Tag Archives: Movie Reviews

Movies

Snowpiercer (2013) a (mildly) belated review

While science fiction movies/tv shows often present audiences with pure, unadulterated escapism, there have been plenty of examples of using this genre to reflect on, analyse, and/or critique society.

One of the earliest (and greatest, in my opinion) science fiction films, Metropolis (1927), was a story of how the haves and the have-nots function in a society…and where their breaking point -and ultimately peace between them- lies.  The original Star Trek series would frequently present episodes which were thinly veiled looks at the then present, and at times turbulent, mid to late 1960’s era.

Sometimes, however, well meaning creators present their futuristic works in silly, obvious, and/or ham-handed ways which makes the whole endeavor fall apart.  The highly anticipated 2013 film Elysium, for example, figuratively hit this particular viewer over the head with its tale of societal dysfunction.  The whole endeavor was so obvious, so hammy, that I couldn’t help but be disappointed.

Incredibly, many of the elements found in Elysium showed up in Snowpiercer.  Yet while the former failed to deliver (or delivered to heavily) on its concepts, the later does so in spades.

To put it bluntly, Snowpiercer totally blew me away.

The movie’s plot goes as follows: In the near future, humanity tried to stop global warming by spiking the atmosphere with some new, experimental chemical.  The result proved horrific: Instead of cooling the Earth down, it froze it, encasing all lands in snow and ice (this concept, by the way, is not entirely new.  It found its way in the for the most part forgotten –and with good reason– low budget film The Colony).  What’s left of humanity rides in a perpetually operating train that runs on tracks around the frozen globe.

The train is divided into sections and we follow the passengers crammed into the dreary rear as they plan a revolt against their oppressors, the ones who live in the sections beyond.

This is all you need to know about the film’s basic story, but be prepared for some very interesting questions regarding humanity, revolt, and true independence.  There’s a delightful added extra for those familiar with -and have a negative impression about- the works of Ayn Rand.  The movie appears to be almost like an anti-Atlas Shrugged, complete with a Ayn Rand lookalike (I’ll get into that later) and a railroad magnate.

Unlike Elysium’s off-putting sledgehammer approach, Snowpiercer offers a far more meaty plot that leads you into interesting, and at times almost avant-guard directions.  The protagonist of the story, rebellion leader Curtis (Chris Evans), proves to be far more than he at first appears and carries some very dark secrets.  His mentor, Gilliam (John Hurt), proves to carry is own secrets as well, and they may be darker yet.

Perhaps the most fascinating character is Mason (Tilda Swinton).  Ms. Swinton delivers a terrific, at times over the top turn as the medium between the “head and the heart” (take that, Metropolis fans!) in what I can only guess is a full on parody of Ayn Rand herself.

It’s rare that a movie has hit me like Snowpiercer has.  Walking into it I was cautiously optimistic.  Walking out, I couldn’t help but feel totally blown away.

Snowpiercer is the real deal.  Highly recommended.

Movies

Cold in July (2014) a (mildly) belated review

I first heard about Cold In July when it was making the film festival circuit earlier in the year.  People said very good things about it and, given that it was based on a story by Joe R. Lansdale (Bubba Ho-Tep), I was intrigued.

The film was barely released to theaters but when it arrived on the home video market (without too much fanfare, sadly), I needed to see it.  Yesterday I finally had the chance to do so.

What I saw was a film that started somewhat slowly, taking its time to build the central character and going in a certain direction only to make several interesting twists and turns before, unfortunately, ending on a rather bland note.

The plot of the film, at least as much as I’m willing to reveal without getting into spoilers, starts with Richard Dane (Michael C. Hall) awoken by his wife late at night.  His wife heard something and, sure enough, it is apparent someone has broken into the house.  Richard goes to his closet and gets his handgun, then makes his way to the living room.  There, the very nervous homeowner confronts the robber and, without meaning to, kills him with a single shot.

Afterwards, the police arrive and go through the procedure of writing their reports.  They assure Richard that what he did was self-defense and there won’t be any problems afterwards.

They are quite wrong.

Richard is wracked with guilt at his actions.  So much so that he goes to the robber’s funeral.  There, he is confronted by the man’s father, a recently released convict named Russel (Sam Shepherd), and the elderly man makes menacing statements directed at Richard’s son.  At this point it appears we’re dealing with an “eye for an eye” situation…

Only things aren’t always what they seem and the story goes through several clever twists and turns.

To me, this was where the movie really started to soar.  Despite the obvious low budget and the filmmakers attempts at emulating early John Carpenter films, I was fascinated by the developments and, in particular, the scene stealing turn by Don Johnson.  His P.I. Jim Bob was easily the highlight of the second part of the film.

Unfortunately, and as I stated before, this intriguing film builds up to a climax that is neither terribly suspenseful or original.  Rather than leave me breathless and amazed, I was left thinking I’d seen this type of climax many times before…and better done (think Rolling Thunder).  Assuming the movie was true to Mr. Lansdale’s story, one gets the feeling that he came up with a lot of clever concepts but didn’t have a terribly original or clever way to wrap it up so he went for something tried and true.  And, unfortunately, not terribly great.

In the end, I can only offer a mild endorsement for Cold In July.  For most of its runtime this film is clever, original, humorous, and surprising but unfortunately gives you a very unsurprising ending.

Too bad.

Movies

Without Warning (1980) a (ridiculously) belated review

I saw the very low budget sci-fi/horror film Without Warning one night while it was playing on cable way, waaaay back in the very early 1980’s.  Perhaps as early as 1981.

I remembered very little about it, but what I did recall stuck with me for decades.

Here’s the theatrical trailer.  Sorry for its relatively low quality (I couldn’t find anything significantly better), but in seeing this trailer, some of the stuff I remembered so clearly can be found within:

To elaborate, my main memories of the film involved the flying “organic” discs that the alien flings at its victims.  I remembered finding the whole thing so gory…again, for that particular time.

It would appear others remembered those details too because Shout! Factory has been kind enough to release Without Warning in a special edition BluRay with considerable bells and whistles.  After seeing the movie listing on Amazon a few times, I finally gave in and ordered it.  (A quick aside: I also purchased the original 1979 Tourist Trap and have pre-ordered the 1973 The Long Goodbye and 1972 Hickey and Boggs…viva the movies of the 1970’s!)

When the movie arrived, I simply had to see it from start to end and see what/why pieces of it had lingered in my mind for so very long.

What I found was a decent enough horror film that can rightly be called a precursor to the far better known Predator.  Certainly the plots of both films share this much in common: They both feature a mysterious and deadly alien hunter whose prey is homo-sapiens…and who has no trouble killing his prey in gruesome ways.

While Predator featured a bigger budget and, while scary, was primarily an action film, Without Warning’s focus is more toward horror.

Like Predator, the plot is quite simple: Two young men and two young women (included among them a very, very young David Caruso) head out the “lake” but before reaching it stumble upon some seriously strange locals at a run down gas station (Jack Palance and Martin Landau, both of hamming it up and turning their creepiness factor to “11”).  Martin Landau appears dazed, a veteran of the armed forces who may not have a grip on reality.  Jack Palance, on the other hand, is razor focused and imposing.  When the young ‘uns tell him they’re going to the lake, he warns them to stay away…for, he says there are hunters there.

What follows is a pretty decent (if not all that terrifically acted by the newcomers), Lovecraftian story involving the survivors of the trip to the lake and Palance and Landau’s characters as they face off against the alien threat.

The film was quite good in the early going, when we see people become victims to the aliens and, eventually, when the main characters gather together in the diner sequence.  If you’re a movie buff, you’ll find a couple of fascinating faces in that particular crowd, including the last acting appearance of the very best Mike Hammer there ever was, Ralph Meeker.

Shortly after this diner sequence, the film kinda slows down as we follow the young survivors of the lake and, unfortunately, during this period of time both Martin Landau and Jack Palance disappear.

But, fret not as they return in time for the climax which…well, is explosive, but all too obviously on a much smaller scale than the film’s makers would want us to believe.

Despite its flaws, I enjoyed seeing this for the most part forgotten film.  Is it classic cinema?  No.  Is it unjustly forgotten?  Probably not, though seeing all these veteran actors chewing the scenery is fun.  As for the gore that stuck with me all these years, I suspect by today’s standards all these scenes could be shown on TV completely uncut.

If you’re like me and have any memory at all about Without Warning, its a fun trip into the past.  For those who are thrilled with the idea of Jack Palance and Martin Landau facing off in a Lovecraftian horror film, you might want to give it a spin.  For everyone else, it might be a pass.

You know where I stand!

Movies

Oculus (2013) a (mildly) belated review

Star power propelled me to want to see the 2013 horror film Oculus and, sadly, it proved to be just about the only reason to see this film.

Putting together -though they never actually share any screen time together, other than one little “portrait” piece towards the end- cult favorites Karen Gillian (the lovable Amy Pond on Doctor Who) and Katee Sackhoff (the tough as nails “Starbuck” from the Battlestar: Galactica remake series), you figure that if nothing else, having these two in the mix you’d have something worth watching.

Unfortunately, in the end the answer is no.

Not that Ms. Gillian and Sackhoff did a bad job.  They didn’t.  What let them down, what always seems to let films down, lies in the script.

A while back, I reviewed the Scarlett Johannsen film Under the Skin (if you’re curious, you can read the full review here).  I noted that the filmmakers were clearly going for a Stanley Kubrick-like “vibe”, but noted that:

Unfortunately, when one sees so many familiar echoes to the brilliant works of other artists, one can’t help but compare them to Under the Skin.  Doing so, even more unfortunately, reveals that this film doesn’t quite live up to what came before.

And this, my friends, winds up being the exact same problem with Oculus, for Oculus is essentially Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, only switching a haunted hotel with a haunted mirror and having the in-danger siblings presented both in the present and via flashbacks that become, perhaps, illusions crafted by the mirror.  (It’s worth noting that The Shining also had an element of time/flashback to it, of the 1920’s and the then present 1980)

Good or bad, The Shining benefited tremendously from Jack Nicholson’s robust, sometimes waaaaaay over the top turn as the homicidal father.  Actor Rory Cochrane, as the homicidal father of Oculus, unfortunately enters and exits the film as an emotional enigma.  Before he goes “crazy”, he appears aloof and distant and therefore one cares very little about him.  When he goes crazy, he’s still aloof and distant, only now he’s carrying a handgun.

The plot of Oculus goes something like this: The modern day siblings, particularly Kaylie Russell (Karen Allen), want to prove that the horrifying things they went through as children were caused by this evil mirror her late father brought into the house.  To prove this Kaylie sets about going all scientific, recording everything and sprinkling alarms to remind them of the actual time and break the mirror’s illusions.

But the mirror, of course, has other things in mind.

The first hour or so of the film isn’t too bad.  Unfortunately, the movie hits its peak early on and kinda coasts along, never really building any more tension or intrigue until it reaches its downbeat and very stupid ending (who was shocked, shocked when the item Kaylie set up over the mirror wound up –gasp!– not doing what it was intended to?)

Anyway, a pass, despite the most interesting cast.

Movies

Getaway (2013) a (mildly) belated film

I’ve noted before that as the years have passed, I’ve grown far more mellow regarding my opinion of films.  There used to be a time I was a ruthless critic and would search for, and find, the least little problem with any given film and expose it to the world (well, my friends), as if doing so somehow proved the “wonderful” film was anything but.

Yet today, I cut films a hell of a lot more slack.  I liked R.I.P.D., for christsakes!!!

But then along comes a movie that so misses its mark and so pisses me off that I can’t help but be enraged by the wasted opportunity, especially when said film starts off so well before going off the rails so completely.

Getaway is just such a film.

During its opening fifteen to twenty five minutes, this movie worked.  Having heard all kinds of bad things about this film, I was optimistic.  Perhaps the critics were wrong, and this film might turn out to be good.

And then Selena Gomez appeared and it all went downhill from there.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking Ms. Gomez as an actress.  Its just that she was horribly -and I mean horribly– miscast in this film.  There isn’t one second that passes where she looks like she belongs here.  For that matter, Ethan Hawke, who plays the movie’s protagonist, didn’t look all that great, either.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

The film opens, as I said before, quite well.  We see a shadowy individual (it turns out to be Ethan Hawke) entering his apartment and realizing that a mighty struggle has occurred and that his wife is missing.  This man, we come to find, is named Brent Magma.

Seriously.

Brent -or should I call him Magma (come on, that name is a joke, right?!)- is to do what the caller says or his wife dies.  Magma (giggle) is sent to a parking garage and there he finds a super sweet silver colored Shelby Super Snake Mustang.  It is loaded with cameras and the mysterious caller tells Magma (really, that’s his name) that he is to steal this car and drive around and do what he tells him to.

Magma starts tearing through Bulgaria (did I mention that for some reason *coughcheaperfilmingexpensescough* he lives there?) with the police hot on his tail.  Turns out Magma was a professional circuit driver who washed out, so riding around in this screaming Mustang isn’t entirely out of his *ahem* wheelhouse.

So far, other than the weird setting and Magma’s name, all is well enough.

And then, during a stop from the mayhem, Selena Gomez’s “The Kid” appears.  That’s her character’s name.  Perhaps the film makes felt they had come up with such an awesome, senses shattering name with Brent Magma that there was no need to give Ms. Gomez’s character a name at all.

Anyway, The Kid opens the Mustang’s passenger door (Magma foolishly left it unlocked) waving a gun and demanding he give her back her car.

You read that right (oh, and by the way, SPOILERS!), this screaming Mustang is The Kid’s car!

Now, this is where the whole plausibility thing starts to really go out the window.  Again, I have no animus against Ms. Gomez, and I know she was roughly twenty years old when this movie was made…but she looks like she’s fourteen.  It was just as impossible to view her as a threat to Magma, even while awkwardly waving her gun, and even more impossible to accept that she is the owner of this super car.

Anyway, Magma’s caller insist he take The Kid along with him and the two, of course, form your typical movie “odd couple”.  They bicker, they insult each other, yet you know they’ll eventually work together to free Magma’s wife while destroying the lovely streets of Bulgaria.

I could go on, but reliving this film is starting to depress me.  Just how lazily scripted is this thing?  At one point the duo take out -and by take out I mean nuke– a power plant yet for the remainder of this film as they drive through the city at night and there isn’t any section they pass through that doesn’t have lights!  And don’t get me started on how much damage this Mustang takes yet keeps going, or that idiotic “twist” at the end of the film…oh and…

Did I mention I was getting depressed?

If you do find yourself watching this film, check out the extended one take shot toward the very end of the film.  It is a front mounted camera that is supposed to represent a POV from Magma’s Mustang as he chases after a Mercedes van.  This shot goes on for something like two minutes and delivers more thrills in that time than the rest of the film did in its other 88 minutes.

As bad as the film is -and it is quite bad- that scene alone almost makes what came before bearable.

Movies

Harper (1966) a (very) belated review

The 1960’s was a very, very good decade for actor Paul Newman.  Not that he didn’t appear in great films in other decades (he most certainly did), but he just seemed to be on a great roll during that decade, beginning with 1961’s The Hustler and ending with 1969’s Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.  Along the way, he would also appear in such classics as Hud, Hombre, Cool Hand Luke, and, of course, Harper.

Based on the very first Lew Archer detective novel The Moving Target by Ross MacDonald, Harper featured Mr. Newman in the title role of Lew Harper (at the time, Mr. Newman was having so much success with movies that started with the letter “H” that he insisted Archer’s name be changed to Harper!).

Lew Harper, as played by Mr. Newman, is a deeply moral yet sarcastic man who is well aware he works and lives in a very amoral world.  As the movie starts, he’s on his way to the Sampson estate to meet Mrs. Sampson (Lauren Bacall echoing roles she used to play in her early noir days).  Her husband, Mr. Sampson, flew in from Las Vegas to L.A. the day before but is now missing and she wants Harper to find him.  Mrs. Sampson does little to hide her contempt for her husband, noting she’s certain he’s out on a drinking binge and/or shacked up with yet another of his mistresses.  All Mrs. Sampson wants is to get him back with a minimum of fuss.

After talking with Mrs. Sampson, Harper heads out to the estate’s pool area where he meets up with Miranda Simpson (the absolutely stunning Pamela Tiffin), a very hot to trot youngster, and Allan Taggert (Robert Wagner), the seemingly shallow “pretty boy” who drove/flew Mr. Simpson around and was the last to see him before his disappearance.

This is but the introduction to a labyrinth plot that involves…well, I don’t want to spoil it.  Suffice it to say that Mr. Simpson’s disappearance is anything but a drunken binge or a fling with a mistress and that by the time the film is done Harper will have exposed a host of sordid affairs…including murder.

When I first saw this film many years before, I was astonished by what I saw.  The film had me from the very beginning, with Newman’s Harper a real treat.  While he isn’t entirely true to the Archer character from the novels (I don’t recall him being quite that sarcastic), like the novels his character is a next generational Phillip Marlowe.  Indeed, if there is one critique that can be leveled on the Archer novels of Ross MacDonald it is that they are awfully similar to the works of Raymond Chandler.

Having said that, I still love almost all the novels I’ve read and Harper does a pretty damn good job of translating that particular novel to film.

Yet seeing it now, I came away aware of at least two negatives.  These negatives don’t torpedo the film, but they are things to consider.

The first problem the film has is that it is clearly of its time.  There are scenes in clubs which featuring some pretty godawful “hip” music that the young kids are dancing to.  These scenes scream 1960’s…and not in a terribly good way.

Another problem I have, a far smaller problem, is the inclusion of the great Janet Leigh in this film.  She plays Harper’s estranged wife and appears a total of three times in this movie (her role, it could be said, is nothing more than an extended cameo).  As much as I like Janet Leigh and especially like the scene where she and Harper have a phone conversation, I couldn’t help but feel her inclusion was unnecessary.  In the novels, Archer is described as having an ex-wife that he thinks about, but to my memory (and my memory being what it is, I could be completely wrong here), I don’t believe she ever appeared in any of the books.

That doesn’t mean she has no reason to appear in this movie.  Indeed, I’m guessing she was included here to try to “humanize” the character of Harper, to give us a look at him outside of the case itself.  But given the movie’s very robust plot and lengthy run time (the film clocks in at two hours and a minute), her scenes could easily have been cut without being terribly missed.  In my opinion a viewer will come away with a good understanding of what makes Harper even without the scenes featuring his wife.

As I said, these two points aren’t dealbreakers.  Harper remains an intriguing mystery which features a fun cast of characters.  If you enjoyed The Big Sleep or The Maltese Falcon, you should get a kick out of a 1960’s era attempt at recreating those classics.

Movies

Non-Stop (2014) a (mildly) belated review

It isn’t often a male actor gets beyond his fiftieth year of age only to quite suddenly find himself a leading action star.  Yet this is precisely what happened to actor Liam Neeson following his 2008 starring role in Taken.  True, he had appeared in plenty of action films before this, but it was his success in Taken that elevated him into this particular stratospheric level.

His roles since then have varied, some being more successful than others, but clearly Mr. Neeson has his eyes on scripts which feature “Taken“-like roles, including that movie’s sequel. Well, add to that particular list 2014’s Non-Stop, a film that finds Mr. Neeson playing Bill Marks, a burnt out, alcoholic U.S. Marshall assigned to flight duty who suddenly finds himself in the middle of all kinds of danger…all while traveling *ahem* non-stop from New York to London.

So, was the movie *ahem part deux* worth the ride?

Yes.  And no.

If you don’t have anything better to do and can put your brain in neutral while seeing Mr. Neeson in a leading action role…you should enjoy Non-Stop.  However, you have a low tolerance for a story that features waaaaay too many coincidences for it to work, then you may want to stay away.

The story goes as follows: We’re introduced to Mr. Neeson’s Bill Marks and an assortment of potential “suspects” in what is about to follow (very Agatha Christie of them).  Once the airplane he’s on departs, Marks receives text messages from someone claiming to be on board the plane.  That person tells Marks he will kill a passenger ever twenty minutes until $150 Million is wired to their account.

Naturally, Marks shows the messages to the crew, pilots, and a second Marshall (a backup who’s seated in the business class) but the various individual’s levels of concern vary.  Because of the route taken and the timing of the first message, the pilot informs Marks their first landing site is in Iceland and at least an hour away.

To say more would give away plot points, but suffice it to say that doubts start creeping into both the crew and the passengers as to Marks’ mental state.  Again, those coincidences I mentioned before play a role in some of what’s to come and soon people are wondering if there even is a hijacker…or if Marks is behind everything.

It gets awfully silly at times but on the plus side you have Mr. Nesson at the center of it all giving another pretty good performance.  Not his greatest (check out the way he delivers the movie’s final line to actress Julianne Moore.  He looked like he was having a hard time keeping a straight face at that point!), but not bad.

Anyway, there are far worse films out there, but the bottom line is that Non-Stop is yet another case of a movie that might have benefited tremendously from a little more work to its script.

Movies

R.I.P.D. (2013) a (mildly) belated review

1 Comment

Of all the films released in the summer of 2013, the one that everyone seemed to agree on -in a very negative way- was R.I.P.D.

Boasting a -there’s no other way to describe it- terrible 13% positive among critics and a slightly higher, yet still pretty bad 39% positive among audiences in rottentomatoes.com, it’s hardly a wonder the film died a quick death at the box office while also receiving horrible word of mouth.

So naturally, now that I’ve seen it, there’s just no chance I’d actually like it, right?

Well….

Let’s just say I fell into the 13%.

I’m not trying to be Mr. Contrarian.  For the record, I’m not a huge fan of actors Ryan Reynolds or Jeff Bridges, the movie’s two leads.  Let me quickly add that neither do I hate their work.  They’ve been in movies I’ve enjoyed along with movies I haven’t, which makes them like pretty much 99.9% of the actors out there.

Moving along, I’m also not at all familiar with the comic books this film was based on.  I haven’t read a single page of an R.I.P.D. book and have, even now, no idea at all who the creators/artists were behind it.  Finally, I’m all too aware of the biggest -and most appropriate- knock against this film, that its concept/plot was clearly “inspired” -the kindest description one can use- by the Men In Black movies.  In MIB, you had a secret police force walking among humanity and dealing with outrageous aliens.  In R.I.P.D. you have a secret police force comprised of dead people dealing with outrageous dead people.

When the film was released last summer, it barely made it on my radar.  I saw the commercials and thought they looked “OK” at best, but didn’t have a strong desire to see the film. After it tanked and following its release to video, I didn’t bother putting it on my Netflix que.  It was one of hundreds of films that I simply had no big interest in seeing and, given how little free time I have to see the films I actually want to see, figured I’d never get around to it.

Yet over this past weekend, my cable company was offering a free preview of HBO and Cinemax.  Through this I caught a few minutes of R.I.P.D.  What I saw…didn’t suck.

In fact, I thought it wasn’t all that bad at all.

I checked the guide and found the film was scheduled to air a few more times before the preview period was over so I set my DVR and, last night, my wife and I sat down and gave it a try.  I warned my wife in advance that the film bombed upon its release and was trashed by critics and audiences alike.  We agreed that if the film became a chore to watch, we’d turn it off immediately.

We didn’t.

We watched the film from start to end and, while I wouldn’t say the film was the best sci-fi/action/comedy I’ve ever seen, it wasn’t anywhere near as bad as so many said it was.

Yes, the film’s concept shamelessly ripped off MIB.  And while not all the jokes hit their target, the movie had very little fat, moving along like lightning while presenting humorous bits and average to quite good CGI effects.  Finally, Mary-Louise Parker was hilarious as Proctor, the head of the R.I.P.D. division.

R.I.P.D. clearly was not made with the idea of winning Academy Awards. Neither was it meant to be startlingly creative in its conception.  No, this film was meant to be a summer popcorn film, a pleasant time killer, and I’ll be damned if it didn’t accomplish its goal.

Perhaps people weren’t in the right mood for something like this when it was released.  Perhaps people couldn’t stomach a film that so brazenly lifted another film’s concept (like no other movies have done the same!).  Perhaps everyone was looking for a reason to hate on Ryan Reynolds.  I don’t know.

All I know is that I’ve seen plenty of summer blockbusters beloved by audiences and critics alike that I’ve enjoyed far less than R.I.P.D.  Give it a try and watch it with an open mind.  You may be surprised.

Movies

The Glass Key (1942) a (incredibly) belated review

I love, love, love the era of “pulp” fiction writing.  I’m not talking about Quentin Tarantino’s take on it, I’m talking about the era from roughly the very early 1920’s (some works appeared during the very late 1910’s) through roughly the 1940’s, when authors such as Raymond Chandler, H.P. Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard, Lester Dent, Walter Gibson, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and, yes, Dashiell Hammett produced literal mountains of incredibly strong works of fiction.  (Yes, I’ve left off many other authors I could include in this list but I’ve got a movie to review!).

Between the works of Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett you have the foundation of almost all modern American crime/detective dramas.  So popular were their works that several of them were made into very famous films.  1942’s The Glass Key, the second screen adaptation of the Dashiell Hammett novel, may not be quite on the classic level of the previous year’s The Maltese Falcon (the third time that Hammett novel was filmed!) yet is nonetheless a great piece of work that, despite its age, remains full of intrigue, larger than life characters, and deep, dark, and delicious shadows.

Though third billed, then relative newcomer Alan Ladd is the star of the film.  He plays Ed Beaumont, a steel eyed “fixer” for Paul Madvig (Brian Donlevy), a man who at the beginning of the film is clearly identified as a big time crook.  Elections are around the corner and Madvig wants nothing to do with the very respected reform candidate Ralph Taylor.  After all, should Taylor get into office, Madvig’s “profession” might well go up in smoke.

However, a chance encounter with Janet Henry (the stunning Veronica Lake), Ralph Henry’s daughter, has Paul Madvig madly in love, and suddenly the crooked man decides to back the reformer and clean up his own organization.  Naturally, this alarms his old “friends,” who don’t take kindly to his changed ways.

Eventually there is a murder, and it is then that Ed Beaumont springs into action, trying to figure out whodunnit when everyone, even Madvig’s sister, thinks his boss and good friend did the deed.

I’ve purposely tried to be vague about the plot and the various character’s motivations, but suffice it to say that the film’s story twists and turns in delightful ways while offering plenty of memorable scenes.  Of them, my favorite might well be the climactic meeting between Beaumont and the goon Jeff (William Bendix in what may be one of his all time best roles).  Pay close attention to the way Alan Ladd’s Beaumont handles that bottle of Ketchup as they talk!  Great, great scene.

A terrific film and a very easy recommendation, even to those who may be allergic to old films.

Movies

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014), a (mildly) belated review

Back in 2009 actor Chris Pine seemed to come out of nowhere and managed to take over -quite well!- the extremely familiar role of Captain Kirk in the new Star Trek.  While in the end I didn’t like either new Star Trek features all that much and for varying reasons, the cast was certainly not one of them.  All the actors, and especially lead actor Mr. Pine, stepped into some mighty big shoes and did a good job with these familiar roles.

Unfortunately, following taking on and impressing audiences with his role as Captain Kirk, it seemed most of Mr. Pine’s other lead roles fizzled, both at the box office and in terms of critical reaction.  I haven’t seen all of the films he’s been in since the first Star Trek, but of the two I have seen Unstoppable was a decent enough -though not spectacular- actioner, and This Means War was a pleasant enough romantic comedy…provided you put your mind in neutral.  With regards to This Means War, I seem to be in a very small minority indeed!

Of all the non-Star Trek movies he’s been involved in, the one that audiences probably anticipated the most was 2014’s Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit.  Based on the well known Tom Clancy character (but not on any of the Tom Clancy novels), the role had previously been played by such well known actors as Alec Baldwin (the first to take on the Jack Ryan role in The Hunt For Red October), Harrison Ford (perhaps the most famous Jack Ryan, he appeared in two films featuring the character), and Ben Affleck.

So once again Mr. Pine steps into some mighty big shoes.

How did his work compare to the others on this list?

Well enough, I suppose.  Ultimately Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit turned out to be a bust, for me, because of the silly story we’re being told.

To begin, this film clearly is trying to fall into the Bourne/James Bond niche rather than the previous Ryan-centric films.  Chris Pine’s Jack Ryan is young, relatively inexperienced, but willing to give it the college try.

We have a brief “origin” story about him, then see how he’s recruited by the CIA to work in Wall Street and watch for any signs of terrorist activity via money transfers.  Quickly enough, he finds just such evidence in the form of multiple hidden accounts of a Russian Oligarch (director Kenneth Branagh pulls double duties as the villain of this piece).

His recruiter (Kevin Costner, nicely playing the old vet), decides Ryan needs to immediately go to Moscow to get a closer look at the Oligarch and sniff around his bank accounts.  This leads to some trouble as Ryan’s girlfriend (Keira Knightley in a role that maybe should have been thought through by the writers a little bit more), who is unaware he works for the CIA, wonders if he may be *gasp* cheating on him.

Much hilarity follows.

Actually, no…it does not.

Seriously, the whole “girlfriend who doesn’t know her man is secretly in the CIA” is such an odd bit that I wondered if somewhere down the line this script might have originally been a comedy.  Knightley’s character winds up -surprise!- showing up in Moscow and because of her awkward timing is forced to join Ryan at a tense dinner with our villain.  The dinner ends with Ryan stealing some vital information and this, in turn, leads to action action action and Knightley’s character in grave danger.

I think it was at about this point that the film really started to turn me off.  Don’t get me wrong, the acting is decent enough, the location work and cinematography well done, and the editing and direction is good.

But that story…

The script/story keeps putting Chris Pine’s Ryan squarely in the middle of each action sequence and it becomes too preposterous.  By the time we reach the film’s climax, we’re in the middle of New York on red alert.  There’s a literal army of police, military, and security officers, yet Ryan alone winds up figuring out where the threat is and takes it down single-handedly.

All while we know he’s an “analyst” and not a “trained” field operative!

In the end, I cannot recommend Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit.  Though the mechanics (ie acting, directing, etc.) of the film are solid enough, the movie is done in by a ridiculous story.

Too bad.

While watching the above trailer, there are a couple of things that happen on it that I don’t recall seeing in the film itself.  First is the blowing up helicopter.  I recall a helicopter attack early in the film, but not a helicopter blowing up so completely.  Second, there is one shot of a city at night with a high floor in one building blowing up.  Again, don’t recall that scene in the film itself.

Looks like the film underwent some work after the fact!