Ben Hur (1925)

Ben Hur (1925)
Many people always say remakes are bad.  Or at best they might say that even if a remake is watchable, it pales in comparison to the original.  I don't necessarily agree with that.  The superb 1959's Ben Hur is technically a remake.  While I had never seen the 1925 version, I would have been shocked if it was a superior movie.  But truth be told, I didn't know.  The 1925 version is very well-regarded, and maybe it was a better movie, a masterpiece that I had been missing out on all these years.  Since I just re-watched and reviewed the 1959 classic, I figured now was a good time to visit the silent film and find out for sure.

I will admit that maybe I am not the best person to make the comparison.  Other than Buster Keaton, silent films generally don't do much for me  The overacting in most silent films just seems silly to me and I am not a fan of reading cue cards instead of listening to dialogue. In Ben Hur, this card problem is exasperated by how long the text is onscreen.  I think audiences in 1925 must have been the slowest readers on the planet because something short like "What did you have for breakfast?" is on screen for what feels like 10 minutes.  I think this 151-minute long film would have been closer to 20-minutes long if the text cards had been removed (okay, maybe that is an exaggeration). 

While it was difficult to engage with the story on an emotional level, I could certainly view it as a piece of filmmaking.  And Ben Hur must have been hugely impressive in 1925.  There are parts of this film that are even in color, which is fascinating to watch.  Thematically, they wanted all the moments that had to do with Jesus (and one parade in Rome) to be in color, while the rest of the film would be in black and white or tinted purple.  I believe the film reels were literally painted by hand, frame by frame, and the result is beautiful. Also, I have to say that this film is definitely EPIC, with thousands of extras and monstrous sets that still inspire awe today.  To be honest, I think most of the sets are even more impressive here than in the 1959 version - particularly the gates of Jerusalem, which have always looked way too fake for me in the remake.   On the contrary, Jerusalem's walls in the silent film resemble ancient stone behemoths that would impress any and all travelers.  I was staggered by their awesomeness.  I also think that the sea battle in the silent film is better than in the remake.  With the exception of the intense moment on the flagship's deck where Charlton Heston lights that stunt man's face on fire (super cool!), I've always been unimpressed with the battle in the 1959 version.  The boats looked like models floating around in a giant bathtub.  I believe in the 1925 version they actually built more ships and let them actually go at each other.  And there are moments of intense violence that I would expect in a film today, not in 1925 (how about that pirate charging into battle with a severed Roman head impaled on his sword?  Whoa.).  I also think the chariot race is still a thrill, even if it doesn't quite equal the remake.  And at the end of the day, the storyline of Ben Hur is just downright compelling.  It is hard not to be interested in Ben Hur's quest for revenge.

I do want to take a moment to talk about the story and different filmmaking approaches of the two films, so be warned that I am heading into SPOILER territory here.  For example, I am not a fan of how Jesus is handled in the 1925 version.  Both movies take a similar approach in that they will not show his face.  But at least in 1959, we see him walking around, preaching, and acting as a character in a film.  In 1925, he is represented by a seemingly disembodied arm and hand that appears from off camera, magically unseen by all the other characters.  Maybe they are taking this approach to be more pious, but it doesn't work.  It's just silly.  Just compare the way the two films handle the moment by the well, when Jesus gives Ben Hur water and saves his life.  In 1959, this is a moment of cinematic poetry.  In 1925, I laughed at the random arm that pops on screen and plops water all over Ramon Novarro's face.  Not good.

I know that the silent film is more faithful to the book, but for the most part the changes in the remake were vast improvements. In the book and the silent film, Ben Hur raises an army and prepares to start a revolt.  He gathers the army just outside Jerusalem so that they can save Jesus when he is captured and they wait for the right time to strike...how Ben Hur hides 10,000 men from the Roman legions posted in Jerusalem I'm not sure, but let's leave that to suspension of disbelief.  That aside, this army then proceeds to...do nothing.  Ben Hur follows Christ as he marches to his fate and the army still does nothing.  And then once Ben Hur witnesses the crucifixion and is converted, he sends a message to the army saying, "hey, violence isn't the answer.  Everyone go home." And all 10,000 soldiers just say okay and leave.  Huh?  Maybe if the army or the generals had witnessed the crucifixion, this might make some sense.  But they didn't.  So they just leave, a random plot device built up to be something important that really served no purpose and was wisely cut out in 1959.

There is also the issue of Marsala, played by Francis X. Bushman in the silent film and Stephen Boyd in the remake.  Bushman is having fun with the role, but the character is a cartoon bad guy with no depth.  Marsala and Ben Hur were best friends as kids, and yet from the moment they see each other, Marsala is embarrassed by Ben Hur and looks down on him for being a Jew.  There is no way these two were ever friends.  And this makes Marsala's betrayal of the Hur family kind of...well, meaningless and inevitable.  It only really happens for the sake of the plot.

One of my favorite moments in the 1959 film is when he first meet Marsala.  He is told by a soldier that a Jew has come to see him.  When the soldier uses a disparaging tone of voice, Marsala scolds him for his disrespect.  "Remember, this was their land before it was ours."  For me, that line is the key to Marsala.  Marsala is not a bad person.  But he has been corrupted by the 'glory' of Rome and that sets him on a collision course with his oldest friend.  When he betrays the Hur Family, it actually hurts.  It hurts the audience and it hurts Marsala, too.  He's not happy about the decision, but believes it is what he must do.  And remember - despite the fact that Marsala betrayed Ben Hur, he is adamant that it is the other way around, and that Ben Hur is the traitor for refusing to help him when he needed it.  That's some juicy stuff.  That makes for a good villain.  That is an example of the depth that is all over the 1959 Ben Hur and almost completely absent from the 1925 version.

There is one story point that I liked in the original more.  The Hur Family has a slave named Simonides who is also their steward and accountant.  In the 1959 film, they sugarcoat the slavery thing by showing how Ben Hur is such a nice master who treats his slave like family.  And when Ben Hur returns from his exile, Simonides is excited to have his old master back in his life.  Bleah.  The 1925 version takes a slightly different approach.  When Ben Hur returns, Simonides at first claims not to recognize him.   Even if the Hurs were good masters, they were still masters, and Simonides has no desire to go back into slavery.  That's an interesting idea that I wish had been developed more in the original and maybe expanded on in the 1959 version.  Alas, I can't have everything.

Anyways, this is getting to be a long one, so I feel I should wrap it up.  I could go on and on about the differences between the two films, but it would just be emphasizing the same idea: that while the 1925 version has its merits, it is clear that it does not hold a candle to the remake, which is simply one of the greatest epics ever made.


MVP:
For the 1959 version, I awarded the MVP to a sequence instead of a person (the chariot race).  I am doing the same thing now.  I am giving MVP to that truly exciting sea battle.  I was just really impressed with the scope of this sequence, and it looks like the extras are really fighting each other...which they may have been.  Political upheaval was engulfing Italy at the time (which is where they filmed this sequence), and many extras were pro Mussolini while others were staunch opponents of the fascist dictator.  The two sides' animosity is sort of obvious when you are watching this battle.  Plus, there is a lot of messed up stuff in this battle that I cannot believe made it past the censors of the day.  There were multiple moments where I actually said out loud, "wait, did that just happen?"  Much of the battle I had to watch twice.  That is more than enough for it to earn my MVP.


TRIVIA:
In some ways, Ben Hur might be the most star-studded film of all time. In addition to its leads, Ramon Novarro and Francis X. Bushman, who were big silent film stars, there were a number of future legends in the cast.  Granted, they were mostly extras standing in the crowds during the chariot scenes, but still...check out this lineup: John Barrymore, Lionel Barrymore, Joan Crawford, Gary Cooper, Clark Gable, Carole Lombard, Marion Davies, Myrna Loy, John Gilbert, Douglas Fairbanks, Harold Lloyd, Janet Gaynor, Fay Wray, Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish and Dorothy Gish.  Wow.  That's impressive!

Ben Hur (1959)

Ben Hur (1959)

So everyone knows epics are my favorite genre.  The heyday of the epic was in the 1950s and early 1960s, when Hollywood went all in with these monster pictures in order to beat back competition from TV.  Though there are notable exceptions, I feel the 1950s were more about the biblical epics (Quo Vadis, The Robe, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Ten Commandments) while the 1960s abruptly shifted focus to the historical epic (Spartacus, Cleopatra, Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid).  The religious epic reached its zenith at the end of the decade, with 1959's Ben Hur. 

A major box office smash and the winner of 11 Academy Awards (a record until Titanic came along), Ben Hur has gone down as one of the great all-time classics.  It is clearly one of the best of the genre, and is certainly the best religious themed epic.  I actually think it is the best religious themed film ever.  Forget all the others.  Ben Hur is the real deal.

During the days of the Roman Empire, Ben Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy Jewish merchant who also happens to be best friends with the newly appointed commander of the Roman garrison, Marsala (Stephen Boyd).  Marsala betrays Ben Hur, imprisoning his family and sentencing him to life as a galley slave.  Ben Hur swears vengeance, and slowly works his way back to Jerusalem for a final showdown with Marsala during an epic, epic, epic chariot race.  But along the way, Ben Hur's story interweaves with another story, that of a simple carpenter named Jesus who wanders the countryside, preaching peace and performing miracles.

Look, is Ben Hur perfect?  No.  It is dated in some places, and also tends to drag in a few areas, particularly in the beginning (that love scene does not age well at all), and following the chariot race.  I think 15 minutes of this movie could have been trimmed and it still would have been just as good.

But these are nitpicks, because Ben Hur really is superb on almost every level.  There are some people who poke fun at Heston's acting career, but when he was firing on all cylinders, he was really a very good actor.  And I don't think anyone quite pulled off the noble, larger-than-life roles as believably as Heston.  He certainly deserved his Oscar for Best Actor.  The rest of the acting is also great along the board, with a supporting cast including Jack Hawkins, Haya Harareet, Hugh Griffith, Andre Morell, Sam Jaffe, and Stephen Boyd as Marsala.  Boyd is particularly good. He plays Marsala as a wounded man, someone who actually thinks he was betrayed by his old best friend, and not the other way around.  He was actually directed to act like a spurned lover, and watching his performance with that in mind opens up a whole new dimension to the character.  It's great work, and its a shame he wasn't nominated for Best Supporting Actor (the award went to Hugh Griffith, who was nominated for Ben Hur for playing Sheik Ilderim - a fun role and good performance, certainly, but hardly Oscar-worthy).

The direction by William Wyler is superb, the cinematography is evocative, the art direction, sets, and costumes are awe-inspiring, and the music by Miklos Rozsa is easily one of the best scores ever written for a motion picture.  This is just a superb film from top to bottom.  Compare it the other massive hit of the religious genre, Ten Commandments.   Ten Commandments is just a bundle of sheer entertainment. No director was quite as adept as DeMille at mixing the cocktail of scope and silliness into something so unabashedly fun.  But Ben Hur blows it out of the water, with a filmmaking prowess and thematic depth that most historical films of the time period could not hope to match. William Wyler took the genre as far as it could go.  It is no surprise that religious epics went out of style in the 1960s.  Sodom and Gomorrah, King of Kings, and The Greatest Story Ever Told were pale attempts to continue the genre, but none thrived at the box office.  It's almost as if audiences just knew - the religious epic should have died with Ben Hur.  It was the best they were ever going to get.  So why bother trying anything else?

MVP: 
Some small spoilers here.  At first, this seemed like a tough call.  Wyler, Heston, Boyd and Rozsa could all make a strong case.  There are also a few scenes that are so good I have to consider them.  Probably my favorite scene involving Jesus in any movie is in Ben Hur, when the beaten Ben Hur is being dragged through the desert into slavery.  The line of exhausted slaves end up marching into Nazareth, which is where Ben Hur has his first encounter with Jesus.  It's a famous scene, justifiably so, and it had more of an emotional and religious impact on me than any of the heavy-handed biblical quoting that often plague films like this.  It's a beautiful sequence, with great work from Rozsa and great acting from Heston and the Roman guard who tries to stop Ben Hur from getting water.

But it's not my MVP.

No, once you start thinking about it, it is obvious what the MVP is...and as it should be, it is the one thing that the movie is most remembered for.  It is the image that is on all the posters, DVD covers, and featured in most movie montages.  It's that damn chariot race, that final confrontation between Ben Hur and Marsala.  How could it be anything else?  That race is a show stopper and has not aged a day.  It is just as intense now as it was then.  Maybe even more so, since audiences are used to CGI action scenes whereas this scene used stunt men who really get run over by horses.  That is pretty amazing to see - and please know that the rumor that a stunt man died while filming this movie is just that - a rumor.  But watching the chariot race, you have to wonder how that is possible, because there is some crazy dangerous stuff going on!

All in all, I actually think the chariot race is the best action scene in movie history.  Ever.  And I'll stand by that.  It's not just my MVP for this movie.  It's my MVP for the entire genre!

BEST LINE:
Judah Ben Hur: "Almost at the moment he died, I heard him say, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Esther: "Even then?"
Judah Ben Hur: "Even then."

It's not so much the first part of the exchange that I like, as I've heard it thousand times. It's the second part. "Even then." Those two words sum up the message of the film, the fruitlessness of revenge, the power of forgiveness.  There is a lot of power in those two words, and they've stuck with me ever since I first saw the film.

TRIVIA:
When Kirk Kerkorian liquidated MGM's assets in the 1970s, he sold one of the chariots for $4000 to a Sacramento restaurant owner.  A few years later, during the height of the 1970s energy crisis, this guy was arrested for driving the chariot on the highway.  I know there is probably better trivia out there about Ben Hur itself, but I thought this one was too strange not to post!

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Raiders of the Lost Ark

You may be wondering why I am reviewing Raiders of the Lost Ark now.  It's an established classic, most people have seen it, and if they don't like it, then they are most likely crazy.  So why review it now?  Well, I have two reasons.  First off, there is a whole generation of movie watchers growing up now that actually have NOT have seen it, as shocking as they may sound. My wife is a teacher, and when Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came out, she asked her students what they thought.  "Meh," they replied, "it was just a ripoff of National Treasure with an old guy."

"A ripoff of National Treasure with an old guy."  

I was horrified.  Not so much that they didn't like Crystal Skull, because that film was downright awful, but because their response implied they had not seen the other Indiana Jones adventures.  Really?!  What kind of parents do these kids have?!?!  How can they not have introduced their kids to Indiana Jones?!  So this column is for those kids.  Maybe one of them will read the review, be inspired to go rent the film with their friends, and therefore be enlightened with the magic of a true adventure masterpiece, and hopefully someday show their own children.  That is the circle of life the way it was meant to be.

The second reason I am writing this review now is because I just received the BluRay as a gift.  A few days later, I was with a friend, and we were planning on watching a different film.  But first, he wanted to see the Raiders transfer so he could decide whether or not to buy it himself.  We plopped it into his projector, and about two minutes into the film, he turned to me and said, "Do you kinda just want to watch the rest of this?"  And I answered, "Yeah, I kinda do."  It doesn't matter how many times I've seen it.  If Raiders is on, I'm not going to move from the couch for two hours.  And I'll just say right now - the work done on the film is marvelous.  It looks and sounds truly stunning in HD, and is definitely a worthy upgrade from the DVD!

So here is a short synopsis.  On the eve of World War 2, word reaches U.S. army intelligence that the Nazis are searching for religious artifacts of great power that might give them the upper hand in the war everyone knows is about the erupt.  Their latest target is the the Ark of the Covenant, the golden box where the ancient Hebrews kept the pieces of the Ten Commandments.  U.S. agents ask Indiana Jones to go to Egypt and find the Ark before the Nazis do.  I kind of don't want to say anything else because for those who have not seen the movie - the less you know about this roller coaster, the better the ride is going to be!

Sometimes with older films, I worry if nostalgia is tinting my affection.  This is really not the case with Raiders.  This film is lightning in a bottle.  Watching the movie again, I really paid attention to it as a film.  And it really is almost a flawless piece of work.  The script is tight, without an ounce of fat or wasted time.  The cinematography by Douglas Slocombe is superb and gave me easily a dozen shots that have been branded into my brain for all time.  John Williams' score is among his best and of course includes a main theme every bit as iconic as his intro to Star Wars.  Harrison Ford found the role of a lifetime and he has never been better.  The rest of the cast, including Karen Allen (Star Man), Paul Freeman (The Long Good Friday), John Rhys-Davies (Lord of the Rings), and Denholm Elliot (Cuba), are truly excellent.  Director Steven Spielberg was at the top of his game as a filmmaker.  And alongside Spielberg, look at who else contributed to the story - George Lucas, Lawrence Kasdan and Phillip Kaufman.  That's one helluva writing team there.

How good is Raiders of the Lost Ark?  It's so good that there are actually a number of glaring plot holes that you completely 100% forgive.  Minor spoilers here:  How did Indiana Jones stay on the Nazi submarine as it traveled to the Nazi base, especially once it submerged?  How did he know that the Ark would do that at the end of the film?  The movie never says, and we don't care.  Because our answer to these questions is always the same: "I don't know.  He's Indiana Jones!  He figured it out."  And I'm okay with that as the answer to any and all plot questions you might be able to think of.  He just figured it out.

Enough said.  Raiders of the Lost Ark is a true classic.  National Treasure may have been diverting enough, but it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence.  Shame on you, high schoolers, get your damn priorities straight.  Your homework is to go see Raiders and now.

BEST LINE:
Which line should I choose?  So tough.  How about this. "It's not the years, honey.  It's the mileage."

MVP:
Another really tough call.  Do I reward Spielberg for his terrific direction, Lawrence Kasdan for giving my childhood some its most memorable lines, or John Williams for that infectious music?  I think in the end I have to go with Harrison Ford.  This is one of those rare roles where the actor and character so seamlessly blend, there is no way anyone else could have done it.  Tom Selleck was originally cast in the role, and I think he would have been fine, and the movie certainly entertaining enough.  But it wouldn't have been as perfect.  And I don't think Selleck could have done what Ford did (just like I think Ford would have been an inferior Magnum P.I.).  Ford has done a lot fine work in a lot of great films, but in those movies, he is Harrison Ford playing a character.  But even when I watch Raiders of the Lost Ark today, I am surprised how the line between character and performer just doesn't seem to exist.  He IS Indiana Jones.  And for that, Harrison Ford gets the MVP.

TRIVIA:
Lots of great trivia with this one!  But how about we go back to those plot holes I mentioned earlier.  What is weird about the plot holes is that in the first cut of the movie, they were not plot holes at all.  Indiana Jones knew about the Ark's power at the end of the film because the old wise man in Cairo warned him about it.  And when the submarine traveled to its secret base, Indiana Jones survived the trip by using his whip to tie himself to the periscope, which I actually remember seeing in the comic adaptation when I was a kid and wondering why it wasn't in the film.  I am not sure why these scenes were cut from the movie.  It's kind of strange because they do provide crucial information for the plot.  Other deleted scenes include a German officer almost executing Sallah, but that scene was deemed too long and too serious for such an adventure (though the acting was supposedly superb).  There was also a massive set piece fight scene between Indiana Jones and the swordsman in the Cairo market.  The rumor is Ford was feeling sick and couldn't finish filming the sequence.  So they ad libbed the scene where he just shoots the swordsman instead - easily one of the funniest moments of entire franchise!

OSCARS AND NOMINATIONS:

Nominated for:

Best Picture (lost to Chariots of Fire)
Best Director (lost to Warren Beatty, Reds)
Best Cinematography (lost to Vittorio Storaro, Reds)
Best Original Score (lost to Vangelis, Chariots of Fire)

Won:

Best Art Direction
Best Sound
Best Film Editing
Best Visual Effects
Special Achievement Award for Best Sound Effects Editing

Rest in Peace, Peter O'Toole

A shining light went out this weekend.  Peter O'Toole had been sick for some time, so I was not surprised when I heard the news.  Frankly, given the hard life he lived, I am shocked he made it this long!  He should have died numerous times decades ago and he knew it, and continued to live each day to the fullest. 

For me, O'Toole has been in my life for as long as I can remember.  Lawrence of Arabia has been my favorite movie since I was 12.  And a lot of that credit goes to the thrilling performance from O'Toole.  And my love of Lawrence led directly to my first big lesson on how the Oscars aren't fair.  I knew Lawrence had won 7 Oscars, including all the biggies, but when I looked on the list, I did not see O'Toole's name.  Despite my ardent protests, my dad assured me that it was not a typo and that O'Toole had indeed lost the Oscar. 

You see, in my child's mind, it was inconceivable that he could lose that Oscar.  That performance is riveting in every detail. it is sheer electricity on-screen and I had never seen anything like it (nor have I since).  How is it possible that he had lost?!  Because that is the Oscars, folks. 

In fact, O'Toole's career was a checklist of Oscar unluckiness.  He had the misfortune of almost always going up against someone who was guaranteed to win.  For those who are curious, here is the tally:

1. Lawrence of Arabia - lost to Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird.  Look, that is a great performance in a great film, but O'Toole was better.  That said, there was no way Peck was losing that Oscar.

2. Becket - lost to Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady.  There is no way Rex Harrison was losing that Oscar .

3. The Lion in Winter - this the one he should have won.  Cliff Robertson won for Charly, which is was a fine film, but I'm not sure how Robertson won this.  He did embark on a great publicity campaign and there also may have been some voter fatigue from so many European actors winning Oscars in the 1960s.  Either way, this is the one that got away. 

4. Goodbye, Mr. Chips - lost to John Wayne in True Grit.  There was no way John Wayne was losing that Oscar - not after almost a half century in Hollywood without a win. 

5. Ruling Class - lost to Marlon Brando in The Godfather.  Brando is not losing that Oscar.

6. The Stunt Man - lost to Robert DeNiro in Raging Bull.  DeNiro is not losing that Oscar.

7. My Favorite Year - lost to Ben Kingsley in Gandhi.  You really think Kingsley was going to lose that Oscar? 

8. Venus - lost to Forrest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland.  Whitaker is not going to lose that Oscar.

What bad luck!  That is 8 nominations without a win, which is the record for acting.  He was awarded an Honorary Oscar in 2003, which he tried to reject because he said he was still in the game and "wanted to win the bugger outright."  But I think that was Hollywood's way of trying to undo their mistake and award him for a terrific body of work. 

But let's move on. Why dwell on disappointments when we should be applauding his work.  I wanted to make a quick list of the top five O'Toole performances for me.  His body of work includes a lot of class, but also a lot of junk (the late 1980s was not a good decade for him!), but if you could only see him acting in five movies, these are the five.  Please note that I don't think these are his best five films; just his top five performances.  I've also included the scene that I think showcases what he does best in these films.  Counting down!!!

5. Venus - What a great role to have at the end of one's career!  O'Toole plays a dirty old actor named Maurice reduced to playing aged aristocrats or corpses, and who becomes infatuated with a young woman named Jessie (Jodie Whitaker). While moments are hilarious, this really is not a heartwarming film.  But Maurice is a daring and bold role for any actor to take, and O'Toole brought 50 years of hellraising baggage to the part.  The killer scene is when he visits his ex-wife (Vanessa Redgrave) and admits to what a shallow and horrible husband he had been - but still with a touch of class and humor.  Only O'Toole could pull that off!

4. What's New Pussycat?  This is not a great film.  I'm not even sure if this is a good one, but boy, is it fun and absolutely insane!  This was one of those crazy sex farces from the 1960s, and featured a sterling cast that included Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress and Woody Allen in his film debut.  This movie is ridiculous, makes no sense, and I love every second of it.  If Lawrence is the movie that revealed O'Toole the actor to me, then this was the movie that showed me the Hellraiser.  I got a sense that in real life, he was very much like boozy womanizer Michael James.  And that guy would be a lot of fun to hang out with!  I would probably not survive the evening, but it would be a lot of fun!  For a standout O'Toole moment, either check out the drunken spin on Cyrano de Bergerac or his reaction to Paula Prentiss' poetry ("Who Killed Charlie Parker!  You did! You Rat!")

3. The Stunt Man.  Another film that is not everyone's cup of tea. Some people love it, some are appalled by its strangeness.  I am mixed myself.  There is a lot to love about this crazy movie, but there are too many problems for me to fully embrace it.  That said, O'Toole is insanely good as a maniacal film director Eli Cross, who may be trying to kill his new stunt man.  He hovers over the whole movie - literally, since his director's chair is mounted on a giant crane - like some sort of crazed movie god passing judgment on all the mere mortals beneath him.  He is both terrifying and charming.  The highlight scene is when the Assistant Director yells, "cut" on set before Eli Cross I ready to end the scene.  The fast-paced, clipped display of venom that spews out of O'Toole's mouth for the next 30 seconds is the type of performance that should be taught in film school.

2. The Lion in Winter.  As the embattled king Henry II, O'Toole is brilliant. The movie follows Henry as he tries to deal with his remarkably dysfunctional family while arguing politics with his rival, the new king of France.  Sounds a bit boring?  Try again.  Though technically a drama, this movie is actually very funny, with remarkably clever dialogue and memorable characters.  And O'Toole is terrific, stealing the movie from a great cast that also includes Katherine Hepburn, Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton.  He not only went head-to-head with the steely titan Hepburn, he eclipsed her (though she did win a well-deserved Oscar).  The best scene in the movie is when Henry has finally had enough of his rebellious children and muses on how his epitaph will read when he eventually dies, "but Henry had no sons.  He had no sons."  The pain and the rage are palpable and raw.  It's a great moment in a great film.

1. Lawrence of Arabia.  Was there any doubt?  My favorite performance in my favorite film.  David Lean put O'Toole through the ringer in this movie.  It is nearly a four hour movie and O'Toole is in nearly every scene, and has to run an emotional range from idealistic young officer to a man utterly crushed by political backstabbing and his own demons.  The last time I saw Lawrence, I realized there was something remarkable that I had never seen before.  Usually characters with God Complexes are villains, and usually they keep their illusions of grandeur right until the moment the hero kills them.  But in Lawrence, our hero has the God Complex, and his illusions are shattered, he has to live with the fact that he was wrong.  How do you deal with that?  It's an interesting question to ask in the middle of a massive World War I epic.  There was a heroic ideal that Lawrence thought he embodied, and that everyone else still believes him to be, and deep down, he knows he just doesn't cut it.  And by the end of the film, you can see that building pressure just destroying him.  Lawrence is about a lot of things, but it is also about the destruction of a human being, and O'Toole just nails every beat.  I've never seen anything like it before or since.  And I don't know if I can pick a best scene.  In my younger days, I would have chosen the iconic encounter with Sharif Ali at the well.  Now, I lean more towards the film's more complex second half, and the massacre of the Turkish army, specifically.  When he stares down Sharif on the battlefield with that brutal tonic of barbaric insanity and shame in his eyes, it is truly terrifying.

So those are my top five.  There are a lot of moments that could have been in here - his Priam in Troy, his art critic in Ratatouille, his charming thief in How to Steal a Million (my parents first date!), his insane aristocrat in The Ruling Class - heck, even his scientist in the otherwise atrocious Phantoms.  There are a lot of fond memories of watching him on-screen. 

On second thought, I am going to take back that opening sentence on my blog.  A great light has not gone out.  This light will never go out.  Through his performances, O'Toole will always shine.

Dredd

Dredd

In 1995, one of the great cinematic abominations of the decade descended on us in the form of Judge Dredd, starring Sylvester Stallone.  On paper, the film had some good stuff going for it.  Stallone looks a lot like the Dredd from the comic books, and the cast also included Diane Lane, Armande Assante, Max von Sydow, Diane Lane, and most importantly, Diane Lane (can you tell I am a fan?).  Unfortunately, Judge Dredd is utterly unwatchable (except for any scene with Diane Lane).  The film took a critical beating and was a well-deserved flop. 

But the comic is a cult favorite, and the character of Judge Dredd, a no-nonsense, brutal law enforcement officer in the future, licensed to be judge, jury, and executioner for even the smallest infractions, lends itself to the big screen. It was only a matter of time before Hollywood tried again.  I'm only surprised it took this long.

In the not too distant future, most of the East Coast has now become one super city called Mega City.  With overcrowding and a scarcity of resources, the world is on the verge of falling apart.  To keep order, the police have adopted tougher tactics, including the creation of the Judges, among whom Dredd (Karl Urban, Lord of the Rings) is arguably the best and easily the meanest. Dredd generally works alone, but on this day, he is saddled with a rookie, Cassandra Anderson (Olivia Thirlby, The Darkest Hour).  Anderson isn't doing so great in the Judge Academy, but she has rare, psychic gifts, and the Chief Judge wants to see how she does in the field before giving up on her.  And she wants Dredd to take her out.  The pair respond to a routine call, only to find themselves trapped in a skyscraper under the thumb of Mama (Lena Headey, 300), a vicious drug lord who is pushing the hottest drug on the street, called Slo Mo.  And so the stage is set.  Literally stuck in a building with hundreds of gang members, will the Judges survive?  Will Anderson be able to rise to the occasion and find her inner Judge badass?  Will Dredd be able to erase the painful memory that 1995's Judge Dredd had scarred into my brain? 

Look, I'm not going to lie.  Dredd is not a masterpiece of cinema.  There are a lot of problems with it, including a very bland opening act, some goofy story points, some bad one-liners, and questionable acting in a few places.  And while the effect of the drug Slo Mo, which renders the world literally in slow motion - only with heavy filters and glitter - is kind of neat the first time you see it, it definitely overstays its welcome by the 400th time you've seen it.  Its overuse just bogs the movie down.

But let's not kid ourselves.  We aren't expecting Dredd to be a masterpiece.  But was it fun?  Was it violent in the way action fans would want?  And does it do justice to the original character?  The answers are yes, yes, and yes.  Urban makes an admirable Judge Dredd, and wisely erases any 3-dimensionality or humanity from the character.  There does not need to be any character arc for Dredd, and Urban and director Pete Travis understand that.  Dredd just needs to kill people.  But the film is not devoid of character development, and I found Anderson's transformation to be particularly well handled.

The movie's action is appropriately gruesome and fun, and only goes over the top once or twice.  But what I like most about Dredd is how unambitious it is. I am so tired of every single action movie having the fate of the world, and maybe even the universe, at stake!  Every single big Hollywood blockbuster has to be sweeping and end with some city getting destroyed in an irresponsible and ridiculous special effects bonanza.  And I am tired of it.  You know what happens in Dredd?  The main character goes in a building and there's a gunfight, and then the movie ends.  That's it.  And we don't need anything else!  Hurray for Dredd!  You get a standing ovation for that alone. 

So there you go.  Is Dredd great?  Definitely not.  But it gets more right than it gets wrong, and I was definitely entertained.  Of course, as if you didn't already guess, the biggest problem with the movie is that Diane Lane isn't in it.  


MVP: 
Often with these types of movies, the rookies will just turn into a badass so quickly, it is as if a light switch was flipped on to make them fight better.  It's annoying, but something most of us accept in genre flicks.  This is not the case with Olivia Thirlby's Anderson, who actually undergoes a realistic transition from a rookie in over her head to a warrior who can hold her own without Dredd backing her up.  The character arc is well-balanced and proceeds in a steady pace alongside the main storyline.  Part of the credit has to go writer Alex Garland (28 Days Later).  But Thirlby also puts in a very good performance, taking the meek and nervous girl from the beginning of the film and believably transforming her into a powerful young woman who can threaten thugs twice her size by the end of the film without the audience laughing at her.  Though the character arc is broad, the details of the performance are subtle, and I was very impressed.  Olivia Thirbly, you get my MVP!


BEST LINE:

Anderson (reading a gang member's mind): Sir, he's thinking about going for your gun.

Dredd: Yeah.

Anderson (reading his mind again): He just changed his mind.

Dredd: Yeah.


TRIVIA:
Michael Biehn (The Terminator) auditioned to play Judge Dredd.  While I think he would have been too old to play the part, I love Michael Biehn.  After awesome work in The Terminator, Aliens, and The Abyss, I will never understand why he never broke through and became a star.  He's awesome!

Gravity

Gravity

Beware the hype machine!  When you have critics raving about Gravity being one of the best movies in years, and then filmmakers like James Cameron stating that Gravity is possibly the greatest space movie ever...well, that's dangerous.  And it is setting the bar impossibly high.  Pre-conceived notions can ruin a movie.  The result is that people may not know what to expect from Gravity, but if they don't get the greatest theatrical experience of their lives, they are bound to be disappointed.

'That movie wasn't about anything,' they might complain.  'It looks cool, but nothing much happens.'  And technically, they would be correct.  The story is not original, and it's also fairly slight.  A NASA shuttle crew is in space, working on the Hubble Telescope, when they run afoul of a pile of space shrapnel, destroying their shuttle and leaving only two crew members alive, mission commander Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock).  Stranded in space and running short on oxygen, they need to think of a way to escape back to Earth. 

And that's about it. I'm not hiding any plot twists or anything.  That is literally all there is to it, story-wise.  But the story doesn't need to be more than that.  Why pad the runtime with subplots that will only dilute the film?  This is lean and efficient storytelling, without an ounce of fat. 

You know what?  I think I am about to be a hypocrite and add to the hype machine.  This is easily one of the most dazzling movies of the year - both in terms of its visuals and in terms of the filmmaking prowess.  Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity is a movie for movie lovers.  Cuaron is breaking new ground in terms of camera work and the use of the CGI (and most fascinating to me, the innovative combination of the cinematography with the effects work).  Cuaron loves long takes, and there are multiple scenes in this movie that go on for an insanely long periods of time without the camera cutting away.  That must have taken an immense amount of intricate planning between the director, the camera operators, and the actors who had to hit their spots perfectly every single time.  This must have been such a painstaking process and I am in awe of what they achieved.

I would even recommend seeing the movie in 3-D, which is a surprise coming from me, because I don't normally like 3-D.  It's an over-priced gimmick, and one that is normally done poorly.  Even when it is done well, I don't think it really adds anything to the film.  Besides, those glasses give me a headache.  But Gravity was a headache worth having! 

The acting is also very good.  Bullock carries much of the film on her shoulders, revealing a depth that I haven't really seen in her other work, including her Oscar-winning turn in The Blind Side.  And Clooney is great, too.  Some folks say, 'he's just acting like Clooney,' but I disagree.  Pay attention to when the suave charmer we all know shifts into Mission Commander mode and starts barking orders.  It's a subtle shift, the way he plays it, but not any less effective because of it.  I thought he was great.

As is the whole film.  There is one moment near the end that annoyed me, the one time the movie breaks into a Hollywood formula, but other than that, I was with this roller coaster ride.  Gravity is one of the most effective films of the year, full of tension and emotion, and I easily think it is one of the top contenders for Best Picture come Oscar time.

That is - if the backlash doesn't swoop in and derail its growing reputation.  Which would really be shame.  Look, this is not the greatest space movie of all time, but it is still fantastic.  Don't let the hype get in your head because it might just ruin a brilliant film.  I was utterly absorbed, and I hope you are just as thrilled by the movie as I was.  Yes, Gravity is simple, but it is cinema as art, and it is simply brilliant. 


MVP:

No doubt in my mind, this is Cuaron's MVP award.  And it is his filmmaking style that elevates Gravity into a work of art.  His insistence on long takes and slower pacing just makes the movie more effective and suspenseful (watching the scene where Stone has to release some clamps near the International Space Station had me so close to the edge of my seat, I almost fell off!  And it is also one, long, stable shot...so take that, Hollywood, with your insistence of shaky cam and over-editing scenes to pieces!).  Anyways, Cuaron is brilliant, and so is Gravity.

BEST LINE:

Dr. Ryan Stone: I hate space.

TRIVIA:

In terms of trivia, I always think it is fun to hear about who was originally cast in a film.  Before Sandra Bullock, the lead character was to be played by Angelina Jolie, but she dropped out.  Natalie Portman was also offered the part, but she turned down the role shortly before announcing her pregnancy.  Robert Downey, Jr, was to play Kowalski, but he also dropped out, opening up the role for Clooney. 

El Cid

El Cid

My friends and family all know that epics are easily my favorite film genre.  I count Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, and Ben Hur among my favorite films.  What is it about epics that I love so much?  I don't know.  I love the larger than life heroes, the vast scope of the stories, the brilliant sets, the casts of thousands, the grand music...I just love the bigness of it all.  But the very bigness that makes epics so unique is also what often leads to their downfall.  Often these movies will get lost in their own grandness, with their characters and storylines often being trampled by the march of what the filmmakers really care about: big heroes and big armies doing big things.  The best epics are able to strike the balance between the grand scale and the personal story of the characters.  It's not an easy balance, and only a few have truly succeeded. 

So how about El Cid, the 1962 film produced by super producer Samuel Bronston and starring Charlton Heston and Sophia Loren?  The film is considered one of the great epics, and is in fact one of Martin Scorsese's favorite films of the genre.  It was certainly one of the monster blockbuster hits of the decade.  Does El Cid live up to its reputation? 

El Cid is based on the legend of Rodrigo de Bivar, a Spanish knight in the 11th Century called "El Cid" because of his nobility and mighty exploits on the battlefield.  The storyline of the film is vast, including the wars between the Christian and Islamic kingdoms of medieval Spain, not to mention the looming threat of the Moors, led by extremist Ben Yusuf (Herbert Lom), who threaten to invade Spain and destroy everyone - both Christian and Muslim - who refuse to bend to their will.  The "B-Story" of the movie, i.e. the more personal side of the plot involves the evolving and tumultuous relationship between El Cid and the love of his life, Jimena.  Unfortunately, El Cid killed Jimena's father in a duel, but she still agrees to marry him so she can make his life a living hell, put herself in better position to someday kill him, but also because she still loves him.

So how is El Cid?  Unfortunately, the film does not deserve any sort of classic status.  And it is unfortunate because all the right pieces are in place.  Charlton Heston is terrific, and Loren is also quite good.  The costumes and sets are all stunning.  The original score by Miklos Rozsa is brilliant.  And unlike many epics, the story is actually very intriguing, full of interesting characters, stirring stands for truth and justice, and also a fair share of betrayals.  There are moments in the film that are downright brilliant, such as El Cid's duel with a rival king's champion, and when he forces Alfonso, the new King of Castile, to swear an unwanted oath when he ascends to the throne.

So it is a shame that the film never really works.  I think the primary offender is the leaden script which weighs down the otherwise interesting story with hammy dialogue.  For example, the love story has great potential.  Jimena loves El Cid, but is duty bound to try and destroy him.  That is good drama!  And Heston and Loren give it their all, and kind of pull it off.  But they can't quite get the tragic love story to ring as true as it should.  I also have to blame the director Anthony Mann.  Mann is generally a fine director, but I think his work is just kind of run-of-the-mill here.  Mann is actually studied in film school as a master of mise-en-scene.  His framing is the stuff that makes film students go crazy, but I actually think it is distracting (with a few stirring exceptions).  It's not that the directing is necessarily bad.  Yes, there are a few moments that are laugh out loud awful, but for the most part, there is nothing wrong with the film.  It's just that with a cast this big, battles this momentous, castles and sets this visually stunning, and with Heston and Loren leading the charge, shouldn't the movie be better than this?  It's really just a missed opportunity that needed a Wyler, Lean or Kubrick at the helm.

So is El Cid worth watching?  Yes, I think it is.  When it is bad, it is pretty bad.  But when it is good, it comes close to soaring.  So watch it with your expectations at a reasonable level, and I think you will like it.  El Cid does not hold a candle to the titans of the genre, but it is an interesting film, and worthy of being called a true epic.


MVP:
At first, I thought this was an easy choice.  Miklos Rozsa composed a masterful piece of music which is every bit as brilliant as his Oscar-winning score for Ben Hur.  The main title is fantastic and the love theme is perhaps the finest of Rozsa's career.  This score is easily in my top ten favorites.  But a conversation with a friend changed my mind.  He argued that Heston should be the MVP.  This is Heston's movie.  He carries it.  In fact, he elevates the material.  My friend put it this way: would this had been the same movie with a different actor in the role?  I thought about that for a second, and almost immediately I realized he was right.  Without Heston, El Cid would have been a very different movie.  In fact, it would have been another Fall of the Roman Empire.  That epic was produced by the same team, including super producer Samuel Bronston, director Anthony Mann, and writer Philip Yordan.  In many ways, Fall of the Roman Empire should have been an improvement.  The all-star cast was bigger and better, the sets were even grander, the scope spanned two continents of love, betrayal and warfare.  And ultimately the film is a colossus of epic boredom.  The only real difference between the two films?  No Heston.  I know there are some who can't appreciate Heston's grandiose style as an actor, and I do understand that.  But I don't think anyone argue that he wasn't tailor-made for the epic genre.  Whether it is Judah Ben Hur, Moses, Rodrigo de Bivar, or Michaelangelo, Charlton Heston takes on the larger than life persona and makes it his own.  And he makes El Cid better than it has any right being.  And that really is the very definition of a MVP, right?


BEST LINE:
El Cid: "Soldiers!  People of Valencia!  You must not be frightened by the sound of a few drums.  In a few hours, they will be silenced forever.  I promise you, tomorrow morning, I will ride with you!"


TRIVIA:
Heston also thought that El Cid was a bit of a missed opportunity.  He has been quoted as saying that it would have been better with William Wyler (director of Ben Hur) at the helm.  He even thinks he could have won another Oscar had Wyler directed it.  I have to admit, he might be right.  The dramatic potential was in the story.