrating in this era of effects and CGI to see something just not done very well. Other than that one little aspect this film is done very well, quite remarkable actually.

THE RIGHT STUFF (Philip Kaufman, Warner Bros., 1983)

Like the astronauts that eventually formed the Mercury Seven, men picked for their overall excellence in every area, THE RIGHT STUFF (Philip Kaufman, Warner Bros., 1983) excels in every aspect of filmmaking. The story for the film is incredible and the narrative of the script good. The casting of the actors is remarkable, especially John Glenn (Ed Harris) and the the performances of each actor is quite good. The films overall direction is good, the cinematography is great. Technically the film probably couldn't have been made better than it was. The most remarkable aspect of the film and the one I find most fascinating is its inclusion of Chuck Yeager as a central piece in the narrative. How a film hasn't been done about this man mystifies me. The film tells the tale of seven men who had "the right stuff" to become our first astronauts. But rather than be a fluff piece, stylizing the actors as super human, it instead chose to show them as men. Men with families, men with faults and character flaws. Men that didn't always get along and who often were more about themselves than the greater good of the group. The toll taken on these men and their families was immense, from the constant public and media scrutiny to the very real possibility that death loomed with each mission. The film took care to show the families of the men and even delve into their problems a bit. Eventually we see the men coming together and forming a bond, a group that will only ever include those seven men. The film also provides a great balance of levity to offset the serious nature of the work being done by these astronauts. And great work abounds throughout the rest of the production. The direction chosen by Kaufman of which way to take the narrative and the inclusion of Yeager as a primary focus were good choices. Through excellent production design we are treated to an excellent portrait of American life from the post war years through the mid sixties. We also get to see extensive use of authentic airplanes whether it was actual planes, models or special effects. It all looked very authentic and very well done. Making the film look amazing was the sole purpose of cinematographer Caleb Deschanel. The film contains great aerial photography, very reminiscent of a film like WINGS (William Wellman, Paramount, 1927). Deschanel comes up with unique and innovative ways to show his action such as through reflections in sunglasses and other inanimate objects. The film is full of wide open vistas and great panoramic shots, creating a metaphor for space being the next great American frontier. After seeing Deschanel's name I had to read more on him. I knew he was a famous father, but it seems every time he DP's a film he gets nominated for an Oscar. What a talented man. And talented doesn't even begin to describe Chuck Yeager. A great film has the power to leave you thirsting for more knowledge about a topic, and Sam Shepard's portrayal of Yeager is such a case. Shepard gives a mysterious performance as Yeager. Daring to push the envelope every time and showing us ever so subtly that deeply felt slight when he was not selected to even proceed to the testing for the Mercury Seven. I had to read more on Yeager after seeing Shepard play him and all I can say is. Wow. What an American. Like I said before, how come no one has made a film about him mystifies me. Incredible man. Incredible group of men. Incredible story and remarkable film.

THE GOODBYE GIRL (Herbert Ross, MGM, 1977)

I absolutely love it when I discover an older film that catches me totally off guard. THE GOODBYE GIRL (Herbert Ross, MGM, 1977) is my latest find. I am not one to be a big fan of plays turned into films but this adaptation to the screen of the Neil Simon play is superb. Richard Dreyfuss and Marsha Mason turn in really good performances and Quinn Cummings is adorable. Not only are the performances good but the chemistry between all three actors is great. The writing of Simon is at his usual great standards, funny and topical, witty and a delight. Finally thanks to a good directing job by Ross the film never stalls and briskly moves along. Although titled the THE GOODBYE GIRL the star of the film is Dreyfuss. He plays Elliott Garfield, a struggling actor new to New York. Garfield goes through all the travails of an actor; being broke, negative reviews, a director that doesn't have a clue. Dreyfuss hits every moment with his usual kinetic energy and ever present charm. Three moments stand out for me and all three assuredly helped him to his Oscar. First when he meditates and will not stop with the stretching of his neck. Hysterical if only cause I have known people who do this. Then any time he plays the gay Richard. Lost in that interpretation he is the consummate actor, knowing the portrayal is wrong yet trusting his director. Finally when he succumbs at long last to his desire for Paula, chasing her around the apartment. Who hasn't felt that longing, that desire to be with someone. Dreyfuss reels in our sympathy and helps us identify with him. It helps his cause that both Marsha Mason and Quinn Cummings portray the McFadden ladies so well. The chemistry between the two is remarkable. They feel like actual mother and daughter. I'd be interested to know if these three actors performed this play on Broadway prior to filming. It would explain much of the chemistry and ease with which they perform. Speaking of Broadway, this is another great Simon writing. So funny, very witty and just real. There is no need for contemporary gross out humor because Simon pens a good story. So refreshing to watch something like this compared to what passes for comedy today. And Herbert Ross does a great job of keeping this play fresh for the screen. Often times plays brought to the screen are rather stagnant due to their location and setting constraints. Never once did this film fall into that trap. And what a trap Elliott Garfield fins himself in as he plays Richard III in the films "play with in a play" motif. These were the moments in this film which had me almost in tears. Knowing Elliott's pain as he is forced into portraying Richard as gay, against everything he studied and prepared for. And when he embraces it finally, going fully into the role? This is pure comedy. What a great sendup of theatre Simon provides yet at the same time he shows empathy for those that choose the profession. Comical yet heartfelt. Like I said, I absolutely loved watching this gem and highly recommend it to anyone.

IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY (Angelina Jolie, Film District, 2011)

I'm not sure which impressed me more; the quality of film that IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY (Angelina Jolie, Film District, 2011) is or that Jolie wrote AND directed the film, both firsts for her. I was blown away by how good this film was narratively. Utterly compelling the film breaks your heart again and again. From vivid depictions of war atrocities to a doomed love affair this film holds nothing back. The thing is, as a viewer you know it can't end well for Ajla (Zana Marjonovic) and Danijel (Goran Kostic). Yet while watching you find yourself hopelessly pulling for the them to somehow find a way out of their hellish situation. While this is going on you have the backdrop of war criminality and while pulling for Ajla and Danijel I found myself wondering how it is that we as humans keep visiting such horror on each other. How many genocidal wars must we have? And this is what is so impressive about Jolie's work here. She wrote the script, balancing two connected yet disparate narrative threads. She deftly balances romantic elements with vicious criminality. And in the most important part of the story she doesn't back down. What Danijel does to Ajla at the films end is necessary and the only realistic conclusion to the doomed lovers fate. Jolie brazenly doesn't back down and for that she deserves great credit. Her directing is also impressive simply on scope of a first time filmmaker. There are scattered moments that are off but they are few and far between and really barely seen. Seen throughout the entire film is two great performances by Marjonovic and Kostic. Both of these actors provide deeply nuanced performances. They alternate constantly between tender moments of love while dealing with fear, horror, rage, animosity and sheer terror. Particularly Marjonovic as she balances her character between her love of Danijel and the humiliation her and her people are enduring at the hands of the Serbian forces. The film is difficult to watch at times due to some pretty ghastly scenes but the story is powerful enough and the work of all of those mentioned strong enough to get one through that. I highly recommend this film and really liked it personally.

LINCOLN (Steven Spielberg, Touchstone Pictures, 2012)

Excellence is the defining word that comes to mind when I think about LINCOLN (Steven Spielberg, Touchstone Pictures, 2012). It permeates the very essence of the entire film touching every aspect of filmmaking. In fact there are not enough adjectives to describe the work accomplished in the film. Every actor performs superbly, the writing is stellar, the cinematography is beautiful and the overall direction and impact of the film is transcendent. It helps that the people working on this film are all at the top of their respective games but that said they tackled a project of enormous scope and weight and with tremendous historical value. That they succeeded so spectacularly is proof of their abilities but that they made a film so amazing, so eminently watchable helps place this film above others released this year and has to make it the favorite to win Best Picture this year. The centerpiece to the film is the portrayal of Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis). Quite simply DDL inhabits the role. There is no existing videotape of Lincoln to watch, only accounts in books. Yet DDL hits every nuance of what one would expect Lincoln to be like; his mannerisms, speech, the stooped frame and stilted gait. DDL embodies the President fully. He brings Lincoln to us. He makes us like the man, makes us pull for and believe his causes and we mourn his loss knowing full well it is coming. An otherworldly performance. By now DDL's prep work and commitment to a specific role are legendary and it all pays off. He will be up for his third Best Actor Oscar and I think he deserves it. At this point the argument can be made that he is the greatest actor we have seen grace the big screen. He is that accomplished. While not as accomplished as Day Lewis, writer Tony Kushner provides exemplary work with the script. The script is excellent (I am reading it now, next Goodwin's book). It tackles a fiery and controversial topic and period of our history. Yet it condenses the story skillfully and makes the narrative breeze along. There are so many characters yet we never get lost. The dialogue is elegant and loquacious with a vocabulary that would make Webster proud. The narrative does take time to unfold clearly but this isn't a subject matter lightly threaded upon. As I watched the film about fifteen minutes in I heard a guy behind me whisper "this is so boring". I wish I had the courage to turn around and tell him to go watch whatever version of SAW they are on instead. And if had that courage that knucklehead would've missed an absolutely beautiful film. At this point the team of Spielberg and Kaminski do everything this way yet they keep impressing again and again. The film has excellent lighting throughout. Set in a time when widespread electricity was still a rarity they made excellent use of 'natural' light throughout the film. And still the films true power and lasting impression is this. Spielberg successfully humanized Lincoln and for that matter all Presidents. Past Presidents are too distant with not enough connection through time. Current ones are too distant, too removed from us. They are too protected from those they rule over. One of the most striking aspects to the film was the accessibility to Lincoln. Over and again we see this. He walks amongst the men, no bodyguards. He rides a carriage through Washington, no police escort. People come and go freely to the White House, individually petitioning him. When one pontificates on what ails our countries current political quagmire maybe they should think of how this film portrays accessibility (and accountability) to politicians. Finally I think this film is rather important. If for anything to see the portrayal provided by DDL. To see Lincoln humanized. To watch a film dealing with the most scarring time in American history and one that honestly shows the problems of the era. Amazing film, deserving of Best Picture.

J. Edgar (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2011)

Opaque could easily have been the title to J. EDGAR (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2011), a film barely penetrated by any light source. The narrative provides no real or lasting insight into the man, the cinematography seemingly uses no lighting whatsoever and even the events of the narrative are shrouded in a layer of undetermined validity. This is not to say the film isn't good or enjoyable. Quite the opposite I was intrigued throughout the film, learning a marginal history of the man and the institution he created. Once I grew accustomed to the cinematography I actually thought this was an amazing decision and realized they had achieved remarkably with this choice. I think I just felt the film could have delved deeper, expended itself showing the man more. The film didn't make me have any feeling other than ambivalence and for a film to be about such a powerful and important figure in the American history and provide that level of emotion is sad. The film should've been much more powerful. From the beginning of the film the cinematography is bathed in darkness. As I mentioned once I realized the film was trying for this effect I didn't mind it and started to really like their choice to shoot the film in this manner. The darkness to the cinematography of the film signifies many things. The film depicts a period of time where America loses it innocence, stepping into the darkness. The events of the 20th century fully brought this loss of innocence to America and the lighting in the film reflects this. The darkness of the film shows a man, and by extension his country, traveling down a road with questionable morality, resolve and character. It is an America opening the proverbial Pandora's Box, making choices and using tactics that are often questionable at best. The cinematography of Tom Stern also shows the dark side of Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) the man as he dealt with his own inner demons. This won't make sense, but the lighting for the film was amazing. Dark and foreboding and used to great effect to propel the narrative. Overall the narrative to the film was rather weak. It never delved too deeply into Hoover. Here was one of the prominent figures of the 20th century and we never saw what drove him to the levels he achieved, we never saw much of what made the man tick and we never saw reasoning or explanation for his personal life and the choices he made therein. It marginally touched his career, landing on the highlights naturally. I particularly liked that the film deftly handled his closeted homosexuality and cross dressing tendencies. It would have been rather easy to paint him as a twisted and depraved figure, a slave to his proclivities. Still the overall content to the film was superficial at best. I rather liked learning the history of the FBI and the events that surrounded its evolution, as shrouded in mystery the validity of the events may be. The FBI seemingly has always been a thriving department to us in contemporary America so to see its infancy is revelatory. Its ties to the rise of the gangster and Prohibition; the role it played in early crime cases such as the "Crime of the Century". The evolution of the institution was fascinating particularly knowing one man was the driving force behind it. And of course the obvious parallels to the two political machines it was created to fight, communism and fascism as well as the criminality in its techniques makes it a fascinating study. Technically the film makes a decent if flat biopic. I loved the cinematography. I always like the directing and musical choices Eastwood makes. The same goes for the acting of DiCaprio. I did not care at all for the prosthetics and makeup applied to DiCaprio and Clyde Tolston (Armie Hammer), and I didn't like the casting of Hammer at all. He honestly was just too young for the role. Overall the film is solid, but man it could have been so much better.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2012)

There exists an inherent drawback to making a film trilogy. Unless you have the entire three story arc devised before starting the total narrative lags by the third film. Freshness and a need to top previous achievements take root as issues in the crafting of the third film. And when you set the bar as high as Christopher Nolan did with the first two films of his Dark Knight trilogy then it becomes exceedingly difficult when making the final film. Yet with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2012) Nolan puts forth another remarkable film, finishing a trilogy unrivaled within the genre it resides. The narrative for this film is strong enough that it can stand alone while at the same time it achieves full closure for the trilogy. Granted there are a few instances in which having viewed the previous films is necessary to follow the narrative but Nolan and Jonathon Nolan do a remarkable job of achieving the job they set out to accomplish. By the end of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Bruce Wayne has completed his journey as our protagonist. He has grown as a man, put aside the hurt and pain that led him down his path to becoming Batman and yet retained enough of himself that he appears able to live out the balance of his life happily. His alternative persona of Batman is no longer needed, by Gotham or by Bruce. This is not to say that there aren't issues with the narrative. The narrative to this film takes an almost unbearably long time to get going. The film itself is entirely too long but I have a feeling that third films in trilogies end up that way so that all the loose ends are tied up neatly. I also needed to watch the film multiple times to have key things explained, a sure sign of an incomplete narrative. (although my questions were ALL explained watching the second time). And while I liked that they brought Ra's al Ghul around for the third film, completing that circle in the trilogy, I didn't care for the reveal of Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) as his daughter. Let me clarify. I didn't mind her becoming the villain I took exception with the way she was revealed. The acting for this film wasn't exceptional like that in the first two films. This sentiment can be summed up tidily in the character of Bane (Tom Hardy). While not a bad choice for a villain, the mask covering his face eliminated a good percentage of any acting Hardy might do. There was no emotional weight to the Bane character except when he throws the young Miranda up to escape their prison (the only time we see his face). Now I could easily denigrate this as poor acting but I think another avenue is possible. Is it possible that Nolan knew there was no way this villain could compare to Heath Ledger's Joker? And with that knowledge did he forgo trying? The choice of Bane and his mask simplified the task and prevented any comparisons to Ledger, rightly so. No one would compare favorably so why try? Still, the Bane villain felt like it fell short. The film does not fall short technically as Nolan and his team are just absolutely at the top of the game. Every aspect of the film is strong, from Wally Pfister's cinematography to the editing of Lee Smith; from the score provided by Hans Zimmer to the absolute amazing effects work accomplished throughout the film and the trilogy by Chris Corbould and Paul Franklin. And Christopher Nolan is so talented, so accomplished as to be ridiculous. I've said it once I'll say it until someone changes my mind but Christopher Nolan is the best director working today (sorry to my favorite director, PTA -who can reclaim glory with THE MASTER). My only fault with their work is there is nothing as mind blowing, as awesome as the semi tractor sequence from THE DARK KNIGHT nor is the narrative as strong and compelling as BATMAN BEGINS. There have been arguments put forth that the film mirrors many of the current issues our contemporary society are facing and with all films this is true. Film is a reflection of life, particularly good film. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is no exception. The narrative has a reflection of last years 99% movement but I also detect a foreshadowing to large scale civil unrest. Let's hope that stays in the movie! I'd like to discuss the Batman character a little. The film shows a vulnerability to Batman that hasn't existed in the previous films. Bane almost kills Batman and it is only Bane's sadistic tendencies which prevent him from doing so. Batman also is duped and falls for Catwoman (gorgeously played by Anne Hathaway) showing a need to no longer be alone. This need is also expressed in his relationship with John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). This vulnerability to Batman shows depth and allows for Bruce to grow as a person. This vulnerability brings Batman back to the Bruce Wayne character of BATMAN BEGINS. And allows for the journey of our hero protagonist to be completed. In looking at THE DARK KNIGHT RISES it would be rather easy to denigrate the film as the weakest of Nolan's trilogy. It lacks the dazzling array of technical masterwork of THE DARK KNIGHT and falls short of the emotional weight and psychological underpinnings of BATMAN BEGINS. But this sells this film short and that in itself is wrong. This film is a great film. It's merits stand alone and it also serves as a nice bookend to a fully satisfying trilogy. I feel that the first film was Christian Bale's, the second film was Heath Ledger's and the third? Well this film belongs to Christopher Nolan, as the end to a great trilogy. Thank you sir!

THE DARK KNIGHT (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2008)

Starting his Dark Knight Trilogy with the exceptional BATMAN BEGINS (Nolan, 2005) might make things exceedingly difficult when crafting the next film in the trilogy. But with THE DARK KNIGHT (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2008) amazingly shows audiences that he even better as a filmmaker, providing us with a film that is superlative in almost every regard as well as one that contains one of the signature acting performances ever seen on screen. BATMAN BEGINS belongs to Christian Bale and quite simply THE DARK KNIGHT is a good film that becomes extraordinary due to one Heath Ledger. Like other popular trilogies this second film to the Dark Knight trilogy is the darkest of the three films. The film isn't just dark it is opaque. Literally there is not one ray of light that shines from this film. Every character is ambiguous. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) falters, Batman rages. Harvey (Aaron Eckhart) succumbs to anger and emotion. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) to guilt. Even The Joker (Heath Ledger) is ambiguous in intent. By the end of the film the only female character of note, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has been killed and Batman is on the run, wanted for the crimes committed by Harvey Dent. It doesn't end there. The themes and tones to the film are dark as well. The film has many themes among them apathy, anarchy, the decay of our society, criminality and an evasion of responsibility. The tone of the film is dark in every regard from colors to lighting. The darkness of the film is caught perfectly in the scene where The Joker is interrogated by Gordon. When the camera is on The Joker's face he is engulfed in blackness. And who resides in that blackness but Batman, hidden and waiting to strike. Here is the films hero, hiding, lurking in darkness. Bathed in the dark he cannot be seen and this symbolizes what is wrong with Gotham. The dichotomy between the films hero and darkness is bold. I have lauded Christopher Nolan endlessly before and I shall do so again yet there exists in THE DARK KNIGHT a similar dichotomy to the entire film and it is only after having viewed the film over and again that I see this. Nolan is at his absolute best here technically as the staging, the cinematography and the sound are amazing. At the same time though the writing is faltering, the narrative is bloated, one of the films characters becomes utterly unwatchable and Batman becomes too potent, too powerful. All of this can be viewed in one particular sequence of the film, my favorite sequence actually and I will discuss this fully. But first the good and the bad. In my opinion Nolan cements himself as the best director working today with the scene staging, choreography of action and his partnership with Wally Pfister in creating brilliant cinematography in the film. The scene in which they flip the semi tractor is incredible (more on this later). The cinematography actually gets better than the previous film, although the added benefit of IMAX helps. His use of sound is brilliant. I tell everyone this but watch the film, particularly the scenes with Ledger. Nolan puts in this low pitched whine that usually builds through the scene. This sound serves to unnerve the audience and signifies and accompanies rising tensions. Just a simple sound that does so much. Finally Nolan allowed Heath Ledger the freedom to become one of cinema's enduring characters. To be able to get a performer to do his job so fully, to allow that performer so much freedom signifies a director, to me. Unlike Harvey's two headed coin, there is a flip side to all that Nolan does well in the film. Maybe because other aspects were focused on the writing suffers. Cheap and hammy dialogue is sprinkled throughout and the characters are never reined back from their descent into darkness. His use of sound is epic at times but he made an error with Batman's voice. He also errs in allowing Batman to become too powerful and have too many techno toys. How quickly did Bruce Wayne construct the sonar device? And such a powerful device yet Lucius (Morgan Freeman) can walk right in and use it? And what of reconstructing the bullet? Bruce Wayne is rich yes, but his ability to garner anything he needs immediately stretches the believability of the character established in BATMAN BEGINS. Also destroying what was created in BATMAN BEGINS is the character of Rachel Dawes. I don't have a problem with her story arc. I have no issue with her dying or with her being in the middle of a love triangle with Harvey and Bruce. What I do have issue with is her character being allowed to become whiny and bitchy, not the strong character she was in the first film. Rachel is marginalized in this film, to the point that when she does die, you actually are happy to see her go. That's how annoying she was allowed to become. All of the good and bad can be summed up in viewing one sequence and this is the sequence when they transport Harvey in the armored car. As Harvey turns himself in as Batman, the worst part of the Rachel character emerges. She whines to Alfred (Michael Caine) about what Bruce is doing and then quickly appears at the jail to berate Harvey. From the second the armored car leaves the precinct the action is constantly on the rise to its culmination, brilliantly staged throughout. The action is non stop yet overly long; yet the moment when they flip the semi tractor is my favorite in the trilogy. While these amazing visuals are going on the dialogue is awful. The cop in the armored car with Gordon is entirely unnecessary. The film is bloated by unnecessary shots like the guy picking his teeth and the kids shooting cars only to see them explode as Batman cruises by. Endlessly chasing The Joker. And you quite simply cannot write about this film without discussing Heath Ledger and what he did in the role as The Joker. Deservedly winning the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, we all know the tragedy that befell Ledger. We have all seen this role and how he owned it. Rather than delve into how I feel The Joker reflects society I instead will list my three favorite moments. Number one, when he busts out of prison stealing a cop car, hanging his head out the rear window as he drives. Two, dressed as a nurse he visits Harvey. His drawn out "hi" is amazing. In fact his entire explanation to Harvey as well as explaining his actions is tremendous. And when he exits the hospital blowing it up, stopping to get hand sanitizer in the process? Finally when he is in the jail, clapping for the newly appointed Commissioner Gordon. The look on his face is pure malice and evil intent. As I said earlier, this film belongs to Ledger and The Joker. The film has weaknesses which I didn't find in BATMAN BEGINS and I think those weaknesses are masked quite like The Joker masks himself. This film is Heath Ledger's through and through. And what a good film.

BATMAN BEGINS (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2005)

What is it about Batman that resonates with us so deeply? Is it because he is a man doing super human things? Is it the similarity to Robin Hood, a rich man helping those in need which attracts us to him? Is it because he is a man seeking justice and retribution for being wronged, a completely human fallibility? Whatever the reason for identifying with Batman, audiences do so en masse. With BATMAN BEGINS (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2005) we are treated to a darker, grittier and more realistic vision of the Caped Crusader. This vision is a direct reflection of us as a society as we have become fully the two sides of what this man represents. Nolan's vision and interpretation of the character is fantastic and he has crafted a marvelous film. The excellence to BATMAN BEGINS starts with its superb narrative and superlative writing. Written by Nolan and David S. Goyer the films narrative is dark and fearful, full of grit and realism. The narrative is complete in every manner. There are very few plot holes in the script, the narrative becomes an excellent base for the trilogy to follow and by the end of the film they have perfectly laid out structure for the future Batman. Beyond the narrative we have character development. Nolan and Goyer do an incredible job of delving into Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale). We see the psychological underpinnings to his actions and Wayne becomes a complete character for us. Bruce Wayne sets out with an objective, becomes Batman and fulfills that which he set out to do. Wayne grows as a character; from petulant and spoiled child to a compelling man. Finally the writing for the film is good. There is limited use of hammy and cheap dialogue, the kind so often inherent to films these days. The writing propels the narrative, informing at every turn. I want to delve into what Nolan and Goyer accomplish a little more here, in regards to the writing. Throughout the script they continually reenforce ideas and themes from the film. Fear, justice, humanity are just some of the themes ever present. And they also use writing to serve as instructors for Bruce, to help him grow and become what he must. When Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) tells Bruce "it's not who you are underneath but what you do that defines you", you see this as a catalyst for what Bruce must become as a symbol to Gotham. But it is not only to Batman that she is speaking. She also speaks to Bruce himself. Bruce needs to help Gotham in ways such as his father did, and this is the point he misses in becoming Batman. Earlier in the film, Ra's al Ghul (Liam Neeson) tells Bruce "if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you then you become something else entirely...a legend". Can you see Batman being formed? Brilliant writing by Nolan and Goyer, just really excellent all around. Technically the entire film is excellent. The cinematography by Wally Pfister was nominated for an Academy Award and it was well deserved. Dark and foreboding, Pfister captured the tone and mood of the film and of Batman perfectly. The editing and sound were both good, particularly the score. The score is one of those scores that lingers and resonates in your mind, playing again and again. I can hear the rising horns of the Batman theme right now actually. Also of note was the production design, particularly in the Arkham scenes. Every time they were in Arkham amazing depth was provided in creating a cloistered and dirty city. And all of these details will fall under the leadership of one man. Christopher Nolan accomplished one amazing job. His major decisions would be writing, casting and the overall direction the film would take and each one he did superbly. The writing was great, but the casting was really good as well. They cast each and every character, from lead to supporting to minor roles tremendously. Christian Bale is great. He has that smarmy charm of a rich man, the inner rage required for the hurt Bruce Wayne, the fire and strength of Batman. He hits the role on every cylinder. But the casting of Alfred (Michael Caine), Rachel, Ra's, Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) et al were all incredible choices. Nolan chose well with casting, helped to pen a great script, oversaw great technical work and helped to realize a vision of Batman more in tune with being a reflection of our contemporary society. To me this is what sets BATMAN BEGINS into a different category rather than just a comic book/superhero/action film. Nolan takes great pains to bring a gritty psychological realism to Bruce Wayne/Batman. He crafts him as real. A man that suffers pain, emotional and physical. A super hero sure, but one that has plausible explanations to what he accomplishes. But Nolan also reflects what we are through Bruce Wayne/ Batman. He shows us as being fallible. He shows us enduring pain and hardship, being lost and rudderless. Bruce Wayne does the things we want to do. He helps those in need. He stands up for what is right. Batman can do the things we can't and herein lies the attraction. He can do what we can't, plain and simple. And thanks to Christopher Nolan, we get to see that. Amazing film!

THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE (Peter Yates, Paramount, 1973)

Sometimes a movie is just a good damn time. You watch it and it has a great story, some cool characters and in the case of someone like myself great technical work or otherwise noticeable merit that makes the film stand out. I have heard many good things about THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE (Peter Yates, Paramount, 1973) the last several years particularly in comparison to a film like THE TOWN (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2010). After watching the former I now know Ben Affleck has to be a serious fan of the film. The similarities are eerie. The film also embodies characteristics of films from that period, it has some really great acting by some amazing character actors and then there is Robert Mitchum. Like I said, just a good damn time. I have not seen much of Mitchum's work. I know he is considered a great star but I haven't seen much of his work. Watching him as Eddie Coyle is a revelation and I intend to watch more Mitchum stuff in the near future. Playing the older washed up criminal, Mitchum is still the coolest guy in the room. He reminds me of an older Steve McQueen, just the coolest guy. He is one of those actors that gives you the vibe that you could definitely hang out with this guy and have a great time, if not get into lots of trouble. And his voice could melt butter it's so smooth. Not as smooth around the edges as Mitchum but still holding their own is an assortment of character actors all doing good work. The three I recognized most readily were playing Dillon (Peter Boyle), Foley (Richard Jordan) and Scalise (Alex Rocco). All three were just perfect casting. All three are the types that you know you've seen time and again you just can't remember where. With Boyle and Rocco it was easy. You had Frankenstein and Moe Green. But I had to look up Jordan to realize he had been in THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER (John McTiernan, Paramount, 1990). Drove me crazy until I did. What I liked most about the film is something that happens occasionally. I tend to watch more older films than most and every now and them I will see a film in which a contemporary film is a complete homage to the previous film. I saw THE TOWN throughout this film. Elements of the bank robbery (masks and one guy aggressively attacking a bank worker), making the bank manager walk blindfolded to the water, the scene at the hockey game (changed to a Red Sox game) and the Boston criminal underworld with its hierarchy and relationships to the FBI (uncle in this film, like uncle Sam?). Ben Affleck has to be a devoted admirer of EDDIE COYLE, there are too many fingerprints all over his film. But that's great to know though as it proves there are still directors working in Hollywood today who have seen old films and know just how to make their films the right part homage and the right part their own. I really enjoyed this film and highly recommend it to anyone.

ARGO (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2012)

I finally saw ARGO (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2012) and I can't remember ever being so torn about a film. On one hand we are presented with a very good film, not great but good. The narrative is captivating and tense. The overall direction provided by Affleck is remarkable. He gets good performances from his cast as well as providing one himself. His production design is outstanding, award worthy. I even liked his musical choices for the films soundtrack. But the film does a huge disservice to one of the most traumatic events in American history. It provides a disgusting representation of Iranian people marking them as bloodthirsty savages and terrorists. Finally it sells the American public short knowing our complete disregard for historical accuracy and our easy willingness to accept the film as a course reader in Middle East 101. As a film it is a really good piece of work. The narrative is strong. It captivated me and I felt a rising tension throughout even though I knew the outcome. It is very stylized and has a serious lack of depth. In fact, where is the character development? I wanted to know more about Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck). Why did he do what he did? What were the issues for him and his family? As they are setting the fake film production up Mendez has a quick conversation with Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) about their children but that's it. Nothing else. I wanted more and had they provided more the film would have had more depth and this depth would have propelled the film from good to great. Ranging from good to great is the directing of Mr. Affleck. The guy simply knows how to direct films. He gets good performances from his entire cast while at the same time giving a good performance himself. Of particular note is the relationship between Mendez, Siegel and John Chambers (John Goodman). This relationship is great chemistry and helps move the film along. Affleck's choices in music were good though I did wonder at times if certain songs had been released at the time of the events in the film. What was amazing and deserving of awards was the production design. Every aspect harkened back to the period. The costumes; god awful 70's styles and fabrics. The props; vintage Star Wars memorabilia, American muscle cars, Polaroid cameras. The hideous makeup and hair. Every bit of P.D. was done exceedingly well. Finally, the smoking. Everyone in the film smoked. So shocking to see that today. To me though the most shocking aspect of the film is its complete disregard for accurate representation. The Iranian hostage crisis was one of the most traumatic events in our history. It came at the end of a near two decade stretch of one of the worst periods of American history. It ended one Presidency, launched another and altered much of our future. To give short shift to a matter of such importance is criminal to me. Also criminal is the representation of Iranian people. At the films beginning it states that the Persian people have a long and proud history yet the film portrays these people as bloodthirsty savages hell bent on the death and destruction of every American. This is simply not true and for a film to do this is reprehensible, Fox News like in it's portrayal. To truly get an accurate representation of Iranian people watch A SEPARATION (Asghar Farhadi, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011). But the film also sells the American public short as well. The glossy beginning and end titles to the film lend the film historical weight but if it isn't entirely factual and doesn't provide an accurate gauge of events how is it helpful to the American public? The problem is very few care. They won't take the time and effort to learn about these events, they would rather accept the presentation given to them and go about their day. As I said, I can't remember being so torn by a film. I think Ben Affleck is an amazing director and can't wait to see his next project. At the same time I wish Hollywood could get out of its own way when it came to making films of this variety.

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN (Lynne Ramsay, BBC Films, 2011)

One of those films that quietly slipped under the radar, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN (Lynne Ramsay, BBC Films, 2011) is a chilling portrait of a psychopathic killer and the pain and devastation he causes his mother. It is marked by a stark realism in its narrative, some incredibly good casting and performances and a tremendous job of directing by Ramsay. The narrative is chilling in content particularly with the rash of shootings in schools and theaters over the last several years. And while we tend to focus on the victims and their families (rightly so) we seem to never think about the family of the assailant. This film gives us Eva Katchadourian (Tilda Swinton) as she deals with the after effects of her son Kevin's killing spree. Shunned and treated poorly by those who know of her sons crime, she also deals with her own feelings of guilt over her raising of him. Never attached to him and never feeling love for him, Swinton gives us a haunted and cold performance. Haunted by her memories of her son growing up and cold enough so that we can see her son in her. Kevin (Ezra Miller) is remarkable as well. Scary and evil, the young actor is brilliant casting for the part. His eyes speak volumes and his looks are enough to convince the world he is a killer before any of his sadistic actions come to light. By the time his father (Thomas C Reilly) buys him a composite bow we are sufficiently scared of what he can do. The best aspect of the film is the direction of Ramsay. Her style is simple and effective and she allows the film to do its work through its visual elements. She doesn't get bogged down in stylistic choices that are popular in today's reality driven cinema. She allows the camera to be still and to linger, soaking in her actors and letting them work. Her shots are simple and quiet. She effectively uses sound both on screen and off. And she brilliantly uses motifs throughout the film particularly through her production design. Red is her dominant color, foreshadowing the blood of the massacre and the guilt of Eva. Wine and prescription pills are present in many scenes, lending possible reasons to Eva's despair and Kevin's psychotic behavior. I really liked everything Ramsay did throughout the entire film. Personally I really like how the film takes a look at parenthood that isn't often talked about due to its insensitivity. Eva is a mother not really happy to be one. She doesn't truly love her son and she feels burdened by him. She has had to relinquish her life for him and this displeases her. These are not thoughts often shown or discussed. And it's refreshing that such subject matter gets tackled. It gives the film power. Great film!

A SEPARATION (Asghar Farhadi, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011)

I try to make sure I watch films of all types whether they be foreign language, documentary, short films or features released here in the United States. This is especially true if the film garners awards and such is the case with A SEPARATION (Asghar Farhadi, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011). Quite simply this is an amazing film. The narrative is compelling and emotional, the acting is superb if not brilliant, the overall direction is good and the film provides such a unique glimpse into Iranian life. Rarely a film is so good that you want to immediately watch it again. 2011 Best Picture winner THE ARTIST (Michael Hazanivicius, Weinstein Company, 2011) is such a picture and so is A SEPARATION. The film is filmmaking at its finest. The narrative to this film is simple yet compelling. We are treated to a fascinating look into everyday Iranian life. Their customs and standards, how people live and conduct themselves, their laws and their way of life. It is a world vastly different than ours. We see one family struggling with divorce and caring for elderly family members, two situations Westerners can relate to. On the other side is a family struggling within the confines of their situation. A husband jailed by creditors, out of work and a wife working for another family behind his back. Non relatable problems if you will. Compounding the issues for Razieh (Sareh Bayat) is her strict devotion to her religion. Immediately we see conflict in her world as she needs to clean the Alzheimer's stricken father she is caring for. Morally a huge dilemma for Razieh. This look into Iranian social and moral issues is unique to us as this is an Iran we never hear about, never see or quite honestly care to think about. It is our brazen egocentric attitudes and morality which make this film more powerful. Also helping to make the film more compelling are some very fine performances. Leila Hatami is a revelation. I watched the film with my roommate and it was halfway through the film when I was informed this great actress was wearing no makeup. I was stunned. Can you imagine a Hollywood actress doing something like that? And her performance as the strong and willfully independent Simin was fantastic. Not only was she fiercely strong but loving and caring at the same time. And cast opposite of her was Peyman Mooadi, playing Nader. His performance was strong as well, showing emotional depth and connectivity to his screen family. I loved these two but everyone in the film was strong, connected to their roles. The direction was good throughout the film but I would like to discuss one simple shot, the very last of the film. Termeh (Sarina Farhadi) is being asked by the courts to choose between Nader and Simin (which parent she will live with). The parents are asked to leave the room so Termeh can make her choice known. Nader and Simin exit into the hallway of the courtroom and Farhadi crafts an absolutely brilliant shot. He separates the two, placing Nader in the foreground. This is right as he is the male in a male dominated culture. In the background, fronted by barred windows is Simin. The woman in the relationship is pushed to the background, placed behind bars. With one simple shot Farhadi describes the entire culture of Iran, it's pecking order, the rights of the people. It is a fascinating shot. And this is the end to the film. Brilliantly we are left wondering who Termeh has chosen. I really can't stop thinking of how great a film this is. Just a strong story, great acting and superb technical work. Please watch it if you can.

MARLENE (Maximilian Schell, Futura Films, 1984)

In the age of reality television and complete accessibility to the lives of anyone, one of the things most lacking are intimate portraits of past celebrities or historical figures. We just don't have that insight and especially with regards to stars from Hollywood's golden era, that information was kept from us. It's how Rock Hudson was a huge star with America unaware of his sexuality and how Katherine Hepburn carried on an affair with a married Spencer Tracy for well over twenty years with no backlash from the public. So to see MARLENE (Maximilian Schell, Futura Films, 1984) give us such a revealing and insightful look into one of the stars of that era, and prior to the current state of reality 'everything' is amazing. The film provides us with an intimate portrait of Marlene Dietrich, one of our greatest early film stars and a lady who became iconic in her representations that remain with us. She comes across during the film as obstinate, slightly demented, out of touch and basically sad. She refused to be filmed (the film doesn't state this but I have read she had become a recluse by the time of filming) and only agreed to do the film because Schell was directing (they had worked together previously). But it is this steadfast attempt by Dietrich to refuse us access which gives us a much more intimate portrait of her. At one point Schell tricks her into watching clips of her old films (earlier she had refused). The day comes and Schell receives a message from her agent with a quote from Dante. "There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery" is the actual quote but the agent alters the words slightly. The point is we see the price of her life, the cost of what she was being paid by what she has become. It is a sad tale, a cautionary one for all those yearning for the trappings of fame. For me this intimacy and look into Dietrich as an older woman is fascinating. I watch old films and find myself constantly drawn to the figures that dominated this era. The Carole Lombard who died tragically and early, the Grace Kelly that gave it all up for love, the Dietrich who became an icon pushed to the fringes over time. I have always appreciated Dietrich not just for her beauty but for what she represented. A strong woman not afraid to do things her way, the way she wanted. No matter what was said about her or how society viewed her actions she held strong to herself and her identity and that is something to be admired and in a world bereft of such individuality something to be strived for. The world misses you Marlene Dietrich and all those like you.

SAFE HOUSE (Daniel Esponosa, Universal, 2012)

To me these are two of the worst things I can hear prior to watching a film; "it wasn't that bad" or "it was way better than I thought it would be". As soon as I hear either usually that predetermines for me that I will not bother seeing the film in question. Most times I am right but there are exceptions and SAFE HOUSE (Daniel Espinosa, Universal, 2012) is one of those films. I watched the film and was really quite surprised at how good of a thriller it was. They did a good job with the films narrative and pacing, the casting and acting was good and I even liked some of the directorial work. As I said, "this film was way better than I thought it would be". The strongest parts of the film are its narrative and ultra quick pacing in which the film plays out. The narrative timeline is really only about 48 hours. This short time span lends realism to the narrative. In the life or death spy world decisions happen in seconds and the film captures this perfectly. This shortened time span to the narrative allows the director to push the pacing to a breakneck speed, almost too fast. This speed doesn't give the audience time to breathe and is always heightening the tension. At the same time it keeps the accelerator on its protagonist masking any plausibility holes within the narrative. You literally don't have time to think about anything, much like our protagonist Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds). Reynolds turns in a rather good performance as Weston. Departing from the snarky wise cracking roles that he almost always portrays Reynolds holds his own against Denzel, not an easy thing to accomplish. Denzel plays Tobin Frost and does so with usual aplomb. Always the coolest guy in the room, entirely under control, Denzel makes being a bad guy so much fun. The two eventually form a good partnership with Frost giving Weston the final ingredients he will need to succeed in his agency career. If you read anything I ever write you will know cinematography and particularly camera placement are the two things I love most to talk about in regards to technical work on a film. In the film Espinosa brings his European touch to the film as throughout he chooses to place the camera where it shouldn't be, places you wouldn't think of normally. I love this. If you are a director do as much of this as you can. The film did very well commercially and I wonder why it isn't as highly regarded of a film. Maybe the time of year it was released is a factor as Oscar season was in full power at the films release date. Or maybe since the film follows other great examples of the genre such as the Bourne films or TAKEN (Pierre Morel, EuropaCorp, 2008) that audiences no longer rave about a similar film in the same fashion. Maybe audiences have tired of Reynolds schtick. Whatever the case may be I was wrong about SAFE HOUSE and I am only glad enough that I was willing to give it a chance because it is a pretty good film.

OPEN RANGE (Kevin Costner, Touchstone, 2003)

A subtly quiet film upon its release, OPEN RANGE (Kevin Costner, Touchstone, 2003) is a good film, a really good western and a great example of a film that encompasses the myths, conventions and iconography of the genre throughout the various periods of filmmaking in Hollywood. Starting with a tried and true western formulaic narrative, the film has good casting and acting with both resulting in great chemistry. It also makes use of contemporary trends in the genre as well as taking advantage of technical advancements in filmmaking giving the film added quality and depth. If Costner's epic film DANCES WITH WOLVES (Costner, Orion Pictures, 1990) is credited with revitalizing the western genre then OPEN RANGE is a nice extension in his directing career. OPEN RANGE is reminiscent of classical Hollywood westerns particularly in regards to thematic content, narrative and casting. Thematically the film deals with traditional western themes such as good vs. evil and westward expansion and the American settler. The narrative works within the same constraints as the thematics. Casting is a big area where the film hearkens back to classical Hollywood. The film employs three stars and the chemistry between the stars, particularly between Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) and Charley Waite (Costner) is excellent. Audiences can believe these two cowboys are men of their word, are men of action and will triumph in the end. A really great job of casting for this film. Moving forward to the modernist period of filmmaking the film uses extremely violent scenes and action to enforce the narrative. The film reminds me of the modernist classic THE WILD BUNCH (Sam Peckinpah, Warner Bros., 1969). Anachronistic and aging men committing violent actions, adhering to a code and life that is passing them by quickly. In OPEN RANGE this violence simmers just below the films surface until it explodes with Charley shooting the hired gun Butler (Kim Coates) point blank in the face. I cannot recall a western ever being so blatantly forward with a shooting and like THE WILD BUNCH this jarring violence elevates the film to an entirely different place. It's quite remarkable and it's a scene that I look forward to when watching the film, primarily because it is so jarring. Jarring in its own way is the postmodern use of sound for effect. The film uses loud and blasting gun shots to help drive home the action in the narrative. Not to be left out of the gruesomeness, Boss Spearman shotgun blasts a guy through a wall. The sound of the shotgun blast is extremely loud, elevated even, and the man flies a good five feet after being shot. This hyper realism, a supremely stylized moment gives the film that perfect postmodern feel. I really like this film. I am a big fan of Costner and Duvall. I love the western genre. And there is just enough elements scattered from here and there to make my film sensibility happy. Great film.

SKYFALL (Sam Mendes, MGM, 2012)

With a title like SKYFALL (Sam Mendes, MGM, 2012) any Bond aficionado would immediately think back to any number of 007 narratives; foiled operations, criminal code words for plans of world domination, an MI-6 code name or even a tongue in cheek name for any of the long list of Bond girls. Had this film been done during the Sean Connery era it would be the name for a dastardly S.P.E.C.T.R.E plot, Roger Moore would have been saving the free world from a Russian missile/space program and Pierce Brosnan would be dealing with a leaked CIA project. But this isn't our parents 007 and SKYFALL is utterly different than any previous Bond film. SKYFALL deals with a part of 007 that previously had not existed, at least not before the release of CASINO ROYALE (Martin Campbell, MGM, 2006) and the film tackles not only Bond but the entire world in which Bond exists making it wholly unlike any other Bond film previously released. The first departure from previous Bond films that SKYFALL makes is in its characters and all the magnificent flaws that make them the people they are. Starting with CASINO ROYALE, James Bond (Daniel Craig) has been thrown under the psychological microscope. In CASINO ROYALE we got to see what made him the hardened womanizer he is, cold to all that make functioning in his job necessary. But in SKYFALL we get to go back deeper and farther and learn what made James so unerringly loyal to queen and country (by queen I of course mean motherly M). It doesn't stop here though. Finally we see a portrait of another member of the Bond world. M (Judi Dench) is given harsh treatment here as she has to reflect a world of tough decisions and cruel coldness. When she gives the order to "take the shot" knowing James might be the man hit you get the very real sense Dench is truly agonizing thinking Craig might be shot. Two things, credit must be given to these two fantastic actors for making us feel this connection between the two of them. And Dench also superbly represents the professional establishment and embodies the 'mum' as well. The portrayals put forth by Craig, Dench and Javier Bardem also help to make this unlike other Bond films. While good acting has indeed been a part of past Bond films it has never been at this level. Daniel Craig has transformed what we expect of Bond just as Judi Dench has staked her claim to the modern day M. But it is what Bardem accomplished as the villainous Raoul Silva which chillingly surpasses all other Bond villains. Bond villains tend to range from the campy Blofeld to the sublime yet utterly ridiculous Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd (Diamonds Are Forever). If the villains happen to be women then they get monikers such as Pussy Galore (Goldfinger) or Xenia Onatopp (Goldeneye). Silva is disturbingly evil and his psychosis is all to familiar to us in this day and age. His madness is palpable and the introduction of homosexuality to a Bond villain makes him just perfect. As Silva undresses a tied up Craig with his mind you can sense the tension in his mind and of course the moment is capped brilliantly by Craig uttering "who says its my first time (with a guy)"? What is beyond brilliant is the cinematography brought forth by Roger Deakins. Bond films have always been flashy action packed affairs with great camera work showcasing beautiful locales and panoramic vistas. What Deakins accomplishes in this film is superlative. His cinematography is layered, textured even. The fight sequence between Bond and Patrice (Ola Rapace) which takes place high up in a darkened skyscraper is sheer genius. The lighting comes from different angles and sources yet the two fighters are deftly seen throughout the altercation. Deakins work also adds depth to the film, particularly in the sequences at Skyfall. How beautiful is the shot of the castle when we first see it? And the lighting after they have torched and blown up the castle is eerie and beautiful and fits the destruction of Bond's childhood. And of course the film will ultimately come back to 007. Since CASINO ROYALE and the introduction of Daniel Craig as Bond we have seen Bond films that delve into the psychological underpinnings of the character. We learned why he doesn't love and now with SKYFALL we get more of what motivates and drives Bond. This ongoing examination of the mental Bond is an accurate reflection of what audiences desire from their heroes now. In the last decade or so there has been a definite spike in the anti-hero and our true heroes have become more in line with these anti-heroes, more in line with us. They have faults, cracks in the veneer, destructive traits and personalities. They are real. And this is what audiences want presently, realism. One only need look as far as the last few Bond films or even Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy. Which, how amazing would it be to see Nolan direct a Bond film? Or maybe Matthew Vaughn? Let's make this happen. Many people are proclaiming SKYFALL to be the best Bond film ever. To me this is a comparison that cannot be made, much like you can't compare the skills of Barry Bonds to those of Babe Ruth. Different eras beget different pictures. Let's just leave it as it is by FAR the best Bond film starring Daniel Craig (let's just say I have one MAJOR issue with Casino Royale) and lets hope the trend towards a better and more realistic Bond continues.

FLIGHT (Robert Zemeckis, Paramount, 2012)

Like its protagonist Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) the film FLIGHT (Robert Zemeckis, Paramount, 2012) is essentially a good film albeit a flawed one. Washington plays Whitaker, a drunk and an addict who happens to also be a pilot, a heroic one at that. Whitaker does his best throughout the film to make sure you loathe and despise him yet somehow we still root for him to get out of his own way. The film mirrors this behavior. There are enough detriments to the film; an overly long narrative, no truly likable characters, a snails pace to the final two-thirds of the film and just enough references to overt Christianity that your eyes get fatigued from rolling. Still the film redeems itself by its finish and one walks away thinking "that wasn't so bad". Which in my estimation is not the feeling you want to leave the theater with. The narrative to the film is actually good. It is interesting, compelling and well developed. But the strengths to the narrative also hinder it. Because the narrative is well developed it allows the film to meander along at a very slow pace making the film too long. The characters are interesting and very compelling but they also are train wrecks; not people you want to root for or expect anything redeeming to come from their actions. The narrative is also predictable with the films ending being readily seen well in advance. I also feel that with the subject matter present the film lacked resonance and power. Think back to a prior Zemeckis masterpiece, FORREST GUMP (Zemeckis, Paramount, 1994). The feelings and emotions, the power of the narrative and it's characters still resonate. FLIGHT lacks this and ultimately this hurts the film. Technically Zemeckis is as accomplished a director as can be found. The films first twenty minutes show this perfectly. The entire sequence up until the crash is set up beautifully and it is masterful film craftsmanship. Normally I would talk aspects up that I was particularly fond of but here I need to talk about a simple bit of casting. The casting of Katerina Marquez (Nadine Velazquez) was good, I thought she was great in the role. BUT, damn it she was almost too distracting. You cannot keep your eyes away from her during the entire hotel scene. She epitomizes the 'gaze aesthetic' in film. At USC when I learned about gaze aesthetic it was Brigitte Bardot in Godard's French classic Contempt (Jean-Luc Godard, Embassy Pictures, 1963). To be in such esteemed company is high praise indeed. High praise will deservedly be given to Denzel Washington and this film begins and ends with him. Whip Whitaker is a great role for Denzel. Denzel has given us a career full of strong, fierce, confident, prideful and impervious characters. With Whip Whitaker though we see a man with faults, someone broken. Denzel plays the role giving Whip vulnerability and fallibility. There is even courage to the portrayal. It is these traits that Denzel infuses in the role which makes us root for Whip, it makes us pull for the man to get out of his own way and overcome his demons. We want to hate this man but we pull for him and want him to get better. To me this is one of the truest marks of a really great actor, this ability to make us feel two divergent emotions simultaneously. This is one of Denzel's best performances ever and one can only hope more roles like this are in store for us from him. (a final aside) after seeing the film I talked to a pilot friend and although I knew the film was loosely based on a factual crash my friend assures me what Whip did in the cockpit is and was completely legitimate. That makes the film better for me somehow. Actually it makes me want to see the first sequence again.

CHASING MAVERICKS (Curtis Hansen and Michael Apted, 20th Century Fox, 2012)

Know this right now. It is impossible for me to write anything about CHASING MAVERICKS (Curtis Hanson and Michael Apted, 20th Century Fox, 2012) without gushing like a giddy school girl discussing her first crush. I read the script a few weeks back and it had me simultaneously near tears and fully stoked to paddle across Monterey Bay. With this level of expectation it would be easy for a film to fall under that much weight, to get crushed like a kook going over the falls at Mavericks. And while the film doesn't fail miserably it doesn't succeed in the way I wanted it to. This in no way means I wasn't completely and utterly captivated and fully stoked! I don't often like to read a script just prior to a films release as it, like reviews or blogs, tend to give me a distorted view upon watching the film. With CHASING MAVERICKS there was quite simply no option when it came to reading it. I am completely obsessed with surfing; I think about surfing constantly. So if a movie about surfing is coming out not much is stopping me from seeing it immediately. When the script came my way a few weeks back of course I read it. And this is the immediate problem I see with the film, the finished product doesn't match the written word. The narrative to the film is a great one. The tale of Jay Moriarity (Jonny Weston) is one of inspiration and pride. His story makes me want to be not only a better surfer but a better person and his story gives me great pride in that I do surf and I do strive to reach an ideal he sets forth. This narrative is well developed and involving with complete character development and full story arcs. It is at times humorous and at others full of emotion and love. The father/son dynamic to the story is touching and hits me on a personal level. Yet the film as a whole falls flat, something is missing. All the ingredients are there only it's as if they didn't follow the directions in putting everything together. And this is a shame because this could have been a great film otherwise. What is done remarkably is the casting to the film, the performances turned in by the actors and the chemistry achieved between certain pairings of actors. Each of the top five billed actors does a good job and is good casting for the role. Jonny Weston nails the likability and determination of Jay; his smile and attitude are infectious. This spills over into his relationships within the narrative. The father/son dynamic with Frosty (Gerard Butler) is touching as I mentioned but as they struggle to come to grips with what they mean to each other you find yourself pulling for these two men. The same can be said for Jay and Kim (Leven Rambin), two sweethearts destined for each other. Finally, how great is it to see Elisabeth Shue as Kristy Moriarity, Jay's mother. Was it really twenty five years ago that Shue was Danny LaRusso's teen love interest in THE KARATE KID? One aspect of the film is simply outstanding and that is the cinematography of Bill Pope. There are times when you feel as if you are in the water with the performers; maybe paddling across the bay, maybe surfing some ten foot swell. They also did not appear to use a tank for any shots (one of the most maddening things mainstream surf films do, think Point Break). What Pope did successfully is he made the wave at Mavericks a character within the narrative. Looming large and foreboding, the wave was a menacing force, something to be taken with life or death seriousness. The spectacular cinematography in the film helped humanize the wave as well as adding gravity to the narrative. I felt Pope did the most remarkable work in the film unless that was truly Gerard Butler surfing early in the film. Damn, not only is he a good actor starring in films with beautiful women but he surfs that well? Some guys have all the luck! I guess all I can do is try to live like Jay.

THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES (Walter Selles, Focus Features, 2004)

It is not often that a film is good enough or powerful enough to enable you to feel the entire array of human emotion as well as inspiring the viewer to want to be a better person and to accomplish more in life. THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES (Walter Selles, Focus Features, 2004) is just such a film; powerful, emotional and inspirational. It definitely is one of those films I wished I had watched sooner but still I am honored to have seen it when I did. The film is absolutely beautiful. The cinematography is spectacular with such an array of the beauty of South America as to be breathtaking. The picturesque shots of the Andes, the South American countryside and the different countries accompany our characters along their journey. We are on the journey with the two protagonists through this visual feast. Also, along the way we see numerous black and white stills, particularly of the indigenous people's of the country. This creates a striking juxtaposition to the panoramic beauty of the country. We see the people as part of the land but are left with the feeling they are being ripped from it. Even so it is one spectacular shot that I will remember most vividly. As Ernesto (Gael Garcia Bernal) and Alberto (Rafael de la Serna) are river bound to the leper colony of San Pablo a shot is crafted wrapping itself around the boat they are on. As the camera moves around the boat the sun slowly sets as the camera moves. Obviously some effects were added but a stunning shot was created, one which made me sit up and immediately take note. And for me this film became a personal viewing experience because of moments like the one I just described but also due to the thematic content the film provided me as an individual. The film is thought provoking to say the least. I want to read more about Che Guevara, know truly what kind of man he was. This film provides a glimpse into a journey that transformed him but it leaves me wanting more. At the same time the film is motivational to me. I question myself and wonder what I have done with my life, have I lived it fully and/or accomplished all that I can? Our protagonists rode a beat up motorcycle halfway up the South American continent and walked and hitched the rest, all with little or no money and relying on the generosity and kindness of strangers. There is nothing that cannot be accomplished if desire resides in your heart and mind. Finally the film provides real emotion. Not forced, not manipulated. There are moments of laughter, sadness and shock and revelation. All natural. If anything this film provides impetus to be more in life and can any film want to achieve more than that? I think not and I truly believe I am a better person for having seen this film.

LOOPER, (Rian Johnson, TriStar Pictures, 2012)

In LOOPER (Rian Johnson, TriStar Pictures, 2012), assassins from the present patiently wait in empty cornfields for men to be sent to them through time to be assassinated. These men sent through time are other assassins or 'loopers' and eventually the present day assassin ends up killing their future self. At this point the present day assassin is retired and gets to live out the remainder of their lives knowing that exactly forty years later they will be sent back through time to be killed, closing their loop. The idea strikes me that this is a marvelous concept particularly if it could be applied to either watching a film or even simply reading about, hearing of or seeing a films trailer. I would immediately loop back to the point where I had never heard a word about LOOPER and therefore be able to enjoy the film for what it is, a decent thriller; not a smart and inventive new style of film which is what I wished I hadn't read prior to seeing the film. Which is not to say the film isn't damn good, the film just doesn't evoke memories of classics such as BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID (George Roy Hill, 20th Century Fox, 1969) or even THE MATRIX (Larry and Andy Wachowski, Warner Bros., 1999) for that matter. LOOPER provides a unique and innovative narrative. It is well developed, not overly hard to follow and if anything maybe a little too tidy in its conclusion. What it is not is a film that blows your mind. I remember after watching THE MATRIX for the first time instantly wanting to watch it again, speaking softly to myself "what the hell has just happened to the way I look at things"? That's a mind blowing film, one that changes they way you look at things. And LOOPER is not the that nor is it the type of film where I can see myself re-watching it time and again, gaining nuance and appreciation with each viewing like I do with BUTCH AND SUNDANCE. In the end I think what ultimately derailed LOOPER for me is the mistake I made of buying into the comments I had heard about just how 'great' it was. As always, never believe the hype. One thing I can believe is that cinematographers and directors are constantly coming up with brilliant things to do with the camera and cinematography to their films. I really liked the visual style created here by Johnson and cinematographer Steve Yedlin. They used different camera set-ups and placement to give us a unique glimpse into the world of the film. They allowed the camera and by extension our sight to linger, to gaze at its inhabitants, to soak in all that they had created. The film just exists with a different look and feel. Also looking different is the star of the film Joseph Gordon Levitt. A great makeup job gives him the Bruce Willis nose and lends credence to the narrative. The performances of both Willis and Levitt are both rather good and what can I say about Emily Blunt? I mean already she is absolutely stunning and here in the film she looks great but her British accent is not only gone it is replaced with an American south one. There is nothing I don't love about her. There were a few things I didn't love in the film. Time travel does not exist and the capabilities more than likely will never be within our reach. Yet Hollywood insists on using time travel in its narratives. When a film does this I immediately think the film is using a narrative crutch and this weakens the narrative for me. I cannot take a film seriously if it so outrageously looks past universal laws of physics. Finally, the little boy in this film was scary as hell. But that's the problem, he belongs in a horror film not this one. Sure hope the poor guy isn't typecast. LOOPER is a pretty decent flick, just not what I would consider amazing.

BAD TEACHER (Jake Kasdan, Columbia, 2011)

There are times when I need to shut my mind off. To not think about anything, to watch a film that doesn't render any greater meaning or feeling is usually my choice of activities and the other night I had the perfect movie to watch. BAD TEACHER (Jake Kasdan, Columbia, 2011) is just such a movie, a mindless time filler. There are some charming moments, like anytime Elizabeth (Cameron Diaz) interacts with her students yet these moments are few and far between. Diaz does give a bold and provocative performance, turning the expected behavior of a teacher on its ear. She looks good, acts bad and makes every male audience member wish he had her as a teacher growing up. At the same time, the roles of Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch) and Lynn Davies (Phyllis Smith) are nice counterparts to Elizabeth, providing great comic foils to her disastrous teaching. Conversely the character of Russell Gettis (Jason Segal) is allowed to languish in obscurity, never fully becoming a large part of the narrative. And the Scott DeLaCorte (Justin Timberlake) is not only annoying, sad and desperate but on screen way too much. Flip around the screen time for those two male characters and the narrative gets a little better. The film is not very memorable at all except for one great scene and that is the car wash scene. Diaz goes all out in her slutty turn as teacher gone wrong here, shocking her students, teasing her pre-pubescent boys and completely titillating any passing male parent. The scene is also a great homage to 80's hair bands and their videos and it provides a particularly great use of the song "Here I Go Again" by Whitesnake. And if memory serves I think Tawny Kitaen slithered all over a car in the video for that song. Ah the 80's, last bastion of morality in America. So, if you have nothing to do, if you love 80's hair bands and their songs, if you would like to punch JT in the face at times and if you think Cameron Diaz is incredibly smoking hot then try to catch BAD TEACHER. I think it's right up your alley.

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE (Stephen Daldry, Warner Bros., 2011)

There are times when I get super busy and watching films gets put on the back burner.  There are times when I'll have a particular film from Netflix for weeks, sitting by my TV collecting dust.  I've had my copy of EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE (Stephen Daldry, Warner Bros., 2011) for weeks now and by coincidence happened to decide to watch it on 9-11.  It wasn't until after watching it that I realized the date, so maybe there were some strange karmic energy going around that day.  Regardless of when you watch the film it is a very fine film, obviously packed with emotion and feeling yet not too heavy handed.  It has some good technical work and the acting is superlative.  And still something put it in my head to watch it today.

Watching the film the first thing that strikes me is the quality of the narrative.  Without relying on a heavy handed approach, the film follows Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn) as he attempts to cope with the loss of his father during the attacks.  Oskar's journey is a painful one but one that must be taken.  And the narrative to the film does his story justice, giving us a full and complete journey for our young protagonist.  The character development for Oskar is outstanding and the supporting characters all add dimensions to the overall narrative.  The writing is good, never heavy handed nor manipulative.  The narrative proves strangely cathartic for the viewer, especially after so much time has passed.  Everything about the writing for this film is superb.

The writing isn't the only superlative detail of the film.  The performances turned in by the cast are all excellent and this all starts with Horn.  The kid is a revelation, alternating between maniacally excitable to immature and petulant, oftentimes within the same scene.  His relationship to his father Thomas (Tom Hanks) is realistic with genuine moments, like the scene where Oskar refuses to ride the swing.  Some of the best scenes come when Oskar is with The Renter (Max von Sydow).  Playing a mute, von Sydow is remarkable and the two share some touching screen moments.  The rest of the cast is good in their roles from Viola Davis to Jeffrey Wright and Sandra Bullock.  All of them turn in fine performances.

I have mentioned before that I particularly admire cinematography that is done in an unusual and innovative manner and this film has that.  There are numerous interesting shots throughout the film, with the director and cinematographer (Chris Menges) placing their camera in some inventive and interesting places.  Doing this gives the film character in my opinion and adds to the depth the fine acting and great narrative are already creating.

Stephen Daldry has created a nice film, one that has a subject matter that if not dealt with correctly could appear manipulative and forced.  The film is powerful at times yet never heavy handed.  At no time do you feel like your feelings are being pushed onto you.  The film is a good way to let your feelings out, though watching it on the day I did may have had a factor in that.  I really liked this film a lot and only wished I hadn't waited so long to view it.  I highly recommend it to anyone!

HOLIDAY (George Cukor, Columbia, 1938)

I absolutely love it when I watch a film for the first time and become utterly captivated by seeing it.  Then I marvel about how I could have went so long without knowing of its greatness.  This is exactly how I feel about HOLIDAY (George Cukor, Columbia, 1938).  The film is a revelation.  It is smartly written with crisp dialogue and a narrative that doesn't feel stodgy or stale.  The direction moves the film along brilliantly, keeping the film flowing at a brisk pace.  And the casting and performances.  With Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn you just simply can't go wrong.  Add in great supporting roles and you have a fine film.

What makes this film particularly impressive is the examination it makes on our societal belief systems; what motivates us, our never ending pursuit and desire for money, our ideas on love, the values we associate with proper behavior.  Both Johnny (Grant) and Linda (Hepburn) are idealists and as such in order to live their lives the way they see fit both must compromise.  Johnny must forgo his dreams; he must succumb to societal pressures and become a promising young businessman.  His dream, to live life to the fullest while he is young enough to enjoy it, is deemed "un-American" by his expectant father in law.  Linda has made the simple mistake of loving the man engaged to her sister, except that her sister doesn't quite love Johnny.  Still, she struggles with what she has been taught is the right thing to do and it isn't until near the end of the film she chooses to pursue her love.

The narrative to this film is daring in its attack upon what we have been conditioned or taught as the way to live our lives.  Most of the films characters look down on our two protagonists and demeans their pursuits as frivolous. The narrative questions the validity of the belief that all must pursue the endless accumulation of wealth and it focuses a harsh light on the emptiness of that belief.  Johnny and Linda are not characters often seen portrayed in film.  I happen to love them and this film has instantly become one of my favorites.

One final thought and it concerns my favorite line from the film.  Johnny is rejecting Julia (Doris Nolan) and Edward's (Edward Kolker) notions of what their married life will be.  He says "if we begin loaded down with possessions and obligations we'll never get out from under them".  A line uttered in a film almost seventy five years ago and a line which could be spoken to so many people today.  It would be advice well heeded.

THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (George Cukor, MGM, 1940)

Easily one of the best films ever made and one of my personal favorites THE PHILADELPHIA STORY (George Cukor, MGM, 1940) cannot be praised enough.  A true classic the film is a marvelously written one with great dialogue as well as a funny and romantic narrative.  The cast may be one of the best ever assembled with everyone giving stellar performances.  Being adapted from a stage play makes the film stagnant in setting but this is a minor knock on great work by George Cukor.  Watching the film today leaves me with one very striking facet that cannot be ignored.

The facilitating vehicle bringing Mike (Jimmy Stewart), Liz (Ruth Hussey), Dex (Cary Grant) and Tracy (Katherine Hepburn) together is the desire of Spy magazine to get a first hand account of a socialites wedding.  Now in this day and age this type of thing doesn't at all seem implausible or even far fetched, in fact it might even be expected.  This role played by the tabloid press is an interesting one.  At the beginning of the film Tracy complains of the indecency of such press and wonders how any decent and good person would succumb to such invasion of privacy.  The tabloids are viewed as an intrusion and the characters of Mike and Liz despise their jobs but despair having to make money.  Today this type of behavior is embraced, the cameras welcomed and the privacy of lives commoditized.  This signifies a tremendous shift in the societal and moral directions this country has taken.  A significantly sad one.

This shift can best be seen in analyzing stars.  The stars of this film; Stewart, Hepburn and Grant were of the classical mold.  Carefully tailored images, discreet private lives.  Always leaving their homes as part of the bigger picture, never being photographed in less than detailed presentation.  Contrast this to today's celebrity personas.  It is as if everything done by these greats was tossed out the window as anachronistic and tired, useless in today's age of media over saturation.  Watching a great film like THE PHILADELPHIA STORY takes you back to a different time and those short two hours let you relive things as they used to be if only for a little while.

BRINGING UP BABY (Howard Hawks, RKO, 1938)

With a film as perfect as BRINGING UP BABY (Howard Hawks, RKO Pictures, 1938) there is not much insight I can give adding to the film.  It is impeccably written, the casting and performances are all good, Hawks overall direction and pace to the film are exemplary and the film just makes you feel good about life.  It is funny, romantic and watching it now takes one back so many years.  Per my usual I will just list my favorite moments from the film, in no discernible order.

The golf course scene.  Interesting to watch because this is the scene in Scorsese's THE AVIATOR in which Cate Blanchett does a great Hepburn.  But in the film you see Susan (Katherine Hepburn) just owning David (Cary Grant).  More specifically she tells him "you can't own everything, my golf ball, my car".  I always say Grant is at his best when playing down his persona and this film is a great example.  Hepburn gets the best of him from the start and it all begins right here.  This continues later at dinner.  Susan torments David yet it is always David's fault.  "Oh you've torn your coat" as she chases him down.  Poor Cary Grant.

I have long been a huge Grant fan but it is Hepburn herself that is starting to become a revelation to me.  She is amazing in this role.  Cute and coy, seductive and suggestive she is really great.  The first instance I noticed this was as Susan tells David (upon hearing he is to marry) "why would you want to do that"?  This moment is preceded by a laugh that is so infectious, so disarming how can anyone say no to it?  Just an amazing moment in the film.

Later Susan really starts turning the screws on David as she gets him to first stop in at her apartment and then accompany her to Connecticut, all ostensibly to help her with Baby.  Her feigned attack to get him to come over, her switching cars to avoid a ticket even pretending to be the local phone operator, repeating the time over and again.  Susan is devilish in her pursuit and really does David ever stand a chance?

How can he stand a chance when she coos the line "you're so good looking without your glasses".  Of course we all already know this but with Grant playing against type it works so well.

Susan tells everyone anything she can think of regarding David and who he really is and I love when he follows George (the dog) outside during dinner.  On the third or fourth go around he is asked about his time on the Malay Peninsula.  "I've never been to the Malay Peninsula" in a deadpan so spot on it hurts.

Even funnier moments occur as Susan and David hunt down George and Baby.  Armed with a croquet mallet and a butterfly net they clumsily make their way around the countryside, getting further and further entrenched and falling more and more in love.  By the time Susan lights David's socks on fire he doesn't even seem to be trying to fight her any longer.  David is resigned to the fact he can't beat Susan, ever.

Finally the entire sequence in the local jail with Constable Slocum (Walter Catlett) is tremendous.  The writing shines here, the timing is impeccable.  Every member of the cast shows up and nails every beat, seemingly makes the scene about them.  Even with brilliance shining all around the scene is still stolen by Susan as she becomes a gangster, adopting that James Cagney voice and busting herself out of the joint.  I really cannot say enough about how amazing Hepburn is in this film.

The film is spectacular, funny as hell and such a joy to watch.

SYLVIA SCARLETT (George Cukor, RKO, 1935)

What do you do when you start watching a film and you realize it isn't that good?  Even with a classic film it sometimes is hard to push through and view the entire thing.  This is the case with SYLVIA SCARLETT (George Cukor, RKO Pictures, 1935) as the film was particularly hard to follow narratively, the performances were scattered and the film is just old enough that stylistically it doesn't compare favorably with other films made shortly after in the years to follow.  The film does have Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn as it's two stars though, the first of four films pairing these two greats.  And while the two of them are often great, this film doesn't offer many times for these two to shine.

There is one thing the film does very well, particularly looking back almost eighty years since its release.  I am not sure if it is the persona of Hepburn that determines the role of Sylvia or if the script dictated her portrayal.  But the wholehearted attack on gender roles and sexuality this film takes is amazing.  This attack is multifaceted and takes on many aspects.  Let me begin with Hepburn.

The most obvious physical change would of course be her hair and makeup.  She goes under a radical transformation in cutting her hair entirely in a men's fashion.  The makeup applied to her in the role is done well and contributes to her deceptively being very boyish.  Her costuming helps as well and this is no doubt aided by her slender figure.  The most striking aspect of Hepburn in this role is her movement.  She moves just like a man does, totally different from all the other women in the film.  All the tricks of hair and makeup are great but it's the movement that makes her convincing.  And this effective portrayal of a man blurs the gender lines in the film.

Also blurring things is an underlying tone of sexuality to the film, particularly one of homosexuality.  I counted three instances of same sex kissing, unheard of in classical Hollywood studio era films.  What further muddles this same sex kissing is the pairings.  Maudie (Dennie Moore) kisses Sylvia but Sylvia has a penciled mustache.  The audience knows its girl kissing girl but the mustache and dress alters the landscape.  Next Michael (Brian Aherne) kisses Sylvester.  Definitely not a heterosexual moment but allowable because the audience knows Sylvester really is a girl.  Finally when Sylvia reveals herself she is kissed by Lily (Natalie Paley).  Again, girl kissing girl but the manner of the kiss and it's particular moment in the narrative make it allowable. (Lily is forgiving Sylvia for an earlier slight)  

Lily of course has the line of the film, cementing this blurring of genders.  When meeting Sylvia she coyly states "were you a girl dressed as a boy or are you a boy dressed as a girl"?  This statement of confusion sums up exactly what the film is saying.  Sylvia is blurring gender lines and the audience is supposed to buy into whichever role Hepburn is playing at the time.  The film entirely belongs to Hepburn and her performance is strong.

The film is not good and is rather tedious to watch.  But there are some fantastic moments within and the undertones that are broached are remarkable.  And of course you get Grant and Hepburn.