127 Hours (2010) ****

Directed by Danny Boyle

Aron Ralston (played by James Franco) is a cocky young thrill seeker who goes on a mini hiking vacation without telling anyone where he's going. He's enjoying his day hiking at a good pace but nothing too difficult when suddenly he slips and his hand is crushed and trapped by a boulder. 127 Hours is the story of his mental, emotional and physical ordeal. It shows his ingenuity, his strength and the highs and lows of human experience. Cut off from society with little chance of rescue he tries desperately to find a way out. He tries everything from chipping away at the boulder to building a pulley system out of climbing rope, but after a few days he realizes he has to cut his own arm off in order to survive. One of his few possessions is a small video camera on which he records a digital epitaph to his parents and family. Franco brilliantly shows the desperation, symptom of dehydration, delusion and eventually despair of the young hiker. Danny Boyle's direction heightens the sense of isolation as well as explores the need for humans to be a social animal. He also keeps the movie from being just a guy trapped on a rock and transforms it into a tale of rebirth.

Wouldn't be my pick for best picture, but definitely worth the nomination it received.

Rambo: First Blood (1982) ****

Directed by Ted Kotcheff

Starring Sylvester Stallone First Blood is a great action movie. I've quoted Ebert on this before that it's not the slashing that makes horror films fun, it's the waiting for the slashing. This isn't a horror film, but it uses the same principle towards action. John J. Rambo is a vietnam veteran who after discovering that he's the last of his team to be alive gets pushed around and abused by a small town cop. After losing control of himself he escapes and begins a war on the police officers involved in his mistreatment, using all his guerilla tactics and advanced training at his disposal to survive in the wilderness and hunting his hunters. The action is well paced with plenty of suspenseful "hunting" scenes as well as balls to the walls action. It does get a little ridiculous at times, but it's balanced enough to keep it intelligent. First Blood also puts a focus on the lack of help Nam vets received on returning home and the psychological baggage that came with that conflict. Stallone barely says a word the whole film but his physical and emotional presence is well felt.

One of the better straight up action movies.

Metropolis (1927) [2010 Extended/Recovered Version] *****

Directed by Fritz Lang

Metropolis is easily one of the greatest films of all time. Filmed in Germany in the interwar period, the film explores class issues in a capitalist society. Rather than embracing a marxist view of class struggle, the film promotes a non-violent, mediatory approach. It's also the most expensive silent film ever made.

The opening quote recalls Plato's Republic where the "head rules the belly through the chest" or the Aristocracy rule the masses through the army. Lang instead opens with "The Mediator between the Head and the Hands must be the Heart."

When the heir to Metropolis - Freder - encounters a working class woman - Maria - who shows him the workers' children and calls them his brothers, Freder is both smitten and intrigued. He searchers for here and encounters the terrible working conditions. From that point on he seeks to find a peaceful unity between the two. He is opposed by his fathers minions and by the mad scientist Rotwang who kidnaps Maria and makes a "Machine Man" in her image, who he uses to turn the workers against Freder's father.

With stunning effects (even today after all those years - there were phenomenal for the time), brilliant acting (you understand what the characters say despite the silence) and some straight up weird SF stuff make this just a wonderful film.

Everyone should see this.

The Producers (2005) ***

Directed by Susan Stroman

I haven't seen the 1968 version of The Producers starring Gene Wilder...but I'd like to. Mel Brooks screen play is sharp and fun and has done well on screen as well as on stage. However, where Wilder has always been a mesmerizing comedian I find Matthew Broderick is often stale. Yes his character has quirks and they're at times hilarious, but over all he has felt forced since his perfect role as Ferris Bueller. Broderick loves musicals. He remade one of my favourites, The Music Man, and I had the same complaint then: new fangled choreography can't make up for a cardboard cut out with little charm. Nathan Lane (most famous as Timon from The Lion King) is a voice actor mainly, but his outrageous vocal antics work in a flamboyant musical.

The premise: two men decide to make a cheap broadway flop and run away with the excess endorsements...but finding the worst actors/director/play is harder than one might think...and a ravishing Swedish girl might make things more complicated (played by Uma Thurman).

The songs are catchy, the antics ridiculous (Will Ferrell - who I normally do not enjoy - is a pretty great Nazi), but it doesn't quite feel right over all. I'm holding out on the original to satisfy me.

Back to the Future (1985) *** Pt. 2 (1989) * Pt. 3 (1990) **

Directed by Robert Zemeckis
PART ONE
It took me 23 years before I watched Back to the Future. It's fun, kinda sad I missed out as a kid. Michael J Fox stars as Marty McFly, the not-quite-a-loser with a crazily dysfunctional family. He skateboards, he plays in a band, he has a pretty girl, but life ain't great. He's been hanging out with "Doc" Brown who is a mad scientist who happens to discover time travel. When Marty gets sent back to 1955 he runs into a problem: his mom falls for him instead of his dad like he's supposed to, jeopardizing Marty's very existence. Things get a little messy but McFly manages to pull it off with some help from the (younger version) Doc and some fancy skateboarding moves. Not to mention some Chuck Berry imitations. Time travel is messy business though and when Marty gets home there are a lot of changes (though all of them good.)

Slapstick humour, 50s memorabilia and a lot of fun pseudo-science and effects make the movie a lot of fun. They don't make comedies like they used to. I was surprised by the amount of swearing but it's way tamer than most things these days. I now understand why Back to the Future is up there with Indiana Jones and Star Wars for 80s adventures (although it touches neither of them).

A good, lighthearted romp.


PART TWO
Well, Pt. 2 is disappointing. It's all over the place (or time) and the only moments worth laughing at are the ridiculousness, rather than any sort of wit or cleverness. The effects were great for the time, and some of the stunts are fun. The parts which were the most fun involved multiple selves in the same time, dodging each other, filling in what Marty got up to in the first movie, while not being able to actually encounter the other Marty...

That's really the extent of the movie...
Merely a bridge to PART THREE...

Which takes place in the old west. The final installment rekindles some of the charm of the first movie but again doesn't quite live up to the fun or brilliance of the original. Doc's scientific explorations make for a quirky SF feel to a western and Marty's continued lack of understanding of anything going on around him as well as his stubborn and cocky attitude's keep getting him in trouble. Once again there is Delorean trouble which needs some ridiculous scheme (this one involving a train) in order to get back to the future. This time it's complicated by a love interest for Doc (since Marty always is leaving his girl behind...) There's a happy ending and some decent gags but I was really only watching because I liked the first one.

Fun but shallow.

300 (2006) **

Directed by Zack Snyder

300 is 7 parts testosterone, 2 parts history and, 1 part acting. Zack Snyder appears to me to be a nerdier and James Cameron, raised on comics instead of the great film epics. He's visual and highly stylized, but his films feel hollow. Everything is over calculated and precise...to a fault. This was my third time (kind of) watching this film and it was the first time I didn't hate it. Yes it's visually stunning and "epic" and has some great action sequences...but its self narration drags on and is really obnoxious. Whereas in The Matrix slow motion was made to heighten senses and bring things into a shocking perspective, every other moment in this Spartan tale occurs in slow motion, I think in order to make it feel more like the comic book is was made after. But I don't watch movies to read comics...that's what comics are for. I haven't read the graphic novel 300 but I've seen Snyder's take on The Watchmen and so I can figure out what's going on. He has a hard time adapting the script to film. It's almost purely an issue of translation.

The best parts are the one liners ripped from Herodotus and other contemporary Greek historians but the rest is a mere vehicle for slaughter. And beautifully flowing and choreographed slaughter it is. But I find no fulfillment in any of it. Or very little. Occasionally something would actually make me go "Wow that was cool," but mostly I was...bored. There is NO sense of pacing. At all. Just full out war from start to finish with some female nudity occasionally to mix things up. And then there are the freaks: The Fat guy with bone axes for hands and the armless concubines. It's pointless and just doesn't work in film. Especially a pseudo history.

One thing I do appreciate is the flow of the action sequences themselves. You can follow everything and see everything and that makes such a huge difference. I'd love to have Zack Snyder direct a Christopher Nolan movie. Maybe then I could have a good story with intelligible action sequences. But it would probably end up stale anyway...

A visual triumph dragged down by everything else.
I will end with what I think is the most succinct review of the film I have ever heard, courtesy of my cousin Dan.
"That would have been an excellent 20 minute silent film."

The Graduate (1967) *****

Directed by Mike Nichols

Dustin Hoffman is Ben, who has just graduated from college and has no idea what to do with his life when he gets seduced by Mrs. Robinson. It's awkward and weird...and then he falls in love with her daughter. This is a movie about neurosis. Everyone is neurotic, with perhaps the exception of Elaine Robinson (the daughter).

A provocative plot, phenomenal actings, and really great editing and direction makes this film tense, funny and depressing all at the same time.

This is the movie that Wes Anderson tries to make every time, and fails. The Royal Tenenbaums (one of my favourite movies) came close, but crossed too far into the ridiculous to keep it believable. Every twisted thing in The Graduate could happen, the characters could be real. Anderson's films are charicatures, and great ones, but Nichols makes it hurt by keeping it close to home.

Brilliant. (and it doesn't hurt to have a Simon & Garfunkel soundtrack...)

Spy Game (2001) ***

Directed by Tony Scott

Spy Game (Starring Robert Redford and Brad Pitt) is my dad's new favourite movie. He's a big Jason Bourne fan and this film fits that sort of build. When former FBI operative Tom Bishop (Pitt) is caught trying to break someone out of a Chinese prison, he is convicted of being a spy and sentenced to be executed. His former boss Nathan Muir (Redford) is on his last day on the job and tries to figure out why he was in China and how to get him out while most of the rest of the FBI are deciding that letting him be executed would be better for damage control. Redford has to spy his way around the FBI offices to find the information he needs while having less and less access to areas because of his retirement. Bishop's back story is told in flash backs which involve a love interest which isn't super interesting but a key point for the plot. The weakest moments involve her. The best moments are when Redford makes his colleagues look stupid by dodging their questions, finding out information and working around any loopholes he can find.

A fun spy thriller, but nothing phenomenal.

Casino (1995) ****

Directed by Martin Scorsese

Casino follows the exploits of Sam "Ace" Rothstein (Robert De Niro) and Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) in late seventies/early eighties Vegas. Rothstein is a brilliant bookie who finds favour with Santoro's mob fathers and given run of the Tangiers Casino. Santoro is sent to keep an eye on things and keep everything running smoothly - which usually means beating people up or killing them. Their two different philosophies - Ace the efficient and more level headed type and Nicky as the thug - begin to clash as both try and leave their mark and make the most money. Despite being best friends, things get ugly when Ginger (Sharon Stone) gets involved and eventually greed and drugs end up sending everything to hell with FBI, kidnappings, murders, and plenty of profanity. Scorsese is a great director but as always is a little over the top with violence. Thankfully though, the movie never descends into the stupidity of some scenes in Gangs of New York.

Organized crime is fascinating to me, and I understand the appeal and the glamour that seems to surround it, however it truly does border on madness the worldview/mindset required to be part of such an institution, and the movies can make it seem over-glorified - it's easy to be caught up one isn't careful. The consequences always seem to be portrayed in a tragic light rather than...well, than being what they are: the just ends. Despite any moral qualms with the subject matter, the acting and direction are top notch, the characters have flare, and the plot kept me wound tight until the end. And that's why it's a good movie. It tells a story smoothly and effectively and churns the brain and heart. Scorsese scores again with Casino.

The King's Speech (2010) *****

Directed by Tom Hooper

The King's Speech is an easy pick for my favourite movie of the year. It's funny, it's touching, and it's brilliantly executed. Colin Firth is poor Prince Albert who has a terrible stammer. The impediment is painful not only for "Bertie" but for anyone around him who must listen to him speak. That includes the audience. Firth does a magnificent job at expressing the pain, and the frustration of therapy and the expectations of those around him. Having abandoned all hope, his wife resorts to the classified ads of the newspaper and ends up with an eccentric Aussie speech therapist, brilliantly played by Geoffrey Rush. The movie touches on many subjects - class, anxiety, leadership to name a few - and deals with them all within the context of pre WWII Britain. But more than Hitler's rising threat, Albert must overcome his anxiety as he suddenly finds himself as King George VI after his brother abdicates to marry an American of questionable honour. A stirring tale of friendship, honour, and overcoming personal trials.

Rating *****

Gone With The Wind (1939) ****

Directed by Victor Fleming

Gone With the Wind is an epic story of love and loss set in the Southern states during the American Civil War. Scarlett O'Hara is a rich young beauty who can have any man she wants...except the one she wants: some guy named Ashley who marries one of her best friends. Rhett Butler is a rich and powerful man who wants her but can't have her because of her stubbornness and her love for Ashley. Rhett ends up having to try and tame his shrew. The Civil War destroys any sense of security any of the characters have which adds to the relational tension.

Besides the war, Scarlett's stubborn pride is the cause of most of the problems and she drove me crazy. The best scenes involve Clark Gable's (Rhett) attempts to get Scarlett to come around to his side of things and those which show the devestation of the south in the war. One particularly powerful scene has hundreds of extras dressed as wounded soldiers filling a train yard. Other great moments involve minor characters being the foil to Scarlett's selfishness and revealing to her her own terrible nature.

The cinematography is well done with impressive effects for the time. The acting is over dramatic as was the style at that time, but it doesn't take away from the film too much.

Over all a very impressive film.

Titanic (1997) ***

Directed by James Cameron.

So I watched Titanic. First time. It is both better and as bad as people say. The acting is pretty rubbish. But then we don't watch James Cameron films for the acting do we? No we watch because he's a visual titan. His biggest critical success (11 Oscars tying with Ben Hur and Return of the King for most ever.) won no oscars for acting, but won pretty much everything else. And it deserves it. The sound, the set, the costumes, the CGI and the direction are all exceptional. It's hard, more than 10 years after the musical theme was original to not burst out laughing every time it appears. It has after all been parodied since the movie first came out. And the classic lines are as cheesy as ever. "Jack! I'm flying Jack!" "Put your hands on me Jack." "I'll never let go!" etc etc.

I preferred to see the fairly lame plot as a vehicle for exploring the actual historical event. The bravado of the engineers at the outset. The lavish accommodations. The class prejudice. The musicians going down with the ship. The cries of "Women and children first." The frozen bodies. It's all super impressive and quite powerful.

As far as romances go it's not very great, but Titanic is a visual accomplishment and that makes it worth seeing at least once.

True Grit (2010) ****

Directed by Ethan and Joel Coen

The Coen Brothers are not to be pigeon-holed. Their last 4 movies were a ridiculous re-make of a classic comedy, a 4 Oscar-winning tense and thoughtful modern western, an exercise in paranoid chaos incarnate, and modern allegory for the book of Job. Now they're doing a classic John Wayne flick and making it, well, Grittier.

The brothers are always character driven which is what makes even my least favourite of their films better than almost any other films. This is probably that least favourite (of the ones I've seen), however the characters are delightful. Haillee Steinfeld plays Mattie Ross, a tough as nails young girl who won't take no for an answer. She knows what she wants and she gets it. Jeff Bridges plays Rooster Cogburn, an alcoholic bounty hunter who's rival/counterpart in this film is Matt Damon's LaBeouf, a chatty and cocky Texas Ranger who, despite a knack for getting himself in trouble, is an honourable sort of fellow. All of them are after Josh Brolin (quickly riding up my favourite actors list) who plays the villainous (and terribly stupid) Tom Chaney.

A few people I know - including some I saw it with - found themselves bored and frustrated at it not being more of an action movie, but the action is in the right places: It's called pacing, something people rarely have patience for anymore. Thank you Coen Brothers for caring.

The movie is up for a lot of Oscars and it might win some of them too. It's the chemistry that makes this movie magic. The banter, the hate, the rivalry, the love. And best of all, every major character - even the outlaw Lucky Ned Penner, and, stranger still, Mattie's horse) display true grit, fighting hard and admirably for whatever goal they set out to achieve, even to the point of danger, or even death. And there's something might admirable about that.

Tron: Legacy (2010) **

Directed by Joseph Kosinski

Ok. So Tron: Legacy is definitely 3 things: Shiny, Daft Punked and 3D. Let's deal with them in order.

Shiny: The visual esthetic on the grid is really cool. All blue orange and black. And as I said, shiny. You can tell that Kosinski made his name doing car commercials. Everything is sleek and beautiful and well shot. Visually I was very impressed. Kosinski also manages something that few directors (*cough* Nolan *cough*) do well any more: linear action sequences. Because (I think) of his car background, he knows how to follow the action and keep it in focus. Each moment can actually be processed instead of using the tactic of overwhelming the audience with fast-pan fast-cut tactics. I love that about this movie. Laser disc battles and lightcycle battles (and whatever fancy name they had for the planes) they're all cool and multidimesional and followable. There is lacking however a real sense of peril that accompanied the 1982 original. The consequences don't seem as real.

Daft Punked: Daft Punk is obviously one of the great musical groups of the 21st Century, and their driving strings and electronic beats definitely add a great atmosphere to the world of The Grid. The best musical moments are reserved for the club scene (where our french friends are cameoing as DJs) where it actually feels like it's Daft Punk, not just strings and beats. My other favourite musical moment was a faded, through the walls version of Eurythmix' "Sweet Dreams." Nothing was altered except it feels really far off which adds a level of menace and suspense to the nostalgia.

3D: I despise 3D movies. They're more expensive, they're less clear, and they're just annoying. This film was blessedly shot in 2D for the real world shots so I could take my glasses off for part of it. But it's a lame gimmick.

So, visually and musically impressive...how about plot and characters? Ya, not much really. Jeff Bridges is hard to screw up, and he didn't really, but it wasn't amazing. The best moments were his more "Dude"like moments of "Radical" - Best line: You're really screwing with my whole Zen thing, man! The pretty boy, Garrett Hedlund, wasn't terrible, but didn't have much character. The whole time I kept thinking...Chris Pine (a la Star Trek) was sooo much better (very similar roles.) The potential love interest (Olivia Wilde) was indeed cute, and her naivite/badassness made a charming dichotomy, but she was kind of shallow (she is after all computer DNA). It is nice to have a cute heroine who doesn't have to bend over a bike or a car to be enticing (Megan Fox?).

The best scene in the entire film is that with Zeus. Michael Sheen is a brilliant actor who I have admired in many films: The Queen and Frost Vs Nixon stand out. And he lights up an already fluorescent film with his great character - definitely channeling some Bowie.

One last disappointment: Cillian Murphy (Scarecrow in Batman Begins and Robert Fischer in Inception) is another great actor who will no doubt be a bigger deal in the impending sequel, however it was disapointing to have only about 4 lines from him in this film (though awesome to seem him sporting some Colin Meloy hair.)

The plot is fairly weak, and the characters weaker (which is crazy coz three of them are Jeff Bridges), but there are some great visual moments and Michael Sheen saves the day. Over all I kind of felt like I did back in elementary school when I'd go over to a friends house and he would play video games and I would watch. It's cool, but I'd rather play.

Inception (2010) ****

Directed by Christopher Nolan.

As the most hyped movie of 2010, it's hard to write a review of Inception - ask Armond White. I've seen the movie three times now and would like to share some thoughts.

Inception is a Movie's movie. It has a cool concept - dream thieves - which allows Christopher Nolan to do whatever he pleases without much need for any sort of continuity or reality. The results are impressive: confused gravity fight scenes; physics defying structures; and a whole lot of time and brain twisting. The result is a pretty tense and packed two and a half hours - it almost feels like you're playing a video game. If you go along with everything it's hugely enjoyable. Second and third time through though I started picking it apart more. Almost half of the movie is spent on explaining whats going on filled in with action sequences. The explanation is part of the joy first time round, but it means that the movie will not remain a movie that I want to go back to over and over.

Third time round I really noticed how much Nolan loves graphic novels. (Yes, the Batman movies should have been a bit of a give away.) Inception, I think, could have functioned better as a Alan-Moore-wannabe graphic novel than a movie. The pseudo-philosophical monologues (Characters often feel like they're talking to the audience rather than to the other characters) function on a slightly cheesy level which befits comics better than film. An unmoving medium would also really complement the cross timeframe action lending more forward momentum to the film and a better sense of proportion. But it's not a comic. Too bad.

I've always had beef with Nolan's action sequences. Batman Begins was essentially a bunch of figures dressed in black moving quickly while shaky camera effects panned this way and that. I only really knew who'd won a fight after it was over (you just assume it's Batman unless he's making groaning noises). Inception cleans it up a bit and I appreciate that I could follow the action more. More linear sequences. Good step in that direction.

Cillian Murphy is again the best actor in Nolan's cast, playing the target of this particular heist. I find it sad seeing Michael Caine reduced to minor, and uninteresting roles. (Go watch Sleuth again...either of them...to remember why he's great.) I've come to really like DiCaprio over the years, if not entirely for his acting then for his movie choices, but this year with two pretty decent reality-confused characters I wonder whether he will get past that confused and pained expression which he does so well and pull off another Aviator. I hope so.

Nolan had a dream and created one. Like a dream it's exciting and vivid while you're in it, but it fades as you enter reality once more. This dream isn't likely to fade as quickly as others, but reality is breaking in.

The Usual Suspects (1995) ***

Directed by Brian Singer

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." - Charles Baudelaire

The Usual Suspects is one of my favourite suspense films. It's one of those movies you wish you could watch for the first time over and over, not knowing until the end...what the end is. I won't divulge any details in order than anyone who has not seen it might still be caught up. I will however say that it does a wonderful job of combining flash backs with police interviews to keep you confused while always filling you in at the same time. And the character's are wonderful. Pre-Bio-Dome Stephen Baldwin, with his piercing blue eyes and totally mad smirk is delightfully dangerous. Benicio Del Toro as a swaggeringly tough, yet weirdly distant and feminine mexican. Gabriel Byrne as the bad cop gone-straight-gone-bad is cool and calculating and trying to regain control of his destiny. Kevin Spacey as the bright gimp. and that other guy.

All these guys end up in the same jail cell in a shake down and end up doing a job together which gets them way over their heads, and over the viewer's head as well. There's enough mystery to draw you in, enough action to keep you sharp - though not so much to be mind numbing , and enough tension between the characters and the situations they find themselves in to keep you hooked till the end.

Some gratuitous over-swearing aside, a totally solid film well worth watching.

One final little aside: Peter Greene is super awesome and totally underrated. He was the bad guy in The Mask and the twisted cop Zed in Pulp Fiction. He has a small role in this film but he just makes every scene he's in. Apparently he improvised the scene where he flicked his cigarette into Baldwin's face in The Usual Suspects. That's just awesome.

Pirates of the Carribean Trilogy

Just a few thoughts.

The first movie introduces brilliant characters with a lot of charm and witty dialogue interspersed with moments of action. The second movie relies far too much on the first and lacks much real innovation. Fun, but by no means great. The third movie regains some of the splendor of the first but still falls quite short. Jack Sparrow is one of cinema's great heros, a lovable rogue worthy to be up there with Indiana Jones. The highlight of the third movie is easily the scene with 20 different Jack Sparrows trying to run a ship and fighting over a peanut. Johnny Depp has created a masterpiece, it's a shame that he often sails the seas of cheese. Delightful, and despite its shallows, it bustles with adventure and wit.

The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)***

Dead Man's Chest (2006) **

At World's End (2007) ***

Enter the Dragon 1973 ***

Directed by Robert Clouse

Possibly the ultimate kung-fu movie, Enter the Dragon was the last film Bruce Lee made before his death (the film was released 6 days after he died.) The plot is pretty cliche by now, but we watch because of the incredible feats displayed by those who have mastered their bodies, not because of a hugely compelling story. It goes like this: Evil villain invited the best fighters from around the world to join him on his island fortress/martial arts school for a tournament. This is merely a front for finding potential recruits for his army. Bruce Lee is invited to go and recruited by the British Government to be a spy. Nefarious activity is discovered, crazy fight scenes ensue.

With some variations the villain/tourney has been used a lot (Mortal Kombat/Dragon Ball Z anyone?) but Bruce Lee is a master of his art and the film displays this amazingly. Combining philosophy with self mastery, Lee creates a brilliant display of self control and strength. Just how dedicated these artists are to their craft is exemplified by one scene in the film where Lee performs a flying kick to another fighter's chest, sending him flying. In consulting how to do this beforehand the receiver of the blow insisted it be real despite knowing the danger of physical harm. Shot in slow motion, and to a 21st century viewer used to cheesy effects, this is surprising. No one is willing to be hurt for film anymore. The kick sends Lee's opponent flying into a group of people, knocking over chairs and spectators alike. The opponent's sternum was broken, as were the arms of two people who tried to catch him. One kick! Filming was halted for three months to allow for recuperation. But that's incredible! Not to mention that some of the fighters' actions are so fast that camera has trouble catching them. This isn't bullet time, or sped up cheesy knockoffs. This is the real deal. And the film is worth it for that.

Summary: Tons of cheesy cliches do nothing to ruin the physical feats of Bruce Lee and company.

Rating: ***

The Maltese Falcon 1941 ****

I love the old school private detective stuff. It's gritty and smart and sharp. I read The Long Goodbye by Raymond Chandler this summer and could't put it down. The Maltese Falcon has Humphrey Bogart as PI Sam Spade who's a fast and tough and cheeky as hell. Bogey is great. I like him better in this than in Cassablanca even though Cassablanca is over all superior as a film.

As in a lot of old movies, every character is a character, but in this one nearly everyone is loveable in his own way. The women are frankly a little disappointing: Mary Astor's character is one of the most manipulative characters I've ever seen, but, while well written, it's not acted as convincingly as I'd have hoped, and she's not even that pretty. That's maybe superficial, but it affects how you see her womanly wiles. On the other hand Peter Lorre as Mr Cairo and Sydney Greenstreet as Kasper "Fatman" Gutman are a joy every moment they are on screen. Gutman is a delightful crook who revels in Spade's antics and has a genuine fondness for him despite being pitted against him. Lorre has the craziest eyes and manner of any actor I think ever. "Look what you did to my shirt!" he complains after waking from being one-punched in the face by Spade.

Speaking of one-punches - this movie is a prime example of how tense action can be summed up in one movement. There are I think maybe 5 scenes with action in them, but the intensity of the film makes them matter. Cairo's punch to the face, Spade getting punched in the throat and later kicked in the head, and Archer getting shot, are all explosive little moments. Many films today focus on extended action scenes, and don't get me wrong, they can be awesome. However, too often blurry fast-pans and quick cuts disguise the action rather than intensify it. Being disoriented can be exciting, but it can be annoying too. Action is much cooler when you can SEE it. And it should be the result of real tension, not contrivance.

"You...you imbecile!"

The Maltese Falcon was a great movie full of great characters and great lines. Some issues with Mary Astor aside I loved it and definitely recommend it.

Movie: How To Train Your Dragon ***

How To Train Your Dragon was bundles of fun. Yes it rehashed tons of cliches: wimpy kid trying to impress his macho dad; independant chick falling for wimpy kid; highschool loser becoming the popular kid; finding your own voice rather than trying to be like everyone else...etc. However! It does so using Scottish Vikings and Dragons, not to mention great visual effects. The movie is definitely a kids movie, but it has a lot of heart and is a lot of fun. Plot wise there isn't anything exceptional about it, but the voice acting is smart and quick. One of my favourite moments is when Hiccup (the above mentioned wimp) is presented a helmet by his father...but the helmet is made from his dead mother's breast-plate...his dad has the matching pair- "Keeps her close." Surprising moments like this make the movie stand out among other childrens movies, though I must reiterate that the visual style is truly excellent. it combines cartoonish proportions with incredible detail - the same way Sergio Aragone's Groo comics did.

One thing irks me though, and it's a common thread in most Disney/children's movies: defying tradition to find your own way. I struggle with this. I see tradition as a really healthy thing, something our society needs more of. It's something that grounds us and gives a sense of community, and not just contemporary community, but a community through the generations. However, traditions can err, and like the dragon hating vikings, can be driven to extremes by a lack of understanding of the "others" real position. Hiccup, because he is different, is forced to cope with reality in a way that isn't traditional, and in doing so brings peace to his people. That's great, but underlying it is an implication that all tradition is blind and unwise. Often in movies the person who is unable to let go of tradition is made to be the bad guy or made to look the fool. And there are times where they truly are one or both. Is interests me that the only time someone standing for tradition is the good guy - Sir Thomas More in A Man for all Seasons for instance - it is not because he is supporting tradition necessarily but because he is a man who listens to his conscience. More is essentially the inverse of Hiccup, defying where everyone is going because his conscience deems it right. It's the same formula. I love A Man for all Seasons and recommend it highly, but it again bothers me that our society so highly favours following one's own conscience as supreme to any sort of status quo. Yes, it's inspiring. Yes, it's very modern and progressive. But what will it lead to if we throw out all tradition. Hell, we nearly have. Will we be better off?