The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

Hound of the Baskervilles

By 1959, Hammer Films was on a high.  Their Frankenstein and Dracula franchises were smash hits and it looked like the little British company could do no wrong.  But the studio was trying to be smart; and think ahead. They knew they wouldn't be able to rely on horror forever, and they began to look into other genres.  They found an obvious answer in the world's greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes.

This seemed like a no brainer.  The material was a perfect fit for director Terence Young and stars Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Andre Morell, and Holmes' greatest adventure, The Hound of the Baskervilles, even had a heavy horror element to it, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Hammer to start their foray into detective films with this storyline.

The plot is fairly simple.  Sir Hugo Baskerville has just been killed mysteriously out on the moors near his manor, and the primary suspect is the ghost of a demon hound that has cursed the family for generations.  Sir Hugo's son, Henry (Lee) returns to Baskerville Hall to claim his inheritance, but he doesn't come alone.  The mystery of Sir Hugo's death and the demon hound has piqued the interest of Sherlock Holmes (Cushing) and his partner, Dr. Watson (Morell), and the two arrive in the moors to prevent the same gruesome fate from happening to Sir Henry.

Is The Hound of the Baskervilles as good as Horror of Dracula or other Hammer classics?  No, not really, but it is still a solid film and a good take on the character.  As Hammer rightly believed, this material is perfect for their inhouse cast and crew.  Cushing is a great Holmes, playing up the eccentricity without going overboard, and Morell is a terrific Watson.  Watson has a lot to do in this film as there are great stretches of time where Holmes is nowhere to be found, leaving Watson with the difficult task of protecting Henry himself.  Morell puts in great work, trying to keep one eye on Henry while keeping the other eye open for clues for Holmes.  He's quite the detective himself, even if he isn't as quick as Holmes.  Meanwhile, Lee brings just the right amount of aristocratic authority to his Henry, though I have to admit it is a bit strange seeing him as a good guy.  And Terence Fisher is a great choice of director, creating an eerie sense of atmosphere with beautiful mists and saturated colors.  All in all, this is a solid and entertaining film.

So it is strange to me that The Hound of the Baskervilles was a disappointment at the box office!  While not as good as Hammer's classics, it is still a lot better than a good chunk of the company's catalog, including The Mummy, which came out the same year and was an unqualified success.  I'm just not sure why this movie didn't do well.  The studio thought it was because audiences only wanted monsters, not detectives.  I've also read that audiences still closely connected the role of Holmes with Basil Rathbone, so maybe they were unwilling to accept a new actor in the role, no matter how good he was.  Either way, it is very strange to me.

I think it is time for The Hound of Baskervilles to get a second lease on life!  I want everyone who likes Sherlock Holmes or Hammer Films to go out and rent this movie!  I think you will enjoy it.  It is not a classic by any means, it is still an entertaining film and deserves more attention than it received in 1959.

MVP:
I have to go back to Peter Cushing. I love this guy!  If you want to see how versatile an actor he is, look no further than 1958 and 1959, when he played the Van Helsing, Victor Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, and even the romantic lead in The Mummy.  He is not a flashy actor who calls attention to himself, but each of these performances are remarkably different.  He was a great actor, and I very much enjoyed his take on the iconic detective.  He may not be the best Holmes - he doesn't quite reach the level of Jeremy Brett, Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey, Jr. (I don't care what Holmes purists say, I really like Downey in the role!), but Cushing is still a grand Holmes and certainly the best thing about this movie. An easy MVP, I say!

TRIVIA: 
Hammer was so confident that The Hound of the Baskervilles would be a hit that plans were already being laid to continue the franchise.  Cushing, who loved the role, was especially excited. Alas, when the film underperformed, the franchise was canceled.

BEST LINE:

Holmes: "Now would you mind sorting out a large scale map of Dartmoor, my dear fellow, while I go and find some more tobacco.  This, I think, is a two pipe problem."

The Sandpiper

The Sandpiper

The Sandpiper isn't very good.  It's reputation is pretty awful and was seen as a cash grab by the studio to get Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in another movie during the height of their fame and notoriety.  Even Burton and Taylor admited it wasn't very good.  So why did I watch it?  Well, I took one look at the cast and crew and thought, could it really be that bad?  Taylor is hit or miss with me, but I do like Burton.  The cast included Charles Bronson (Death Wish) and Eva Marie Saint (North by Northwest).  The director was Oscar-winning Vincente Minnelli (Gigi) and the script was written by two superb screenwriters, Dalton Trumbo (Spartacus) and Michael Wilson (The Bridge of River Kwai).  Plus, the movie had a small role for Peter O'Toole, who is one of my favorite actors.  With all that talent involved, I wondered could The Sandpiper really be that bad? 

Yep.  It sure is. 

So Elizabeth Taylor is Laura Reynolds, a free spirit, sort of a hippy painter who is broke, but can still afford to live in a sweet pad by the beach.  Her son is a bit of an odd duck and gets in trouble with the law.  Over her objections, the local judge forces him to be enrolled in a Boys School which is run by a Protestant priest, Dr. Edward Hewitt (Burton) and his wife, the patient and understanding Claire (Saint).  Well, despite the fact that they have nothing in common and have almost no chemistry (strange considering the actors' passionate off-screen life), Hewitt and Reynolds start an affair.  And...well, not much happens.  Everyone just talks about stuff, we follow the obvious motions of the affair being discovered and its aftermath and then the movie just kinda ends.  The storyline is a bit odd, without the usual ebb and flow that a standard narrative should have.  The movie doesn't even really have a climax.  It just ambles along in the same meandering pace all the way through and then the credits roll.  I guess that is my way of saying the movie is boring.  If that wasn't clear, allow me to reiterate: THIS MOVIE IS SO BORING!!!

It's not even that there is anything wrong with the movie, per se.  It's just dull. For a wild and free spirit, Laura Reynolds is pretty dull.  Oh, they try to liven her up by giving her some speeches about the women's lib movement, but they are all sleep inducing.  Her love scenes with Burton, when she is forced to say brilliant lines like, 'is this love...is this what married people feel?" aren't any better.  Eek.  Burton does what he can, but he even has trouble.  Minnelli doesn't have a handle on the direction, and I don't know what Trumbo and Wilson were thinking when they put pen to paper.  This is just a bad and dull movie.

And I can't help but think that it must have been uncomfortable to make.  Taylor and Burton were the Brangelina of their day...even bigger, actually.  After all, the Taylor-Burton affair was so notorious that the Vatican condemned them and there was a (unsuccessful) motion in Congress to stop such immoral people from returning to the United States.  So why would Burton make a film about a character who cheats on his patient and awesome wife when that is pretty much what he did in real life to his wife Sybil?  I don't think Elizabeth Taylor would have cared.  She got her man, after all.  But Burton was racked with guilt in real life, at least in the beginning before the divorce proceedings were finalized.  Why would he make this movie?  Was this some sort of penance for him?

Anyway, that leads me to one other thing.  Where the hell was Peter O'Toole!!?  He was supposedly in the beach party scene, which I watched five times and can't find him. And that was enough for IMDB to list him in the cast?  And if you look at most movie books or in the TV Guide, you will see O'Toole gets third billing after Taylor and Burton.  What?!?!?!  Maybe he should get MVP just because he had the good sense to not show his face in this piece of crap.

BEST LINE:

Well, here's an amusing way to take the fun out of graffiti...here's Dr. Hewitt chastising two students...

Dr. Hewitt: Our English tongue has a long history and I am pleased with your interest in its oldest and most...ardent words.  I think it sad, however, that these ancient words should be degraded to a position on lavatory walls.  You will scrub the walls down, of course, and then you will learn the equivalent words in German, French and Latin, after which you will decline each noun and congregate each verb in all tenses, including the subjunctive. 


MVP:
I am going to go with Robert Webber, a former lover of Laura's who just happens to be a member of the school board.  He is a confidant, dapper, egotistical, and the only interesting character in the movie.  He definitely subscribes to "The Guy Code" and doesn't reveal the affair, but isn't above trying to get in on the action himself.  That's just dirty.  But his bravado is way more interesting to watch then everything else going on.  He seems to be an early role model for Don Draper...I wonder if the Mad Men producers watched this movie when they were developing that show...

TRIVIA:
An unknown Raquel Welch doubled for Elizabeth Taylor for some of the beach scenes. 

Cuba

Cuba

Cuba is just plain awful.  There is no other way to say it.  It's just a terrible, terrible film.  But it is also a good example of how awesome Sean Connery is and why he is one of the greatest movie stars in Hollywood history.

I will explain why later.  But first, let's talk a bit about this mess of a film.  Cuba follows the last days of the Batista presidency in Cuba, just as the revolution led by Fidel Castro is gaining real momentum. Realizing they are losing the war, Batista's generals hires badass mercenary Major Robert Dapes (Sean Connery) to help turn the tide against the rebels.  But in a bit of a crazy coincidence, guess who else lives in Cuba?  The answer is Alexandra Lopez (Brooke Adams) with whom Dapes had a passionate affair when he was serving in North Africa a decade earlier...when she was 15 and he was 30, mind you.  So, uh, that is already a bit uncomfortable...but moving on...

Alexandra manages a factory that is in theory run by her no good, philandering husband, Juan Palido (Chris Sarandon, clearly practicing the douchebaggering he would perfect later in his career as Humperdink in Princess Bride).  The factory is a hotbed of revolutionary activity that the movie would have you believe is all because Juan likes sleeping with one of his employees.  And what else is going on here?  Oh, yeah, there is a chubby American businessman (Jack Weston) representing American big business trying to take advantage of economic opportunities in the Cuban upheaval. And then there is a British businessman Donald Skinner (Denholm Elliot) who is in this movie for...I don't even know why he is in this movie.  Elliot is awesome and he's just wasted and I don't even remember any of his scenes except for one funny site gag involving a door...which is admittedly pretty hilarious.  This movie just plain makes no sense.  Apparently, it wasn't making any sense to the cast, either.  The script wasn't finished when they started production...and I actually don't think they ever finished it. This movie is just bizarre, and bizarrely bad.

And it is a shame, because there is some interesting things going on here.  First of all, it is interesting to see the British take on the Cuban Revolution.  Cuba kind of walks this strange tight rope.  It is completely anti-Batista, but not quite anti-American, who just come across as silly and in a bit over their heads.  And certainly Castro's men, who engage in several attacks against innocent civilians, don't come out looking good, either.  In fact, in a way, you could say this movie is pro-British.  The only character who comes out looking good is the British mercenary Dapes...and maybe that is the point.  Maybe this whole movie represents the British rolling their eyes at the whole situation and saying that they are above such shenanigans.  When Dapes arrives in Cuba, he quickly assesses the situation and knows that Castro is going to win.  He really only stays in order to rekindle his affair with Alexandra because well, he is too morally superior to engage in the silly war, even if that is what he was hired to do.  Oh, sure, he makes a few obligatory excursions with the troops, but I think those scenes exist only to reinforce that both sides in the struggle are lame and only Dapes is cool.  So, yeah, maybe this movie is ultimately all about why the United Kingdom is awesome.  

Or maybe I am just trying to force some order into what is otherwise an unorderly, horrifying mess. Take this MAJOR SPOILER for an example.  At the climax of the film, Dapes is captured by the rebels.  They try to engage Dapes in conversation and they are rebuked.  Dapes lets them know that despises them because they aren't real soldiers, they won't fight in real battles, they are terrorists who prey on the innocent civilians and are just generally loathsome human beings.  And then Batista's troops attack...you would think Dapes would be happy that he is about to be rescued...but instead he hijacks a tank and starts attacking Batista's men!!!

What.  The.  Hell.

So basically, Castro won the war because Sean Connery attacked the side he was supposed to be working for?  It just doesn't make a lick of sense.

This movie just sucks.  And with a director like Richard Lester (The Three Musketeers) and such a great cast...there is no excuse for a movie this atrocious.


BEST LINE:

Major Dapes: Why were those people shot?

Captain Ramirez: Perhaps because they were trying to escape.

Major Dapes: From what?

Captain Ramirez: From being shot.


MVP:

As I mentioned earlier, this movie is a great example of why Sean Connery is one of the greatest movie icons of all time.  He actually has had a unique career among Hollywood stars.  Allow me to explain myself: every star has hits and flops on their resume.  But if you take James Bond out of the picture, then Sean Connery's ratio of hits and misses is absurdly unbalanced.  If any other actor had made Zardoz, Meteor, First Knight, Shalako, and Sword of the Valiant, his career would have gone down in flames.  But Sean Connery not only survived.  He thrived.  And no matter how bad the movie was, it never seemed to affect anyone's opinion of him.  Unlike any actor I know, his persona existed separately from the body of his work.  His awesomeness was so awesome that...well, it didn't matter how many movies like Cuba he made...people were going to love him anyway.  Because he is Sean Connery.  And even in this trash, he elevates above it all with his badassness.  He really does fill a unique place in Hollywood history.  And it sort of makes him the automatic MVP in any film he is in...

For those who aren't sure they agree with my theory, just look at his filmography on IMDB.  He has a handful of movies that performed decently at the box office (Rising Sun, Entrapment, The Wind and the Lion) and he has a couple of movies that are genuinely good but flopped for some reason (Robin and Marian).  But when you remove James Bond, how many blockbusters are there?  Murder on the Orient Express and A Bridge Too Far, but he only had a small role in both.   Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and The Untouchables, but he is in a supporting role in those (even if he is easily the best thing in both those films).  Hell, technically he is even the second lead in The Hunt for Red October and The Rock, even though he was clearly the major draw for both those films.  That leaves us with...wait, what does that leave us with?  Nothing else really...that's it.  Those are his big hits. And it doesn't matter.  Because nobody cares.  Because Sean Connery is that amazing.  Has any other actor achieved such status?  It's remarkable.  In a way, it makes me like Connery even more!

Anyway, that's a long winded way of saying he is MVP.

TRIVIA:

As the production could not film in Cuba, the majority of the filming took place in Spain.

Harry Brown

Harry Brown

Now here is a nice return to form!  Michael Caine is one of the greats, but age has kept him from starring in as many films these days.  I'm sure the selection isn't the best either for actors his age, no matter how talented.  Thank goodness for Christopher Nolan who has had the good sense to use Caine in his Batman trilogy, The Prestige, and Inception.  But as great as Caine is in these movies, his roles are supporting.  I think an actor of his caliber still has the goods to carry his own movie; we just need a director willing to give it a go.

Enter Daniel Barber and Harry Brown.  Sort of a pensioner version of Death Wish, Harry Brown is about Harry, a retired Korean war veteran living in a gang-ridden English slum.  Harry is not doing so well.  Recently widowed, he walks around his neighborhood like a ghost, waiting for his emphezema to finish him off.  At least he has a good friend in Leonard (David Bradley), but even their conversations aren't very peachy.  The gang problem in the neighborhood is getting worse, and Leonard is getting pushed around.  The old man wants to strike back.  Harry advises him not to.  But when Leonard is brutally murdered, enough is enough.  Harry might be in his 70s, but it is time to take back the neighborhood.

This might sound silly, but the film gets a lot right.  First of all, Harry never acts younger than he is.  In a Hollywood version, Harry would be able to take on some of these youngsters in a real fight.  While watching older folks kick butt can make for a fun movie (hello, Expendables!), it's hardly realistic.  And Harry Brown takes a very real approach.  If you were 70, and trying to figure out how to kill everyone in the local gang, how would you go about doing it?  It's a good question, and one that Harry Brown enjoys answering.

I also admired that fact that the movie admits that Harry might not even be right in his pursuit of vengeance.  Sure, some members of the gang are just plain evil, but the movie doesn't present all of them as cartoon bad guys and admits that these young men could very much be a product of a failed economic system or other societal problems.  The movie makes very clear that one of the kids has been dealing with years of sexual abuse.  Harry doesn't care.  Harry just wants them all dead.  And that makes for an interesting movie. 

Harry Brown is also Daniel Barber's first film, and he directs with a sure hand and a good feel for atmosphere.  I'll have to keep an eye on him as his career continues to develop.  And the acting is quite good along the board.  Caine is ably supported by a great cast including Emily Mortimer and Liam Cunningham, but make no mistake - this is Caine's show and he is nothing short of terrific.  In a different actor's hands, I'm not sure the movie would have worked quite as well.  I think it would have been interesting, but that's about it.  But Caine's performance is so compelling, it completely absorbs us into the storyline. 

Admittedly, the film does kind of fall apart at the end.  For some reason, they felt the need to add a twist which was completely unnecessary.  But apart from the last 10 minutes, this is quality filmmaking, and shows that Caine is still at the top of his game.


BEST LINE:

Detective Frampton: It's not Northern Ireland, Harry.

Harry Brown: No, it isn't.  Those people...were fighting for something, for a cause.  To them out there, it's just entertainment.

MVP:
Hey, there is no doubt.  This is Michael Caine's show.  He dominates this movie, showing us that his acting powers have not diminished.  I'm glad Nolan is keeping Caine in quality films, but other movie producers have to step up, too.  This guy still has it!  Let's get him in more good movies now while we can!!

TRIVIA:
Michael Caine took the role because he saw a lot of himself in Harry Brown.  They were both combat veterans (Caine served in the Korean War) and Caine used to live in the area where Brown does.

Promised Land

Promised Land

No!!!!  So close, Hollywood, so close!

When I first heard about Promised Land, I thought, "ah, another Hollywood, environmental, anti-corporation" movie.  I get tired of these films because the politics are so one-sided.  And it doesn't matter if I agree with the political stance or not (in fact, I often do).  My problem is that some of these films are telling me what I am supposed to think and then tells me I am a close-minded, foolish simpleton if I disagree.  Personally, I don't think that is a very good way to start a dialogue on a serious topic.  In fact, that kind of myopic view is part of the problem in Washington D.C. today.

So I was surprised when I started watching Promised Land, and it did the unexpected and actually tackled the topic in an intelligent and though-provoking way!   Matt Damon plays Steve Butler, who works for Global Crosspower, an energy company focusing on extracting natural gas through a method called fracking.  Steve's job is to go to these small towns, generally full of farmers, and convince them to lease their farmland to Global by offering profit sharing deals.  The town, hit with hard economic times, is of course enthusiastic until an old farmer/teacher Frank Yates (Hal Holbrook) brings up major environmental concerns at a town hall meeting.  Steve's job gets even more difficult when a bothersome activist Dustin Noble (John Krasinski) rolls into town to start a grassroots campaign against Global.

For a good chunk of the runtime, I was rolling with Promised Land, which is buoyed by a terrific cast, which also includes the great Francis McDormand and Rosemary DeWitt, working with a nice script co-written by Damon and Krasinski, and under the sure hand of director Gus van Sant (who also directed Damon's Good Will Hunting).  And I was impressed with the movie's mature take on the fracking issue.  Steve is presented not as a corporate stooge, but as a real three dimensional character who believes in what he is saying.  He came from a small farm town.  The life blood of the town was a local factory and when that factory closed down, the town just withered away and died.  Steve still seems shell shocked about his childhood, and he honestly believes that fracking is a way out for the dying small town.  Sure, there is a small chance that something horrible could happen, environmentally, but maybe it is worth the risk so that money can be pumped into these small towns.  The other side of that argument comes from Dustin Noble and Frank Yates.  The environmental risk is not small and the invasive measures used by fracking companies will destroy the land, destroy the livestock, destroy the farms, and ultimately destroy the town.  Both sides are committed to their argument and I admired that they seemed to be letting the audience make up their own mind. 

Sort of a spoiler here: then suddenly the movie decides to throw the audience a curveball in a twist so blatantly ridiculous that it ruins the whole movie, taking everything intelligent about the debate and turning into a diatribe about how corporations are manipulating the world and destroying America.  This was infuriating because it undermines the film, which up to this point had really been working.  Look, I am not deluding myself.  I knew the movie was anti-fracking, but by presenting a logical discussion and actually addressing the opposition's perfectly reasonable arguments, the movie was able to prove its point and hopefully convince people on the fence.  But the twist at the end alienates those in the middle and when that happens, you are just preaching to the choir and you're not going to convince anyone of anything.  Maybe if the twist had been handled better, I wouldn't have been so annoyed, but the script and direction just start to flounder here, despite the cast's best efforts.  Very frustrating experience.  What a shame. 


MVP:
Promised Land also one other flaw.  It tries to shoehorn a love triangle into the film, with both Dustin and Steve chasing the same woman, a local school teacher named Alice, played by Rosemary DeWitt.  Beyond the Hollywood contrivance of this rivalry, it also bothered me because it made Alice a weak character - would she just randomly go out with anyone as long as they came from out of town?  But I only noticed this afterwards because Rosemary DeWitt's performance is so good.  She is a strong and confidant woman, full of good humor and grace, and you can see why Steve and Dustin would both be chasing her.  In fact, it is a bit odd that everyone else in the town is not chasing her.  It's a fine performance and she completely charmed me, elevating the love story scenes from their inherent cliché nature.  It doesn't hurt that she has remarkable chemistry with Matt Damon.  So all in all, a win for Rosemary DeWitt!  A decisive MVP win.

BEST LINE:
STEVE: I'm begging you, don't do this.  Because the truth is we will walk away.  We always do. And then after every single town within three states has signed up and with the blows of this economy almost unbearable, we'll come back.  And we'll offer you nothing.  Every lease we've signed, every piece of the pie we've offered.  It all goes away...and we will buy this place for nothing.

TRIVIA:
This film was supposed to be Matt Damon's directorial debut.  But with a very short time to prepare for the film (and because of some rumored creative conflicts), Damon stepped down as director and Gus van Sant came onboard.

Silver Linings Playbook

Silver Linings Playbook
You know, I have to hand it to David O'Russell.  There are not a lot of good dramas out there.  Oh, there are some that are diverting enough, I suppose, but nothing to write home about.  And most are sappy, formulaic, cookie cutter messes.  And then here comes David O'Russell (fresh off the equally excellent The Fighter) with his terrific adaptation of Matthew Quick's novel, Silver Linings Playbook.

Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper) suffers from bipolar disorder.  As the movie begins, he is being released from the mental hospital, where he was sentenced after almost beating his wife's lover to death.  Now living at home with his parents (played by Jacki Weaver and Robert DeNiro), Pat is trying to get his life back in order and hopefully convince his wife to get back together with him...of course, that would involve finding a way around that darn restraining order.  The solution to his little problem presents itself in the form of Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a young widow who knows Pat's wife.  And she will pass on a letter for him if he agrees to help her with her dance competition.

So this sounds like a serious drama until you read the dance competition part of my synopsis, which makes this sound like just another one of those formulaic romantic comedies.  Well, yes and no.  There is a bit of a formula here, sure, but when it is so superbly acted, written and directed, you can still find yourself surprised by what you are seeing on screen.  And make no mistake, Silver Linings Playbook is superb, full of heart and humor and a lot of crazy. 

O'Russell supposedly wanted to make this film because his own son is bipolar.  He tackles the subject with a great deal of heart and wisdom in both his directing and writing.  But his greatest strength is the way he depicts family.  I don't think anyone working today is as adept at creating a real family dynamic as he is.  He showed this skill in The Fighter, too.  There are no neatly defined family "roles" here like in other films; this is family and it is messy.  They love each other, they hate each other, they talk over each other, play little manipulative games, bicker and feud, and then hug it out.  These scenes are among the most heartfelt and funny in the movie.

And the acting is excellent!  This is the first film in a long time that has received an Oscar nomination in all four acting categories, and deservedly so.  Cooper, Lawrence, DeNiro and Weaver all develop fully formed human beings, with both good qualities and bad.  Cooper shows a true depth and maturity in his performance that you would not have imagined from his other films like A-Team or The Hangover.  Let's give this guy meaty roles like this!  And as for Jennifer Lawrence...between X-Men: First Class, The Hunger Games, and Winter's Bone, I am beginning to wonder if there is anything she can't do.  All the supporting players are all terrific, as well, including Julia Stiles and Chris Tucker.  And where the hell has Chris Tucker been anyway?  He hasn't made a movie since 2007's Rush Hour 3.  And while I was growing tired of his shtick by that sequel, I forgot how effective he can be when he is used in the right way!

There is one thing that bothered me in the movie...it's a small thing, but it kept nagging at me.  The police are pretty clear that if Pat has one more bipolar outburst, he is going back to the mental institution.  He proceeds to have a bunch of violent and destructive outbursts (in public even!), and yet he is never sent back.  He just keeps getting more warnings.  But poor harmless Chris Tucker keeps getting dragged back for no reason.  Okay, this is a small complaint, but it bothered me.  Silver Linings Playbook is a great film, funny and touching, and I definitely recommend it.  Go see it!

MVP:
I know I should say O'Russell, but I just can't.  And here is why: Red Lights, Righteous Kill, Being Flynn, Little Fockers, Stone, Freelancers starring 50 Cent, for crying out loud!  Not DeNiro, but 50 Cent.  What has Robert DeNiro been doing the last few years?!?!?  It has been a long time since I have seen DeNiro knocking the ball out of the park in a good movie.  I don't know if it is the roles being offered or if he is just on a bad streak, but it's been far too long since I have seen him in something great.  And one of life's great pleasures is to see the arguably greatest actor of his generation do what he does best.  And he vanishes into the role of Pat, Sr., who has a very complicated relationship with his son.  It is a good part and there might be some under-the-table nature vs. nuture stuff going on here, because you can definitely sense some of Pat's violent tendencies coming from his obsessive compulsive father as opposed to just his bipolar disorder.  Pat, Sr. has a lot of anger and a lot of regrets in his life.  But at the same time, when he looks at his son, you see such love in his eyes, no matter how sick he is or how disturbed he can be.  Pat, Sr. could have been played for laughs, a one dimensional, walking OCD joke, but DeNiro captures the heart of the role.  He is terrific and I was so happy to see him back in all his glory.  MVP!

BEST LINE:
Pat, Sr: I gotta rethink this whole thing.  I didn't trust it before, but I gotta say, now I do.

TRIVIA:
Lots of interesting casting trivia on this one!  Russell originally wanted to make this film with Zooey Deschanel and Vince Vaughn.  Then Mark Wahlberg was in the mix.  Russell came to Cooper in a different way.  The two had been in discussions to collaborate on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.  I think it was a good decision to make this instead!  For the role of Tiffany, Anne Hathaway was actually cast, but filming for The Dark Knight Rises interfered, so Russell looked elsewhere for his leading lady.  I think this all worked out for the best.  Cooper and Lawrence were both excellent!

Valhalla Rising

Valhalla Rising

Uh.  Huh?

Valhalla Rising is an odd duck.  It's one of those movies that I completely admire and deplore at the same time.  In many ways, I just can't make up my mind about it.

One Eye (Mads Mikkelson, Casino Royale) is a Viking slave, horribly scarred (he is missing one eye and his tongue) and forced to fight in bloody gladiatorial matches by his owners.  He is exceptionally good at it - and I mean brutally so.  These fights are pretty gruesome.  And of course, One Eye is such a good fighter that he escapes and kills his owner and all of this men - only leaving alive a small boy who begins to follow him around the highlands.  Eventually One Eye and the boy come across some Crusaders.  Together they all set off for the Holy Land, but their boat ends up hitting ground in a mysterious, densely wooded land.  I think this place is supposed to represent North America, probably Canada where Viking artifacts have really been discovered, so I would say they were pretty off course.  It might be time for a new navigator.

Anyway, the place is weird, evidence of the native life is eerie and dangerous, and the Crusaders begin to think they are in hell. You know this because every speaking character says at least once, "We're in hell."  This film has very little dialogue, and this repeated line probably accounts for half of it!  Okay, we get it. Crusaders don't like Canada.  Get on with the story, already!

But in all honesty, there is a lot to like here.  The acting is terrific, the costumes and art direction, though sparse, are very effective and well used.  The cinematography is superb.  The small budget is well hidden by solid direction by Nicolas Winding Refn (Drive).  And the pacing is odd...this narrative flows like no other movie I've seen...it's slow...with lots of staring.  Lots of staring.  The editing is all over the map, jumping through time, playing with filters and colors, and the music is monotonous.  Sometimes this pacing is effective, and sometimes it really hurts the movie.  At best, this creates an otherworldly feel...something that is genuinely hypnotic and fascinating.  At worst, all the monotony and staring grows tedious and boring...and then it gets weird.  The less said about the "let's drink some water and get high" scene, the better.  This is when the film just gets scary and I began to be concerned for director Refn's mental health.

So, uh, did I mention there is a lot of staring in this movie?

I kind of don't know what else to say.  This might be a case where the director is trying to be a bit too different for his own good.  Valhalla Rising is brilliant, frustrating, boring, fascinating, compelling and painful all at the same time.  I'm glad I saw it.  I'd probably watch it again...I think?

SPOILER: 
Do not read this if you have not seen the movie!  I am giving away the ending!!! 
So for all of you have seen the movie, what did you think of the ending?  I think it kind of makes no sense.  I don't mind One Eye being killed by the Native Americans, sacrificing his life so that the kid can live...And I understand the symbolic significance with the color filtering...the whole movie, we see the same shot of One Eye, the whole screen colored blood red.  There's a bit of a demon in this guy, a murderous and violent man.  But in the end, when he sacrifices his own life, we see the same shot, only now, he is bathed in heavenly white light.  So it is clear that One Eye is a changed man. But what makes him think that surrendering himself will save the boy?  The Native Americans never give any indication that they will let the kid live.  Where does this all come from?!  And what's the boy going to do now?  He's on the island by himself, with nowhere to go and no way to get off, with no food or water,  and surrounded by a hostile native tribe.  And the one guy who could probably keep him safe in a cool Lone Wolf and Cub kind of way just surrendered himself to be slaughtered. Huh?  Anyone else have any questions about this?

Anyway....SPOILER OVER!!!  

Best Line:
As I mentioned, everybody (except One Eye) says at some point: "We're in hell." 

Is that really the best line from the movie?  No, not really.  But it is certainly the most memorable because by the 415th time I heard it, I started to feel like I was in hell.

MVP:
Mads Mikkelson is pretty awesome.  Without a single line in the film, he is still easily the most compelling character.  Most of his emotions are displayed through body language.  Is he about to pounce and murder everyone?  How does he feel about the little boy that circumstances put under his protection?  What does he think about the natives?  You get it all from his stance or facial expressions.  Even then it is understated.  There are no grand gestures.  Generally, he stands still with a blank, lifeless look on his face.  But in the slightest variation in his shoulders or eye, and you know what he's thinking.  In a movie where you don't understand why the characters are doing or saying certain things, you never wonder about One Eye...it's pretty impressive work.

TRIVIA:
The original ending had One Eye flying away in a spaceship.  But Refn though that would be too easy for the audience to interpret, so he took it out. 

That is too easy for an audience to interpret?!?!