Year in Review: 1965

As with many years in the 1960s, when the studio system in America was collapsing, the best films either came from other countries, or by directors who worked outside the studio system. 1965 contains any number of great films from around the globe, but in my mind clearly the best film of the year is a forgotten masterpiece by one of cinema’s true giants. Please, someone, restore the film and put it out so more people can experience it.

10. For a Few Dollars More (Sergio Leone)
The second part of Sergio Leone’s “Dollars” trilogy (following A Fistful of Dollars but before The Good, the Bad and the Ugly), is perhaps the weakest of the three entries – but since all three are great, it hardly matters. The film is about Clint Eastwood’s infamous “Man with No Name” who teams up with “The Man in Black” (Lee Van Cleef) to track down the criminal “El Indio” (Gian Maria Volonte) – who is famous for his musical stop watch, which he uses in his gun duels (“When the chimes finish, being”). The film ends with a spectacular shootout between the leads. The film is wonderfully acted by the three leads – who makes the most of their characters, especially Eastwood who of course, rarely speaks. Another highlight is Klaus Kinski in a supporting role as the hunchbacked henchman. I didn’t find this film quite as engaging as A Fistful of Dollars, which of course was essentially a remake of the Kurosawa film Yojimbo (although this film shares little in common with the sequel, Sanjuro), or The Good, the Bad and The Ugly, which was Leone working on a epic canvas. And yet, I admire the style of this film – in fact For a Few Dollars More is almost all style and little substance. Normally that’s not a good thing, but considering just how great the style is here – and Leone was one of the best – For a Few Dollars More is still one of the most entertaining Westerns of the 1960s.

9. Doctor Zhivago (David Lean)
While Doctor Zhivago is not nearly as good as some of Lean’s epic films, it would be a mistake to dismiss this utterly gorgeous film. Set during the tumultuous years 1912-1921 in Russia, the film is about those years as seen through the eyes of two people – the poet who becomes a doctor (Omar Sharif) and his lover (Julie Christie) who was married to a Bolshevik (Tom Courtenay) and raped by her evil adviser (Rod Steiger). The film, like all of Lean’s work is utterly gorgeous for beginning to end, and has many breathtaking shots and sequences. While the film is a love story, it is a different kind of love story, as they two central characters remain apart for much of the action in the film, and love each other at a quiet distance. While some didn’t like how the film edited down the novel, it was already three hours and seventeen minutes – what they hell did they expect. My biggest problem with the movie is that Sharif is kind of boring in the lead role – but everyone else in the film – especially Steiger – are wonderful. No, this isn’t the triumph of Bridge on the River Kwai or Lawrence of Arabia – but a great film nevertheless.

8. The Collector (William Wyler)
William Wyler was one of the giants of the studio era – winning three Oscars for Best Director, and still holding the record for most nominations at 13. The Collector is, in my opinion, the final great film of his career. The film is basically a two person movie, with Terence Stamp giving a chilling performance as a serial killer who collects beautiful young women like he does butterflies, and Samantha Eggar as his latest potential victim. He locks her in a cellar, and tries to give her everything she wants to make her happy. He tells her he only wants to get to know her, and that he’ll let her go in a few weeks. The film is carried by the performances of the two leads who are both brilliant. Stamp is one of the first modern movie serial killers, and there is an attempt to get inside his mind to see what makes him tick. Eggar is a smart, resourceful young woman who is just trying to survive. Wyler’s direction of the material is taunt and thrilling at times. This is a great thriller – a final great film from a great director.

7. The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (Martin Ritt)
Martin Ritt’s The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is based on John Lecarre’s great novel of the same name. A Cold War spy thriller, Richard Burton plays an English operative who gets demoted, and then approached by the Germans as a possible defector. Interviewed by Oskar Werner, he says he has information that a German is really British spy – but the tangled web is only beginning to unravel. Unlike many spy movies, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is not romantic or action packed in any way. This is life as a spy without excitement – instead a never ending slog of lies and counter lies. When Burton’s British girlfriend – Claire Bloom – berates him for being a murderer, or at least complicit in murder, he berates her right back with a great speech "What do you think spies are? They are a bunch of seedy squalid bastards like me, little drunkards, queers, henpecked husbands." The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is an important precursor to films like The Good Shepherd, which doesn’t try and make being a spy seem cool – but heartless, cold and lonely.

6. Juliet of the Spirits (Federico Fellini)
Fellini’s first feature film shot in color, Juliet of the Spirits continued Fellini’s move into more surreal territory following La Dolce Vita and 8 ½. If this film is not quite as good as either of those films, it is because those are among the greatest films ever made, and this isn’t quite up that high. Fellini’s wife, Giuletta Masina gives a great performance as a bored housewife, with a cheating husband, who gradually tries to break away from her life – exploring her own subconscious desires and fears, and becoming fascinating by her sexy neighbor (Sandra Milo). To me, what makes Juliet of the Spirits so fascinating is that Fellini is giving his wife a showcase role, and in doing so said he was giving her a gift, and turning the tables on his previous film about a philandering movie director. This time, it told from the point of view of the wife – and yet the film is still Fellini’s. The film seems to argue that Masina would be happier if she were a sex kitten, like the neighbor, but really that isn’t it. The film is magnificently well made, with its drifting camera, and wonderful score by Nina Rota. Yes, the film is problematic, as it is ultimately a man telling a woman what her fantasy should be, rather than what it actually is. But this makes the film more fascinating, not less. No, it isn’t the achievement of some of his other films – but it is wonderful on its own terms, and that fascinating is just as much because of Masina – whose performance adds a sad undertone to the proceedings – as her husband.

5. Pierrot le Fou (Jean Luc Godard)
It has been said that Jean Luc Godard’s Pierrot le Fou was shot without a script, and I believe it. In the 1960s, Godard was a daring and original filmmaker – not all of the films he made during this period were masterworks, but they were all interesting. Pretty much down the line after the 1960s however, his films have become increasingly pretentious and at times nearly unwatchable – but in the ‘60s he was one of the darlings of art cinema for good reason. Pierrot le Fou is not his best film – that would be Breathless – but it shows Godard at the height of his skills. The film is about a bored husband and father (Jean-Paul Belmondo) who runs off with the babysitter (Anna Karina) who is being chased by Algerian gangsters. This is Godard at his most postmodern – as the film dissects popular culture, taking aim at its shallowness, but also celebrating American movie conventions and genres – and Belmondo is an example of a character who has seemingly lost the ability to tell truth for fiction. The film is wonderfully shot in vivid color and is so fast and loose that you can never tell what is going to happen from one scene to the next. One of the triumphs of Godard’s career, before we lost him forever in his own pretensions.

4. The Pawnbroker (Sidney Lumet)
Sidney Lumet’s The Pawnbroker was a groundbreaking film in many ways. It was the first American film to deal with the Holocaust from the point of view of a survivor, and it also showed nudity in a film, and didn’t receive an X rating (after appeal of course). Rod Steiger gives a powerful performance – perhaps the best of his career – as a survivor who saw his children die in the Concentration Camps, and his wife raped by Nazis. Now living in East Harlem and making a living as a pawnbroker, he is haunted by the memory of what happened 20 years ago. Numbed by his experience, he walks through life trying not to get close to anyone, and rebuffing the friendship of the people who try and reach out to him. I’m not as interested in the storyline itself, as with Steiger’s character and his haunted performance. Director Sidney Lumet has made a sensitive, powerful film – one that stands the test of time, when so many other films that seem “important” at the time do not. A wonderful film.

3. Red Beard (Akira Kurosawa)
Although Akira Kurosawa’s Red Beard focuses on two male doctors, it could be the most feminist film that the director ever made. The film is about a young doctor who thinks he is destined for greatness (Yuzo Kayama) and is insulted that he is sent to a lowly clinic run by the seemingly harsh doctor known as Red Beard (Toshiro Mifune). However, he quickly gets won over to Red Beard’s cause of helping the poor and downtrodden. Throughout the film, we see several flashbacks, or are simply told stories, by the patients – almost all of them women – about their lives, and the cruelness that has been inflicted upon them in them. The film is about what it really means to be a doctor – that the patients well being is more important than wealth. The film is masterfully directed by Kurosawa, who despite having no action and a more than three hour running time, manages to keep the film from ever being boring. This marked the end of two eras for Kurosawa – it was the last film he would ever make in black and white, and the last film to star his frequent collaborator Mifune. Depending on who you believe, Mifune was either angry at Kurosawa that the shoot took so long, and he had to maintain his natural full beard making it impossible for him to do other work and causing financial strain, or that the writer of the novel on which the movie was based thought that Mifune did a poor job in the role, making Kurosawa doubt his abilities. Whatever the reason, it is sad that they didn’t make any more films – some of the 16 they made together rank among the best ever made.

2. Repulsion (Roman Polanski)
Roman Polanski’s Repulsion is a brilliant character study and thriller about a beautiful young woman (Catherine Denueve) who cannot handle life in the real world. For reasons left unexplained (which makes it all the more chilling), Deneuve is repulsed by men. When her sister, who lives in the same apartment as she does, goes on vacation, Denueve is stuck home alone, and she starts a downward spiral that leads her to start hallucinating about the walls closing in on her and hands coming out to grab her. She refuses to leave the apartment, and the place becomes more and more disgusting. When two men come to her apartment, they do not know what they are in for. This is masterful direction by Polanski, who uses the one setting wonderfully well – it never feels stage bound. And Denueve carries the film – often for long stretches simply by herself. The final shot of the movie – a slow zoom in on a family picture – is haunting because of what it implies, but leaves unsaid. Polanski is a great director, and Repulsion is one of the best films of his career.

1. Chimes at Midnight (Orson Welles)
One of the saddest things in cinema is that Orson Welles’ masterpiece Chimes at Midnight is not widely seen. Arguments over ownership have pretty much stopped this film from being released in any form for years – I was lucky enough to buy a DVD from Amazon of the film, and although the sound quality is poor and at times out of sync, the mastery of Welles comes through in every frame of the film. Welles combines element from five Shakespeare plays – Henry IV Part I, Henry IV Part II, Henry V, Richard II and The Merry Wives of Windsor – and casts himself in the lead role of one of Shakespeare’s greatest characters – Sir John Falstaff. Falstaff wasn’t the lead in any of these plays, but by combining them, Welles has created a great portrait of Falstaff from beginning to end. The film mainly focuses on Falstaff’s relation with Prince Hal (Keith Baxter), the hard partying son of Henry IV (who of course, would go onto be Henry V), who shares his taste in the hedonistic pleasures of the world. Although Falstaff is constantly in debt, he is always joyous and full of life. The Battle of Shrewsbury is brilliant filmed in the movie and served as the inspiration for similar battles in Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan – and the visceral impact of the sequence is brilliant. But for me, the true greatness of Chimes at Midnight lies in one scene. Upon learning that his friend has become King, Falstaff runs to the parade and yells out at him “Long live the King”. When Hal, now Henry V, turns around he says “I know thee not, old man”, and the camera simply watches Welles face as his heart breaks. It is a masterful moment in a masterful film – perhaps not my favorite Welles film (that would still be Kane or Touch of Evil), but still one of the best films ever made. It is time that the legal battles are forgotten and that someone like Criterion can properly restore this film so that we may properly enjoy this film.

Just Missed The Top 10: Darling (John Scheslinger), Flight of the Phoenix (Robert Aldrich), Mirage (Edward Dmytryk), Morituri (Berhard Wicki), Ship of Fools (Stanley Kramer), Von Ryan’s Express (Mark Robson).

Notable Films Missed: Alphaville (Jean-Luc Godard), Loves of a Blonde (Milos Forman), Not Reconciled (Jean Marie Straub), A Patch of Blue (Guy Green), Simon of the Desert (Luis Bunuel), Subarnarekha (Rithak Ghatak), A Thousand Clowns (Fred Coe).

Oscar Winner – Best Picture & Director: The Sound of Music (Robert Wise)
I know that The Sound of Music is one of the most beloved films of all time. I also know that right from the time of the films release, it has been considered hip and cool to mock the film. So let me choose my words carefully. By no means do I hate The Sound of Music – which is a handsomely mounted, epic musical with some very catchy, well known songs in it. Neither do I think the film is all that good either – it’s too square, too conventional, too predictable and too sappy to be a great movie. I am more than happy to fall in the middle of the two extremes of this film – with Pauline Kael’s vitriolic response on one side, and my mother’s absolute devotion on the other. Just don’t ask me to watch all three hours of the film again.

Oscar Winner – Best Actor: Lee Marvin, Cat Ballou
Lee Marvin is the second name that comes to mind when I think of a man’s man – right after Robert Mitchum. Marvin delivered any number of great performances – The Big Heat, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Point Blank and The Big Red One to name just four, and I count him among my favorite actors – no matter how bad the movie he is in, you can always count on something interesting from Marvin. But really, Cat Ballou? His dual role in this cheesy, comedy/western just isn’t very good, let alone Oscar worthy. On one hand, he plays a drunken, ex-gunfighter the heroine needs on her side, even if he acts like a buffoon. On the other, he is a nose less, hard ass gunslinger trying to get what he wants. Neither performance is very good in a film that is mediocre at best – and derives most of its charm from Jane Fonda’s sexy performance in the lead role. Hell, I prefer Marvin’s performance in the overly long Ship of Fools this year than this one. And considering the nominees included Rod Steiger’s brilliant portrayal of a Holocaust survivor in The Pawnbroker, I cannot say that Marvin deserved to win for this film – for something else in his career, but good God not Cat Ballou. (I will say that this is my favorite poster of the year – it looks like it was designed by a 5 year old!).

Oscar Winner – Best Actress: Julie Christie, Darling
Between her performances in this film, alongside Doctor Zhivago, it is safe to say that 1965 was the year that Julie Christie truly became a movie star. The Academy nominated her for the right performance – her work in Darling as the beautiful young model who sleeps around and finds that it brings her nothing but emptiness is her best work this year, but not of her career. Yet, she captures a certain kind of a woman – they kind who become famous because of their looks, not their talent, just about perfectly. Despite the dated clothes and 1960s infused editing techniques, Darling remains a truly modern looking film – and Julie Christie’s performance is a big reason for that. Personally, I think Catherine Denueve’s work in Repulsion is truly the best work we saw this year, but the Academy unsurprisingly didn’t see fit to nominate her, so I’ll take Christie.

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actor: Martin Balsam, A Thousand Clowns
A Thousand Clowns is one of those rare Oscar winning movies that has yet to make an appearance on DVD as far as I can tell, so unfortunately, I have not had a chance to see Martin Balsam’s Oscar winning supporting performance. What I will say is that Balsam is a wonderful character actor, who delivered many great performances, so as an actor; I certainly do not mind him winning an Oscar. Out of the work I have seen, I did admire the work by Tom Courtenay in Doctor Zhivago (although I seem to be the only one who thinks Rod Steiger was better in that film) and Michael Dunn in Ship of Fools – who was probably the best one in the cast. This does seem to be a rather weak year for this category however.

Oscar Winner – Best Supporting Actress: Shelley Winters, A Patch of Blue
Unlike A Thousand Clowns, this one is available on DVD, but just like that film, I have never seen it. I always meant to rent it, but have someone never gotten around to it yet, although I certainly will one day. I am a big fan of Shelley Winters – her work in A Place in the Sun, Night of the Hunter and Lolita is especially great, although considering I was a fan of the TV show Roseanne before I saw any of those movies, a certain part of me will always think of her as Nanna Mary on that show. Again, I must say this seems like a rather weak category this year however.

Movie Review: Perrier's Bounty

Perrier’s Bounty ***
Directed By: Ian Fitzgibbon.
Written By: Mark O'Rowe
Starring: Cillian Murphy (Michael McCrea), Jodie Whittaker (Brenda), Jim Broadbent (Jim), Brendan Gleeson (Darren Perrier), Liam Cunningahm (The Mutt).

British Crime dramas seem to have more a sense of humor about themselves than American ones do. American films take themselves all too seriously and are much darker. But the British like to see the absurdity of it all. The new film, Perrier’s Bounty which is actually Irish, is a movie which is all about life and death, is still fun throughout.

Cillian Murphy plays Michael McCrea, a lowlife living in Dublin. He owes Perrier (Brendan Gleeson) 1,000 Euro, but it might as well be 1,000,000, as he has no way of getting the money. Perrier sends two of his henchman to collect the money, or break two of Michael’s bones -it’s his choice. They give him until the end of the night. So Michael heads out on the town - after stopping by to see Brenda (Jodie Whitaker), his neighbor who he is love with, but is hung up on a jerk. He tries to borrow money from another gangster, The Mutt (Liam Cunningham), but instead gets roped into a house burglary. Complicating matters is that Michael’s estranged father Jim (Jim Broadbent) has chosen tonight to try and reconnect with his son. He believes that the Grim Reaper has come to him in a dream and told him that the next time he sleeps, he will die. When Michael, Brenda, Jim and Perrier’s henchmen all show up at Michael’s apartment, one of the henchmen wind up dead, and Brenda, Jim and Michael go on the run. Perrier wants revenge, and he wants it quickly, and so he sends his men out on their trail.

The screenplay by Mark O’Rowe, and the direction by Ian Fitzgibbon keeps the movie running at a wickedly fast pace. The performances help as well. Murphy is wonderful as a man who gets increasingly exasperated as the movie progresses, as just one thing after another comes at him, and it gets to the point where he can no longer breathe. Whitaker is just the right mixture of confused, naïve and sexy to play Brenda, the woman who cannot see that she is meant to be with Michael, and that her boyfriend is a douche. Broadbent is hilarious as Jim. I normally think of Broadbent as an almost lovable grandpa type, and while he certainly is a loyal father in this film, it is also a very witty, profane performance. Brendan Gleeson is also quite good as the ruthless Perrier. Yes, he chews the scenery, but sometimes scenery chewing is what is required, and he does it brilliantly in this film. From his introductory scene - where at first we assume he is all ruthless violence, and then he reveals his softer side when he finds out that the henchman who was killed was the gay lover of another of his henchman, he is surprisingly sympathetic. He wants to get revenge of his behalf - because after all, love is love.

Perrier’s Bounty is not a great film. It does not really have any bigger purpose other than to be an entertaining B-movie, and it succeeds in doing that brilliantly. While Guy Ritchie has become a little too obsessed with style over substance, here is a film that harkens back to his best work. While Ian Fitzgibbon may have a ways to go before he is a truly great filmmaker, here he proves is a filmmaker of genuine talent and wit. I look forward to see what he does next.

Movie Review: The Trotsky

The Trotsky ***
Directed by: Jacob Tierney.
Written By: Jacob Tierney.
Starring: Jay Baruchel (Leon), Emily Hampshire (Alexandra Leith), Geneviève Bujold (Denise Archambault), Colm Feore (Principal Berkhoff), Saul Rubinek (David Bronstein), Michael Murphy (Frank McGovern), Jessica Paré (Laura).

This weekend, I was dragged to speech by a religious leader that turned into a two hour sermon. Two of the speakers, via video, were twin teenagers who wrote a book challenging their generation to do better. While I disagreed with their message – that they should be merging politics and religion – I couldn’t help but agree with them are some things. Mainly that teenagers are not as lazy, apathetic or dumb as many adults seem to think they are – and the reason that they are not doing more is because nothing is expected from them.

The Trotsky, the new film by Canadian Jacob Tierny, seems to share the same message. I’m not sure I agree any more with the main characters ideology than I did with the twins (the main character here believes he is the reincarnation of famed Russian Revolutionary Leon Trotsky and has modeled his life after his), but I agree with the sentiment just the same. My wife is a teacher, and she tells stories about how the curriculum is constantly being dumbed down, about how students are barely even expected to hand in assignments on time, and how students, despite what the teacher thinks sometimes, are simply passed onto the next grade no matter what work they did. Are kids today stupider then they used to be? Or do we simply expect so little from them that they can barely summon the urge to try anymore?

Leon Bronstein (Jay Baruchel) is a 17 year old from Montreal. During the summer, he interns at his father’s (Saul Rubinek), and within three days has his workers on a hunger strike to protest the fascist ways of management – mainly that the lunch hour seems to have only been 56 minutes instead of a full hour. The workers go along with the strike, but seem confused on the hunger aspect of it.

Leon’s father is angry, so he decides to pull him out of his boarding school for the last year of high school – and send him instead to public school. Leon doesn’t much mind this. On his first day, he joins the Student Union – not realizing that all they do is plan dances – and starts to fight against the fascists who rule the school – notably Principal Berkhoff (Colm Feore) – and fighting for the downtrodden – like the poor guy who gets a detention for having mud on his shoes.

But this is just one of Leon’s plans. He also meets Alexandra (Emily Hampshire), a newly graduated lawyer 10 years his senior and falls in love. It starts because Leon Trotsky married a woman named Alexandra 10 years his senior, but blooms into a real love. Alexandra of course hates him at the start – but then so did the first Mrs. Trotsky. Leon also tracks down old communist Frank McGovern (Michael Murphy) to get some advice. Ironically, McGovern’s ex-wife is the head of the school board (Genevieve Bujold), who of course, also makes Leon’s list of fascists. All of these characters are initially put off by Leon – he comes on too strong, he’s too weird, possibly insane, but they are worn down by him. He cannot help by admire his moxie.

I don’t really believe that much of what happens in The Trotsky could actually happen at any high school. I don’t believe that Alexandra would eventually fall for Leon, or given what Leon does at the climax of the film that he would get away scot free. But none of that is really the point of the movie – and neither is Leon’s obsession with Trotsky, which is generally played for laughs.

No, what the movie is really about is teenagers taking responsibility for their own destiny. They are constantly told what to do, what to wear, where to go and how to act. Adults are infuriated that they act like children, but then they treat them like children, so how do you expect them to act? The movie makes this point in an entertaining manner. Yes, Jay Baruchel is too old to be playing a 17 year old, but he has a baby face, and he is such a likable actor, and is so committed to this role, that we forgive him. The other characters are more one dimensional, but are still believable. So no, The Trotsky is not in any real way believable. But the movie still has a point to make – and the point is a good one.

Movie Review: Harry Brown

Harry Brown ***
Directed by: Daniel Barber.
Written By: Gary Young.
Starring: Michael Caine (Harry Brown), Emily Mortimer (D.I. Alice Frampton), Charlie Creed-Miles (D.S. Terry Hicock), David Bradley (Leonard Attwell), Iain Glen (S.I. Childs), Sean Harris (Stretch), Ben Drew (Noel Winters), Jack O'Connell (Marky), Jamie Downey (Carl), Lee Oakes (Dean), Joseph Gilgun (Kenny), Liam Cunningham (Sid Rourke).

Harry Brown (Michael Caine) lives in one of those neighborhoods where most of the residents are afraid to go out after dark because the gangs are so rampant and violent that you never know what is going to happen. He occasionally watches out his window and sees these youth attacking each other, or innocent bystanders. There is an underground walkway that is too dangerous to go into at any time – not just at night.

Brown is now a pensioner, living out the final years of his life in his London flat, that he shared for years with his wife. But his wife has just succumbed to an illness, and when he visits her grave, we notice another one right next to it – that of a 5 year old girl with the same last name you died in 1973. Brown never mentions his daughter, but the meaning is clear – he is man without a family. His only joy seems to be heading down to the pub in the afternoon and playing chess with his best friend (David Bradley) – who complains bitterly about the gangs in the area, and even shows Brown the bayonet knife he carries with him for protection. Soon Bradley will be killed by the very weapon he took along for protection. The police, led by Alice Frampton (Emily Mortimer) come to ask questions how his death, but soon the investigation is put on hold for more pressing matters. Brown, the former marine who gave up his violent ways when he married his wife, is incensed. And since he now has no one in his life he cares about, he decides to do something about it.

Harry Brown follows the Death Wish formula pretty well – with the obvious difference being that instead of an intimidating Charles Bronson in his prime, it features Michael Caine – an actor well into his 70s who - although he has played his share of ruthless character (remember Mona Lisa?) – is mainly known for playing good, gentle characters. Unlike Clint Eastwood’s recent Gran Torino, Harry Brown doesn’t muddy itself up with poorly written supporting characters the lead bonds with, and doesn’t feature the main character taking the moral high ground by sacrificing himself for the good of the community. No, Harry Brown is pissed off, and dead set on killing the people responsible for his friend’s death, and the decline of his neighborhood into chaos. In a strange way, I was reminded of Akira Kurosawa’s Ikiru – one of the best of all films – about a bureaucrat at the end of his life determined to do one good thing before he dies. The character in the Kurosawa film, decides to get a park built in a poor neighborhood for the children to play in. Harry Brown is determined to kill the people who have ruined this poor neighborhood.

The main reason to watch Harry Brown is for Michael Caine’s performance, which was a brilliant piece of casting. We like Caine immediately when he comes on screen, and the director, Daniel Barber, and writer, Gary Young, make us like him even more by showing us his long, lonely daily trek to the hospital to visit his dying wife, and his afternoons in the pub with his friend. Harry Brown seems like a nice guy – a normal grandfather type that we can relate to. By doing this, the filmmakers make it far easier for us to follow Caine down his dark path. The first killing is almost by accident – he doesn’t go looking for a fight, but one finds him, and he emerges victorious. It’s here where the movie really switches gears. The next night, Brown goes to visit some shady people wanting to “do some business” – namely buying some guns. As he descends into their lair, it is like descending into hell – a dark, messy house full of pot plants under harsh lights, and a dank backroom with homemade porn on the screen, and a woman practically dead from drugs on the couch. This isn’t a place we expect to see Caine, and as the scene progresses, we see the gears turn in his head more and more – he wasn’t planning on killing these two, but what the hell, they deserve it.

To say that from there – which is the film’s best scene – the film devolves into shootouts and scenes of torture (or Enhanced Interrogation Techniques if you prefer), would be an understatement, but then again, where is this movie supposed to go? I’m not sure I bought the final confrontation, and the riot it takes place in the middle of, but it is effective nonetheless. And there is the haunting final shot of the film. Does the character walk towards that walkway because it is now safe to do so, or are they doing it because they know it still isn’t, and are looking for a fight? I’m not sure of the answer, but it is a great way to end this superior revenge film.

Movie Review: Robin Hood

Robin Hood ** ½
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written By: Brian Helgeland and Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris.
Starring: Russell Crowe (Robin Longstride), Cate Blanchett (Marion Loxley), Max von Sydow (Sir Walter Loxley), William Hurt (William Marshal), Mark Strong (Godfrey), Oscar Isaac (Prince John), Danny Huston (King Richard The Lionheart), Eileen Atkins (Eleanor of Aquitaine), Mark Addy (Friar Tuck), Matthew Macfadyen (Sheriff of Nottingham), Kevin Durand (Little John), Scott Grimes (Will Scarlet), Alan Doyle (Allan A'Dayle), Douglas Hodge (Sir Robert Loxley), Léa Seydoux (Isabella of Angoulême), Robert Pugh (Baron Baldwin), Gerard McSorley (Baron Fitzrobert).

I was going to start out this review by saying that Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe needed to lighten up a bit – but then I remember when they tried to do just that and the result was A Good Year – perhaps the worst film either of them have ever been involved with. Besides, there is nothing inherently mistaken with trying to make Robin Hood more serious than his other cinematic outings – the approach worked for Christopher Nolan in the Batman movies. The real problem here is that Robin Hood is a dull, boring character – and since no real attempt is made to give any of the other characters much more than a one note personality – the film is just as dull and boring as he is. It is admittedly well made, with some great action sequences, but a movie needs more than that to be successful.

This version of Robin Hood starts much earlier than any other cinematic outing that I can recall – in fact it ends, right where most of those movies begin. Robin Longstride (Crowe) is coming back from the Crusades following his King Richard – The Lionheart (Danny Huston) when all hell breaks loose. Richard is killed in battle, and Crowe and his “Merry Men” – Little John (Kevin Durand), Will (Scott Grimes) and Allan (Alan Doyle) take off back to England, only to stumble upon the traitor Godfrey (Mark Strong) killing what he thinks is the King’s party, in an effort to make his childhood friend Prince John (Oscar Issac), the King of England – but only so it will make it easier for the French to take over. Robin and his men foil the plot and disguise themselves as Knights in order to bring the Crown back to England and get a reward, which they do. But Robin made a promise to the dying Knight who held the crown that he would return his sword to his father – Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow), in Nottingham, and he cannot break a promise. When he gets there, he discovers Nottingham stricken by poverty because of the taxes – taxes which John plans to raise – and Loxley convinces him to pretend to be his dead son – much to the chagrin of his widow, Marion (Cate Blanchett). And so the events of the film are set in motion.

Robin Hood has one of the best ensemble casts that you could imagine being assembled. Crowe is a usually capable lead, who excels at playing driven, moral men who do the right thing even when it is not easy. That describes this version of Robin Hood pretty well – he doesn’t like the responsibilities thrust upon him, but cannot turn away. Yet the screenplay doesn’t give Crowe much to work with – he is drawn in broad strokes, with little complexity and as a result, he’s rather boring to watch. Cate Blanchett plays one of those spunky heroines, and she does a decent job given what she has to work with. Yet, she shares absolutely no chemistry with Crowe – we perhaps start to believe that she no longer hates him, right at the time they are declaring their love for each other. Because their relationship doesn’t work, we are left with a gaping hole in the emotional connections in the film.

The supporting cast does what it can – but given their caliber, we keep expecting them to get a breakout scene that never seems to come. William Hurt, Danny Huston, Max von Sydow, Mark Strong, Matthew McFadyen and Eileen Atkins are all fine actors – but none of them are really given a chance to shine. They make a few nice speeches, but they never become fully functioning characters – just pawns for the plot to move around as it pleases. The best performance in the movie comes from Oscar Issac as the petulant, ungrateful new King who seems absolutely outraged that people will not just bow down and his do his bidding on his command. And I must admit that I enjoyed Robin’s “Merry Men” Durand, Grimes and Doyle, who are later joined by Mark Addy’s Friar Tuck. At the very least, they seem to be having a great time, and provide some much needed comic relief. No, they are really written, or performed, any better than anyone else, but at least they’re fun to watch.

Ridley Scott is an expert craftsman, as he has shown time and again over the course of his career. His movies for the most part all look great (strangely, I think that the Oscar winning Gladiator, with its horrid special effects, is an exception). He knows how to stage action sequences, and large scale battle sequences with the best of them, and the movie has some doozies littered throughout, and climaxes with the best of the lot. It is bloody and brutal, and yet forgoes the usual kinetic visual and editing style that make many modern action sequences nearly unwatchable. As he proved with Kingdom of Heaven, among others, he knows how to do these battles with the best of them and he certainly succeeds in that here.

Having said that, Scott is a director whose films either rise or fall based on the material he is provided, and what the actors can bring to their roles. He isn’t among the best directors of his generation simply because he never seems to put his own stamp on the movies, his own feeling. Any depth in his films is provided by the screenplay and the actors, and Scott excels when he has great material to work with, which he brings out wonderfully well. But in a movie like Robin Hood, all that is missing because the characters are not well defined, and we end up not really caring what happens to any of them. Had Scott and company decided to follow the lead of the 1938 Errol Flynn masterpiece The Adventures of Robin Hood (still the best Robin Hood film ever made by far), and kept the movie light and fun, he may have been able to plaster over the lack of depth in the film. But they decided to make this a serious movie – a Robin Hood movie that wants to be more like Braveheart than anything else – and because they did, Robin Hood ultimately fails.

NHL Playoffs: Eastern Conference Final Predictions

With Philidelphia's win last night, that means I ended up going 1 for 4 in my second round predictions, for a total of 5 for 12 so far these playoffs. A smarter man than I would admit that he has not been good this year at predicting, and stop. But not me. I already called Chicago beating San Jose on Thursday, and now it's time to look at the conference final out east - but first a few words about Boston and Pittsburgh.

This will go down as one of the biggest chokes in NHL for Boston, as they become only the third team in history to blow a 3-0 series lead and lose. Not only that, they were also up 3-0 in game seven and blew it as well. Despite that, I still think this is a good team - they have some young guys like Lucic and Rask who came a long way these playoffs. They will be back next year.

Pittsburgh is more troubling. Montreal exposed Pittsburgh's weakness for the entire league to see - concentrate on Crosby and Malkin and leave the wingers along - they can't beat you without their centers, who when double teamed, were ineffective. I'm not saying that Pittsburgh needs to trade Malkin, but they should consider it. Right now, all their money is tied up in the center position, and the wings are weak. For the price of Malkin, you can get 2 or 3 quality wingers to play with Crosby and Staal (who on any other team would be at least a second line center anyway). It's something to consider. Anyway, onto the predictions.

(7) Philidelphia vs. (8) Montreal
I find it very strange that in the West, we have the first and second seeds going against each other, and in the East it's 7 and 8. I also find it exciting - as this shows just how competitive the NHL is compared to most sports - although I feel I should also mention that had Philly on Montreal played to their potential in the regular season, they would have placed much higher. They were as much underachievers in the regular season, as they are over achievers now. Both teams have got to be flying high right now. Philidelphia completed the most unlikely comeback the NHL has seen in at least 35 years - since the Islanders did the same thing. They did it because their big forwards crashed the net and job ugly goals, while the likes of Briere got pretty ones. They went pretty much with 4 defensement in their series against Boston - and they perfected the long pass. After unlikely hero goaltender Brian Boucher went out with an injury, they got another hero in the form of Michael Leighton. I think Philly is going to give Montreal all they can handle - they are a bigger, more physical team than Montreal has played so far, and they won't be afraid to drive the net and make life hell on Halak - just like they did to Brodeur and Rask. I worry that with only playing 4 defensement, that they are going to burn out, and I also wonder if Leighton - who really only has 2 and half playoffs games under his belt can maintain through an entire series. On Montreal's side, they have now beat the President's Trophy winner, and the defending Stanley Cup champion, so they have to feel good about going against Philly. The are perhaps the best coached team in the playoffs right now - Jacques Martin has got everyone playing at their best, and sticking to their system (I find it boring to watch, but it gets the job done). Cammallerri and Gionta have been amazing, the defense has stood tall, and Halak is the best goalie these playoffs. Having said all of that, Montreal will have to change tactics a little against Philly. This is not a team with a few great players to zone in on. Philly has any number of offensive weapons to beat you with, and they are bigger and will likely give Halak more traffic than he has seen so far (why Washington and Pittsburgh never got in his face remains a mystery to me). I think the key for Montreal is to take away Philly's stretch pass - something that has worked for them all playoffs. And since Montreal doesn't really do much forechecking, I think they can. I will be cheering for Philly - I have always, and will always hate the Habs - but my I think I will be disappointed.

Prediction: Montreal in 7.

If I'm right, that means we'll see Chicago and Montreal - two original six teams - in the finals. Of course, with my track record, it will probably be San Jose and Philly.

NHL Playoffs: Western Conference Final Prediction

Since this series is likely going to start Sunday, while the series in Montreal won’t start until Monday (I assume), I wanted to get to the Western Conference Prediction between San Jose and Chicago before the series started. I went one for two in my second round predictions out West – and that is the best I can do out East as well. But before I get to my take on the upcoming series, just a few words on the teams that lost in the second round out west.

Detroit simply looked old and tired against a resilient San Jose team. The ingredients are still there to make this a good team – Datsyuck, Zetterberg and Howard especially – but they need an infusion of young blood to compliment the veterans they do keep. I think, at this point, its safe to say that Detroit’s domination in the West is over, and its time to start a minor rebuild effort.

As for Vancouver, the news is worse, because their series against Chicago was nothing short of a meltdown. The Sedins disappeared for almost the entire series – unless they were taking stupid penalties. Their defense was depleted, and the ones they did have couldn’t handle the Hawks. And in net, Luongo was nowhere near good enough to win – yet no one seemed willing to take any responsibility for their actions. Had the Canucks played this way in Round 1, the Kings would have beat them. What they need is more heart. They relied on their ability to come back in third periods – something that worked all season, and in Round 1, but didn’t happen here. It’s great when you have the ability and confidence to comeback in the third period – awful when you build your strategy around it. The Canucks need some help – and fast – if they are ever really going to contend for the Stanley Cup.

(1) San Jose vs. (2) Chicago
I have so far been impressed with San Jose. I was nervous about picking them in both round 1 and round 2 as they have had a tendency to choke in the past – but I stuck by them in Round 1 thinking Colorado could in no way match them, and in Round 2 thinking Detroit was too old, and was ultimately right. What has impressed me about San Jose these playoffs is their ability to bounce back. They didn’t let the fluke overtime “own goal” effect them in Round 1, and unlike Boston in the East, they were able to respond after going up 3-0 and facing a suddenly resilient Detroit team. They stuck to their game plan. Not only that, but while Joe Pavelski, Devon Setoguchi and Ryan Clowe carried them through the first round, and I think remain their best line, Heatley, Thornton and Marleau (especially the later two) stepped up big time against Detroit. They now have a more balanced offensive unit going – and with Boyle and Blake playing great on defense, San Jose is a confident bunch. Their downfall could be goaltending – Evengi Nabokov has either been great and horrid this playoffs – with little in between. He needs to be more consistent for the Sharks to win.

As for the Blackhawks, they are flying high right now. For the second straight year they eliminated the Vancouver Canucks – and did it by shutting down their big guns the Sedins, and more importantly getting into Luongo’s head. Toews was undoubtedly the star of that series, but they got good efforts from their entire forward core, getting big goals at key teams for their second and third lines as well. We know their defense ranks with the best in the league – Keith, Seabook, Sopel, Campbell and Hlamerson (or however the hell you spell it) have been great. Annti Niemi, after being somewhat shaky in round 1, has found his game and is growing more confident as the playoffs continue – something you would expect from a rookie. Why I think Chicago will end up taking the series is because they are stronger, faster and younger than the Sharks. They have a more complete team in terms of scoring – being able to produce both off the cycle and the rush, whereas the Sharks seem to be more of cycle team. As the playoffs grind on, the older guys on San Jose are going to get more tired, whereas the young guns in Chicago show no signs of slowing down. The Hawks have experience, having been here last year, but coming up short. This year I don’t think they will.

Prediction: Chicago in 6.

Note: Although it would be foolish to make a Stanley Cup prediction at this point, I will say that at this time, I suspect that whoever wins this series will win the Stanley Cup. Not only is the winner of this series guaranteed home ice, but I think that the teams left in the East will have a harder time playing against these bigger, more well balanced teams that they have had so far. At this point, I’ll be cheering for a Philly/Chicago final – as that would be the most physical, most entertaining series I can imagine. Of course, Philly needs to win game 7 against Boston for that to even be possible first.