The Hunger Games (2012) * 1/2

Directed by:  Gary Ross

Starring:  Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, Josh Hutcherson

The Hunger Games was a big hit based on a series of novels aimed at young adults.    More films based on the novels are promised, but count me out.     I can't imagine how The Hunger Games would appeal to young adults, even though the combatants in the tournament are young men and women.    There are even a few children.    It's a gray, dreary film with no sense of wonder or fun.    I've seen plenty of movies in which the plot takes inexplicable u-turns, but I've never seen a movie in which such u-turns are announced over a loudspeaker.     

The Hunger Games takes place in the future in what I guess is still America.    Each year, children in different "districts" are chosen to participate in the Hunger Games, which is a violent combat show televised to the masses.     In one district, Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) volunteers in place of her younger sister.    Katniss has great archery and fighting skills, plus has an appealing look that would sway viewers.    She is brought to the Hunger Games, where her appearance is spiffed up as she is given advice by others like Abernathy (Harrelson) on how to win over fans during the Hunger Games pre-show interview, conducted by Stanley Tucci.     I'm assuming this will help people cheer her on as she is being hunted by the other contestants.   

She befriends a wimpy twerp named Peeta (Hutcherson), who has no combat skills and is likely to be a sacrificial lamb.    He joins up with a group of contestants to hunt Katniss instead, mostly because he knows he'll be toast otherwise.     Of course, he loves Katniss so maybe he's just going along for the hell of it.    I really didn't know or care by that point.    I do know that Katniss and Peeta fall in love strictly because it is written that they must.    Peeta has to be bailed out of numerous certain death exchanges by Katniss and one muses on whether Katniss gets pissed that Peeta isn't holding up his end of their team.

People are killed to be sure.    Alliances are forged and betrayed.    If I cared enough, I would've watched this with great interest.     But then came the ludicrous scenes in which the contest rules are altered in order to fit the plot needs.     The Hunger Games is meant to have one winner.    However,  likely because viewers like the budding romance of Katniss and Peeta, a guy over a loudspeaker states that there will indeed be two winners allowed this year.    Then, if memory serves, the rules are changed two more times.     I could sue for whiplash over these developments.

The Hunger Games is a bizarre film.    There are no days with any sunshine.    I suppose the performances are adequate, but they are mostly just muddling through a silly plot.     What's up with the names also?  Katniss?  Peeta?  Effie Trinket?  Seneca Crane?    Are names like John, Jim, Shawn, and Michael extinct in the future?     The ending seems to neatly tie everything up, so why would a sequel be necessary?   Does Katniss get chosen for The Hunger Games for real next time?     I can't imagine I will be available to find out the answers to those and many more questions. 

Dumb and Dumber (1994) * * *

Directed by:  Peter Farrelly and Bobby Farrelly

Starring:  Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels, Lauren Holly

Yes, Harry and Lloyd are dumb.    This doesn't occur to them and thus are able to muddle through life optimistically, believing 100% in their own brilliance.     The bad guys that go up against them don't stand a chance.     Like Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther movies, it's tough to predict Harry and Lloyd's next move when they don't even know it themselves.     Because Dumb and Dumber chooses to approach things this way instead of with constant raunchy slapstick, it is a pretty funny movie.   

Harry and Lloyd are lifelong friends and roommates in Providence.    Harry (Daniels) runs a pet cleaning service and has turned his van into a giant sheepdog.   (You have see it to truly gain an understanding of this).    Lloyd (Carrey) is a limo driver who drives a nice pretty woman named Mary (Holly)  to the airport one day and falls in love.    The woman leaves behind her briefcase and Lloyd rearends another car trying in vain to get the briefcase to her.     He is fired from his job.   "Apparently they have a big problem with leaving the scene of an accident," he tells Harry as he recaps his day.   "I fell off the jetway again," he also says matter-of-factly.    

It turns out the briefcase is full of money for a ransom drop, which is unbeknownst to Harry and Lloyd as they set out on a cross-country trip to give the briefcase back.     They are trailed by thugs who want the money.    One of them recommends trashing their apartment to "send them a message."   The other responds, "I don't think they'll get the message.   They have a worm farm in the middle of their living room."    The money was to pay the ransom for Mary's kidnapped husband.   

I won't go into any further plot details because plot is immaterial in a comedy like this.    The laughs come from Harry and Lloyd's cluelessness.     Harry and Lloyd have a spat in the middle of the trip and part ways.    Lloyd returns with a very, very tiny motorcycle.    "I sold the dog van and got this,"  
Lloyd proudly says.    Harry replies, "Just when I think you can't be any stupider, you do something like this and TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!"

Dumb and Dumber was released following Jim Carrey box-office smashes Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask.    I didn't like either of those films, mostly because Carrey's constant in-your-face style of comedy wore on my nerves quickly.    Here he plays more within a character and even defers some of the good laughs to Jeff Daniels.    This isn't the Jim Carrey Show with Daniels tagging along.    They make a good comic team.     Even the moments of raunch don't stray too out of control.     I especially loved Lloyd's fantasy that he is dating Mary and defends her honor in a martial-arts showdown with restaurant employees.     Somewhere in there, he lights a fart and dazzles an adoring Mary.    Only in Lloyd's world would that even be a possibility.  

No Holds Barred (1989) *

Directed by: Thomas J. Wright

Starring:  Hulk Hogan, Kurt Fuller, Joan Severance, Thomas "Tiny" Lister

Released in 1989, No Holds Barred capitalized on Hulk Hogan's booming popularity and made some pretty good money.      It was not made to be any good.    It was a Hogan vehicle to help line the World Wrestling Federation's pockets.     It also gave birth to a "real life" feud between Hogan and the character he fights in this film, Zeus.     Say what you will about the WWF and pro wrestling in general, but they know how to milk every dollar out of a product.    Criticizing the movie for not being well-made is like screaming at a cat for not being able to master geometry, but here goes. 

Hogan plays Rip, who is the WWF Champion and not a million miles removed from his in-ring persona.     He is wildly popular with fans and loyal to the TV network that broadcasts his matches.    We're going to assume that Rip's matches as depicted here do not come with predetermined outcomes.   It's still amazing that he doesn't bleed despite numerous punches to the face.    He is wooed by the evil World Television Network, run by a sleazeball named Brell (Fuller), but Rip turns down their advances to join the network.    Brell starts a new show called "Battle Of The Tough Guys", which is a Toughman contest gone berserk.   The fights take place in a slaughterhouse bar and a steel mill respectively, with lots of sparks and molten steel all around the latter.     The "Tough Guys" champion is a monster named Zeus (Lister), who destroys his opponents and soon sets his sights on Rip.     Brell sees Zeus as his vehicle for revenge against Rip.     Zeus is said to be an ex-con who killed somebody once.     Not surprising.    What is surprising is how Zeus is given no personality at all, except to be a "Human Wrecking Machine".     He is like the last fighter you have to beat in Mike Tyson's Punch Out to win the title.      

Rip isn't a slouch in the no-personality department either.    He has a love interest, a WTN executive named Samantha (Severance), who is beautiful and initially planted by Brell to manipulate Rip, but she falls for him instead.    They fall in love strictly because they are required to.    Neither has much in the way of charisma, but Samantha sure has great eyes among other assets.      Rip also has a kid brother named Randy whose purpose is to cheer Rip on during his matches and then become a target for Zeus as he baits Rip into a televised fight.    What happens to Randy is brutal even by action movie standards.    Zeus attacks him and leaves him paralyzed in a wheelchair.   Ugh.  

No Holds Barred was aimed at Hogan fans, many of which were kids.    There isn't much that is kid-friendly.    The fight scenes are ultra-violent.   There is nothing fun about the movie, although it's quite a contrast to see how Rip's fight scenes are handled vs. Zeus'.     Rip gets into a confrontation with some armed robbers at a restaurant and disarms them by throwing food.      Hogan's good guy image is thoroughly protected so as not to offend his fans.    Zeus, on the other hand, dispatches his opponents in ugly, mean fashion with lots of crunching bones and screaming.     No blood however. 

The movie ends with the fight between Rip and Zeus on national television, in which at least two people die on camera.     One falls to his death and the other is electrocuted.     The winner, Rip, celebrates with his friends and family in the middle of the ring with the crowd cheering him on.     Didn't they all just notice that people were killed?     I understand movies like this aren't beacons of realism, but come on.     No Holds Barred fails to live up to even my low expectations.   It has a bunch of wooden performances and a lot of punching, kicking, and maiming.     It was made with a built-in audience in mind, but I have to wonder if even the built-in audience wasn't turned off as well. 

The Cotton Club (1984) * *

Directed by:  Francis Ford Coppola

Starring:  Richard Gere, Diane Lane, James Remar, Bob Hoskins, Gregory Hines, Lonette McKee, Fred Gywnne, Nicolas Cage

The Cotton Club has an authentic look and feel of 1930's Harlem.    Wall-to-wall jazz and dancing are everywhere, while gangsters like Dutch Schultz and Lucky Luciano were treated like celebrities.     Despite the terrific production values, the film itself is uneven.     I read the production was fraught with difficulties, including scenes that were shot without a finished screenplay.    The trouble is, The Cotton Club feels like that in many spots.

The film opens in Harlem, 1928.    The Cotton Club was the hotspot of the time, which featured black musical acts performing to all-white audiences.     Local acts aspire to play there and local gangsters aspire to go there.   At a nearby club, Sandman Williams (Hines) is dancing while coronet player Dixie Dwyer (Gere) plays in the band.    Dixie saves the life of gangster Dutch Schultz (Remar) during an attempt on his life and soon he is part of Schultz' inner circle.    Soon after, Dixie's brother Vinny (Cage) gets a job with Schultz running numbers and then doing other dirty work.     Dixie learns early on that Schultz is psychopathic.   He also falls for Schultz' teenage mistress (Lane), which could be trouble for both of them.   Fortunately for Dixie, he is discovered by actress Gloria Swanson at the Cotton Club and becomes a movie star.    That gets him out from under Schultz' thumb, but also leaves his love behind to deal with the maniac.    

In an alternate storyline, Sandman falls hard for a mulatto singer (McKee), who by day works at a lawyer's office and passes for white.   He and his brother (Hines' real-life brother Maurice Hines) perform a tap dancing act, but tensions mount between them because Sandman fell in love with McKee, a girl Maurice was also sweet on.     Years later, the Williams brothers reunite at the Cotton Club in a very moving scene.      The scene was so well done, I wished there were more like them, but there weren't.

It's hard to fault the performances.    All involved are strong and lend much more gravity to the film than it deserves.    But because of the various subplots and characters being juggled, The Cotton Club never gains a strong foothold.    There are some strong scenes mixed in, but each is like an island onto itself.     Characters appear and then disappear for long stretches.   There are also many musical and dance scenes which didn't get me involved all that much.     Maybe onscreen dancing isn't for me.

Director Coppola was able to work with a variety of situations and characters much better in other films.   He is not a director who believes in small casts and intimate settings.    The Cotton Club is ambitious if nothing else, but sometimes trying to do too much is self-defeating.     Coppola tries to make an epic every time out.    That works most times, but sometimes he makes a choppy film that simply can't get out of its own way.     Such is the case here. 

    

Last Man Standing (1996) *

Directed by:  Walter Hill

Starring:  Bruce Willis, Bruce Dern, William Sanderson, Christopher Walken, David Patrick Kelly, Ned Eisenberg, Michael Imperioli

Without anyone to root for, movies like Last Man Standing die on the vine.     Its hero is an opportunist looking to profit from a gang war he will help create.    The gangs are guys with guns who exist only as current or future targets.    The town in which Last Man Standing takes place is a dry desert town with only the gangs, a sheriff, a bartender, undertaker, mechanic, and 2 prostitutes as denizens.     The rival gangs are bootleggers, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of bootlegging going on.     There aren't any potential customers in the town, so perhaps the gangs look to take advantage of nearby Mexican distribution.      I spent more time trying to figure out how anyone makes any money in such a desolate place that seems caught in an Old West time warp.    

Last Man Standing takes place during Prohibition in the said town of Jericho, Texas.    John Smith (Willis) arrives in town and has his car vandalized by unwelcoming members of the Doyle gang.    You would think these guys would be happy to see anyone new.    He quickly kills the two men who damage his car and then offers his services to the Strazzi gang, who were brought in from Chicago to get a piece of the allegedly lucrative Jericho action.    If I were the Strazzis, I would wonder who I pissed off in Chicago to be sent to Jericho.     

Smith makes his intentions known through voiceover narration.    He is the hero, I suppose, but there isn't much likable about him.    He is sweet on the two hookers in town, including one who was kidnapped by the Doyle gang, but maybe that's because they are the only two women in Jericho.     As the movie progresses, Smith will switch gangs (for a price) and the bosses don't seem to find anything fishy about it.     The right-hand man of Doyle, an ominous man named Hickey (Walken), is suspicious and perhaps a bit jealous of the newcomer who commands so much money for his services.    My question again is, how do these guys have any money?    Somehow they pay for the custom-made suits they walk around in.     And where do they buy new suits?    Even if they get them for free, there doesn't appear to be any kind of store in Jericho.    

I know I'm not supposed to ask questions and just go with the flow, but Last Man Standing doesn't really engage the viewer in thought.    People shout at each other, threats are made, and then people are shot.    Smith is some kind of marksman.     Armed with two guns, he can kill 10 men in a room without missing or getting shot himself.     I don't know how many rounds are in his clips, but he seems to pump roughly five bullets into each victim.   That's a whole lot of shooting.    Where does he buy his ammunition? 

So what do we have with Last Man Standing?    Not a whole lot, except for question after question about the logistics of it all.     It's a shoot-em-up without interesting people, situations, or anything to care about.     Watching people get shot to bits isn't very riveting.    I think of a much better Western-type shoot-em-up like Tombstone, which not only has violence, but a point of view and an understanding of why the violence was necessary.     Last Man Standing is a gun nut's wet dream.  

Ordinary People (1980) * * * *

Directed by:  Robert Redford

Starring:  Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, Judd Hirsch, Timothy Hutton, Elizabeth McGovern

Here is a powerful, perceptive film with characters that evolve and reveal themselves before our very eyes.     How you see them in the beginning is not what you see at the end.     What happens between those two points is why Ordinary People is so special.     It is an unblinking portrait of a family torn apart by a crisis it wasn't equipped to handle.    The Jarretts, Calvin (Sutherland), Beth (Moore), and Conrad (Hutton) are affluent and happy on the surface.    Under the surface, however, two horrible situations occur which alter the dynamics of the family.   First, the oldest son Buck dies in a boating accident.    The surviving son from the accident, Conrad, feels unbearable guilt and is hospitalized after attempting suicide.   Ordinary People focuses on what happens after Conrad returns home.

Conrad begins seeing a therapist, Dr. Burger (Hirsch), who is a compassionate straight-shooter.    Conrad is anxious, jumpy, and searching for a truth that eludes him.    He feels, correctly, that his mother is angry with him over Buck's death.    He believes she can not accept him because he brought unrest to her tidy life.    Exchanges between the two are friendly, but cold and distant.    Beth is well-liked by others and keeps a spotless house, but does anyone truly know her?     Calvin believes he does, but begins to see another side to her as time passes.    Calvin spends much of his time playing peacemaker between Conrad and Beth.    He wants life to be as it was, which is no longer possible.    He loves Conrad in his own awkward way and wishes he could help him.     Certainly, Conrad has some breakthroughs as his life returns to normal, but must learn to forgive himself before he can truly move on. 

All of this sounds like early 80's TV Movie Of The Week melodrama, but Ordinary People strives to be deeper.    Things are not altogether resolved at the end, but the family learns to understand and accept its limitations while starting the healing process.    Perhaps it is better if they don't stay together as a family.    Redford, (who won a Best Director Oscar for this film), shows a steady hand and a real feel for the material.    He says he wanted this to be his first directing job because his own family danced around issues the same as the Jarretts do.     Because of this, he has instinctive sympathy for the Jarretts.    Conrad and Calvin aren't "the good guys" and Beth is not "evil".   They are allowed the privilege of self-discovery.     "We would've been all right if there hadn't been any mess," Calvin confesses to Beth near the film's conclusion.    This entire scene is fascinating because it allows us to witness how the truth about Beth shakes him to his core.    

Timothy Hutton won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role, even though he has the most screen time and the most dialogue.    Hutton was 19 when the film was made, yet shows a fearlessness in portraying such a sad, wounded, tortured soul.    Conrad wants to get better.   He is tired to the bone with feeling guilty and unloved, but facing what he perceives is the truth may be worse for him.    His final scene with Dr. Burger is full of anger, tears, confession, and understanding.    Hirsch calmly handles Conrad here.  "I'm your friend.  Count on it,"  he says with refreshing straightforwardness that defines him.    

I've seen Ordinary People many times and each time it is an emotional powerhouse.    Because it understands its characters so fully, it becomes a visceral experience without ever being depressing or manipulative.     The final declaration of "I Love You" between Conrad and Calvin is a long overdue expression of acceptance and affection.   It packs a wallop, like scene after scene in Ordinary People does. 

Step Brothers (2008) * 1/2

Directed by:  Adam McKay

Starring:  Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly, Richard Jenkins, Adam Scott, Mary Steenburgen

It took me four years to see this movie and after watching it, I realize I should've waited much longer.     Step Brothers is a tiresome comedy with unlikable people doing ugly, nasty things to each other.      Why is someone getting whacked in the head with a baseball bat funny?   Or getting punched in the face?    Or getting buried alive?    Step Brothers is tone deaf in its attempt to squeeze out any kind of laugh.     There were one or two funny moments, but the rest is rough sledding.

As the film opens, two nice people named Nancy and Bob (Steenburgen and Jenkins) meet, fall in love, and get married.    They both have 40ish sons who still live at home and act like 14 year-olds.   They are Brennan (Ferrell) and Dale (Reilly).    Brennan and Dale don't like each other at first, but after numerous threats, arguments, and fights, find common ground in their dislike for Brennan's brother Derek (Scott).    Derek is a rich, ultra-competitive jerk constantly telling stories of his success to his fascinated parents.    He is the type of guy who berates his wife because she can't sing Sweet Child O'Mine as well as her children during a car sing-along.     Dale punches him in the face during a family get-together, winning Brennan's friendship in the process while arousing Derek's wife (Kathryn Hahn).    

The trouble with Brennan and Dale is they don't act like real people.    They are juvenile, but in a creepy way.     Oh and they both sleepwalk and destroy things while sleepwalking, which makes things them even less tolerable.     I enjoyed Jenkins and Steenburgen as the loving parents who are at the end of their rope with these two.     Both are accomplished actors who have survived dreck before and will do so again.    Ferrell and Reilly are also versatile comedians.   They worked much better together in Talladega Nights, an overall funnier movie.    There is too much cruelty in Step Brothers trying to pass for humor. 

Soon enough, the two men are forced to interview for jobs by their parents.    This of course doesn't go well, but other than one hilarious scene involving Dale's flatulence, these scenes just sort of slink away and die uneventfully.     Speaking of the fart scene, the scene worked initially because Dale's fart was unexpected and couldn't have come at a worse time.    Then, Ferrell, Reilly, and the hiring manager (cameo by Seth Rogen) begin discussing the smell of the fart and the scene loses momentum.    This is the epitome of remembering to quit while you're ahead.

The plot moves along as expected.    There is nothing that goes on here that can't be seen coming a mile away.   The parents break up and then are brought together again by the scheming stepbrothers.     Dale and Brennan prove at a major function that they have some worth.    Brennan reconciles with his dickhead brother and so on.     I guess we're supposed to be happy for everyone.    I would've been, but it was too tough getting past all of the wretched nonsense that occurred in the preceding 85 minutes.  

Caligula (1980) Zero Stars

Starring :  Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O' Toole, John Gielgud


I recently gave some thought to putting out an updated list of the 10 worst films I've ever seen.     It will be a tough undertaking.     Many years back, I listed films like Homework, Critical Condition, and A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon among them, but I saw them a generation ago.    I barely remember them and I have little desire to revisit them, but could they make my list when I've seen some pretty shoddy films within the past decade?

One film sure to make my list, if not top it, is Caligula.    Caligula is trash.    A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon was incompetent, but at least it tried to be entertaining and redeeming.     Caligula is a dark, murky, ugly, vile movie.    It centers on the Roman emperor Caligula and all of his debauchery, but it has no plot to speak of.     The movie's poster listed, "Bob Guccione Presents..." which alerts the viewer that it will be sexually explicit among other things.    I ask, however, how proud the late Penthouse publisher was when he saw the finished product.   Or did he even bother to view it?     I wouldn't blame him if he didn't, but he kept his name atop the title.

The film runs over two and a half hours, but I bailed out on it about halfway through.    I doubt I missed anything important.     It's unlikely Caligula became a watchable film after I stopped viewing it.    There was such a mishmash of nonsense going on that it's little wonder the director removed his name from the credits.    I think the screenwriter did too, since the credits read "Based on a screenplay from Gore Vidal", whatever that means.    This isn't a big loss since I saw no evidence of a workable screenplay anyway.   What was filmed were lewd acts, cruelties, and very reputable actors appearing in scenes which don't connect to anything.     Rumors circulate that the scenes involving Peter O' Toole and John Gielgud were shot separately and ungainly edited into the rest of the action.     Helen Mirren was a young actress at the time and likely needed the work, but McDowell was the star of A Clockwork Orange and Time After Time (both very good films).    What attracted him to this project except the payday?     McDowell has appeared in numerous films and TV shows since Caligula, so his career wasn't derailed, but still.

So let me see.   What was presented in Caligula?    Incest, bloody executions, a man forced to drink gallons of wine and then has his stomach pierced, and for reasons still unknown to me; numerous cuts to guys masturbating in dark halls.    It's as if the filmmakers simply kept upping the ante to see how much the viewer can stomach.     Why would a filmmaker so cruelly treat his audience with such disdain?    I don't know.

Roger Ebert usually awarded zero stars to films which were contemptible, nasty, and with no social value.    If Caligula doesn't fit that description, then no movie ever will.     

The Godfather Part III (1990) * * * 1/2

Directed by:  Francis Ford Coppola

Starring:  Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Talia Shire, Andy Garcia, Sofia Coppola, Eli Wallach

Part III of The Godfather saga begins in 1979 as Michael Corleone donates $100 million to the Vatican.     Michael is older, suffering from health problems, and is divorced from Kay (Keaton).    He is, however, still the head of the powerful Corleone crime family.    He is closer than ever, however, to moving the family into total legitimacy.    What he fails to realize is that his enemies are still looking to usurp him and his past sins will never be redeemed.  

Some of the players from the first two Godfathers are gone, but are replaced by new characters who honor the tradition.    Andy Garcia shows up as Vincent Mancini, Sonny's illegitimate son, who wishes to break into the family business.  He has a serious beef with Joey Zaza (Joe Mantegna), a Corleone family associate who deals drugs (something Michael, like his father, prohibits).  Garcia is supported and encouraged by his Aunt Connie (Shire), who has become more of a player in the family since Part II ended.  She tells Michael, "If you have Vincent, they will fear you."  Michael replies, "They should fear you."  He nonetheless takes Vincent under his wing. 

As in Part II, Michael and his business partners are shot at during an Atlantic City meeting in which Michael wishes to sever his ties with them.    He escapes, many are killed, and Michael charges Vincent with finding out why.   "Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in," says Michael.    Just like the Michael of Part II, he doesn't let go of betrayals.    Vincent enters dangerous territory when he begins to fall in love with his half-cousin (and Michael's daughter) Mary (Sofia Coppola).  I guess that this would be sort of incestuous relationship, but I need a ruling on that.  Either way, it's bound to offend Michael and many others.  

Michael's traitor may be in the upper echelon of powerful Vatican cardinals, who see Michael getting in the way of a multi-billion dollar financial deal.    Despite wanting to discover his betrayer, Michael feels the pull of mortality as he suffers diabetic seizures.    He sees Kay, is likely still in love with her, and realizes his past sins can't be bought off by multi-million dollar checks to the church.     The movie's most powerful scene is Michael, confessing to a Cardinal who would be elected as Pope John Paul I shortly after.   He breaks down uncontrollably as he confesses the murder of his brother, Fredo (from Part II).    "I ordered the death of my mother's son,"  he cries.    Not his brother, but his mother's son.   The wording makes that line more powerful.

The Godfather Part III isn't as good as the first two Godfathers, but its goals aren't as lofty either.    It is more interested in tying up loose ends and showing the full effect of the Corleone crime family on the guilty and the innocent.    It pays more attention to plot than does the first two films, which were really a series of subplots outlining an entire theme.    If this film weren't a Godfather film at all, it would still be a worthy look at a tormented man who sacrificed his family and soul for business.    What makes it worse is the sacrifices continue, even as he attempts to disavow his past.   

Phil Spector (2013) * * 1/2

Directed by:  David Mamet

Starring:  Al Pacino, Helen Mirren, Jeffrey Tambor

Phil Spector was the force behind countless hit songs and albums.   He wrote and produced some of the most famous songs in history and worked with The Beatles among others.    By 2003, Spector was living in a castle in Los Angeles surrounded by fencing and barbed wire.   His glory days were long behind him, but he was still famous enough to attract the attention of beautiful women.    One night in February 2003, he brought home a blonde wannabe starlet named Lana Clarkson.   Hours later, she is dead of a gunshot wound after a gun is inserted in her mouth.     Spector, despite his claims that Clarkson committed suicide, was arrested and charged with murder.    The case became high-profile due to Spector's fame.    Did he coldly kill Lana Clarkson or did she kill herself like he said?     Enter attorney Linda Kenney Baden (Mirren) to determine how Spector can be adequately defended despite the appearance of guilt and the fact that Spector loved to play with guns.    He also is claimed to have said, "I think I killed somebody," to his chauffeur, but since his driver spoke English poorly, he may have misinterpreted what Spector claims to have said, "I think we should call somebody."   Farfetched maybe, but possible.  

Baden is played by Helen Mirren as a tired woman sick with pneumonia who put off a costly vacation to assist Spector's lead attorney Bruce Cutler (Tambor).   At first, she believes Spector is guilty and would not be able to win an acquittal.   She also believes that even if Spector isn't guilty, he would be convicted by the jury as payback for OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, and Robert Blake acquittals by LA juries.   "Phil Spector will be convicted for the murder of OJ Simpson's wife," Baden cynically tells Cutler.    Despite her misgivings, Baden meets with Spector and doggedly pursues an acquittal for her client.   She gradually believes in her client's innocence, or at least she has reasonable doubt that he committed the murder, which is suitable enough.   

Spector himself lives in a dark and creepy mansion.    It's entirely too big for one man to live in. but Spector believes in excess.     He has different wigs, including the infamous one which looks like a gray afro.   He said it was his tribute to Jimi Hendrix, but since he wore it on the day he was expected to testify, was he being crazy like a fox in order to avoid testifying?   Baden's goal was to get Spector on the stand in order to "start him at crazy but have the jury think he's a lovable eccentric by the end of the day."   Spector was a lot of things, lovable wasn't one of them.    Pacino is effective as Spector because he makes it difficult to draw easy conclusions about him.    He's a wounded man living off his past successes.    He tells Baden about "You've Lost That Loving Feeling", which radio stations wouldn't play because of its length.    Spector simply repackaged the single with a false running time.   The stations played it and the rest is history.    He's intelligent, but stands firm with his story that Clarkson killed herself.     Certainly computerized and live recreations of the incident seem to support Spector here.    The minute amount of blood on Spector's suit is inconsistent with a suit worn by a guy who put the gun in someone's mouth and pulled the trigger.   

It seems that Pacino is given at least one lengthy speech in his films in which he drones on endlessly.    While I think highly of Pacino, sometimes less can be more.    He has a couple of those moments in Phil Spector, leading me to believe that writer-director David Mamet was so in love with his own dialogue that he didn't think to dial down.    The elements are in place for an intriguing look into this case, but it's not compelling enough as a whole.   It is gripping in spots, such as the examination of the forensic evidence, but other scenes lose their way.     Phil Spector avoids the courtroom scenes and focuses on the behind-the-scenes trial preparations.    His guilt is up in the air, even to his own legal team.    After a first trial ended with a hung jury, Spector was convicted of second-degree murder during the second trial.     Was Spector convicted based on the sins of past juries that acquitted seemingly guilty defendants?   

Phil Spector is a true near-miss.    There is plenty to like about it, while understanding that it's rather uneven for a film with a high-powered cast and a legendary writer.    

42 (2013) * *

Directed by:  Brian Helgeland

Starring:  Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Alan Tudyk, Nicole Beharie, Christopher Meloni

42 tells the story of Jackie Robinson's journey to becoming the first black baseball player to play in the major leagues.    However, it doesn't bring it to life.    The bells and whistles of many biopics are present, including the triumphant musical score which underlines anything positive, but I felt 42 was lacking.   It is well-made and has its heart in the right place, but it left me at a loss to truly care.

As 42 opens, Brooklyn Dodgers executive Branch Rickey (Ford) is discussing his intent to have a black player on his club.    His underlings are horrified by the suggestion.    "If you break an unwritten rule..." says his assistant .  He said more than that but I just don't remember it off the top of my head.    Rickey's initial reason for the move seems mostly financial, but later Rickey reveals more personal reasons for wanting to help a black player.     I don't know if such a thing really ever happened to Rickey, but it seems to have been inserted for extra character motivation when none was  needed.     Harrison Ford is the strongest here he has been a long time.     He is colorful and we respond to him when he's on screen.    He makes it known in no uncertain terms that he supports Robinson and deals harshly with those that don't.    Robinson made his major league debut on April 15, 1947 after spending a year wowing in the minors.     Rickey makes it known to Jackie that his job is not to fight back despite having a natural inclination to do so.    Rickey's belief, and likely the correct one, is that Robinson would get worse publicity for fighting back against his tormentors and thus ruining the future for blacks in baseball.  

Strangely, the least effective performance in the movie is Number 42 himself (Boseman).   Boseman is a strong physical presence and looks a lot like Robinson, but when he's on screen there just isn't a lot there.    He is bland.   I know I'm supposed to like him because he's Jackie Robinson, but I wasn't able to see what was inside.   Boseman plays Robinson as all intensity and little character, which seems to be how he was written.   Aside from one instance in which he smashes a baseball bat after enduring racist taunts by Phillies manager Ben Chapman (Tudyk), Robinson doesn't reveal much.    There are no scenes written of any substance in which Robinson talks to others about how he feels.     Perhaps writer-director Helgeland believed that Robinson didn't need to be written as a character because we know the story of him going in.

Considering the racial climate in 1947, I never got any realistic sense of the unrelenting pressure Robinson faced as a pioneer.    There are taunts, other players saying "You don't belong here", and fans booing, but little else.    Oh, and in at least five scenes, the catcher signals to his pitcher to throw at Robinson's head and even hitting him once, but I think one or two scenes would've been sufficient.     Regardless, Robinson doesn't seem to be shouldering any more burden than the other Dodger players.    

Rachel Robinson's (Beharie) role is rather limited too.    She encourages Jackie and watches from the stands occasionally, nodding approval when Jackie gets a hit or steals a base and grimacing when he is booed, but that's about it.   The real Rachel Robinson was herself a strong pioneer for racial equality and to this day, she appears on Jackie Robinson day to commemorate her late husband's legacy.    In 42, she is smart and compassionate, but her role is severely underwritten.

This is the first feature film about Jackie Robinson's major league career since "The Jackie Robinson Story (1950)" in which Robinson played himself.    Since that movie was made in 1950 and various moviemaking codes were in effect then, there was only so much that could be shown depicting Robinson.    Jackie Robinson, as played by himself, was likable and earnest.     For those going into 42 cold, without much knowledge of Robinson, I wonder how much they will get out of it.    Will they be swayed because it's a story of Robinson's triumph over unprecedented adversity, even if it's not that good?   I don't know.    I wanted to like it, but I was unable to get past the fact that 42 is rather lacking for a biopic with a built-in rooting interest and an ending that's as happy as you can get considering the circumstances.   

JFK (1991) * * * *

Directed by:  Oliver Stone

Starring:  Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, Sissy Spacek, Michael Rooker, Jay O. Sanders, Kevin Bacon, Gary Oldman, Joe Pesci


John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 in Dallas.    Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested and charged with the crime.   He was subsequently murdered by Jack Ruby on November 24 as the world watched on television.   The Warren Commission Report was later released to the public.   The report, based on an investigation into Kennedy's death, concluded Oswald acted alone and there was no evidence of conspiracy.   Yet, there has been a nagging sense in the American psyche that this was not true.  How could Oswald, who was considered a poor shot during his service in the military, fire off three precise shots in under six seconds using a rifle which needed recycling after each shot?     How did he see Kennedy through blooming trees which blocked his view?  What about witnesses who swore they saw shots fired from behind a grassy knoll in front of Kennedy's vehicle?  And how on Earth can one bullet cause six different wounds between President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally?  Was the Vietnam War the direct result of Kennedy's death since Kennedy was opposed to the war, which angered the military-industrial complex?  

Oliver Stone's JFK chronicles the investigation by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Costner) into the Kennedy death.     It is based on Garrison's book and covers as well the trial of Clay Shaw (Jones), a New Orleans businessman accused of conspiracy in Kennedy's death.    Garrison remains the only person to bring a trial forth in the death of President Kennedy.  Is the film a docudrama?   No.   Oliver Stone's film doesn't claim to have the answers, although he certainly advocates that the official version isn't correct.     Stone's goal is to present his argument that, according to Garrison, "the murder of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 was a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings."   Stone presents evidence in his attempt to sway public opinion.     Whether it is the truth will never be known and it really doesn't matter.    JFK is a moving, engrossing film even if not a word of it is true,

JFK isn't based on fact and Stone doesn't present it as such.   The real Jim Garrison was a much more controversial figure than depicted here.    Costner does a passionate job conveying Garrison's stubborn belief that the truth about Kennedy's death has yet to be revealed.    He follows leads, talks to witnesses, and examines documents along with this tireless staff.    They know that something isn't right about the Warren report.    Garrison is so indefatigable in his quest for the truth that he risks losing all he has, including his life.    The investigation begins as a search for a needle in a stack of needles, but soon the focus is on a local businessman named Clay Shaw.    Shaw is rich, connected, and homosexual.    Testimony from local lowlifes like prostitute Willie O' Keefe (Bacon) places Shaw in the middle of numerous meetings in which the elimination of Kennedy is discussed.     Shaw has the connections and resources to help make it happen.    Tommy Lee Jones, with silvery gray hair,  is very effective as a charming, sophisticated man bemused by the conspiracy allegations.    Shaw certainly appears guilty, but can Garrison prove it in court?    Is the public ready for the possibility that Kennedy's death was the result of a conspiracy orchestrated by the highest levels of government and executed by the military, Cubans, and maybe even the mafia?    Joe Pesci, as David Ferrie, another conspirator, says, "Who killed Kennedy?   It's a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.   The shooters don't even know."   

JFK features numerous A-list actors in cameos and supporting roles, all of which contribute key elements without providing distractions like, "Hey, it's Walter Matthau!!"   Stone manages to make his mountain of evidence explicable and logical to the viewer.   At no point, despite the barrage of images and contradictions which are hurled at us at a dizzying pace, was I ever lost.    The music by John Williams adds to the images, which function on the level of a nightmare.     The film won Academy Awards for cinematography and film editing and deservedly so.    It's amazing how editors Joe Hutshing and Pietro Scalia manage to make sense out of everything.    

Stone never loses sight of his narrative.    He captures the doubts and fears of Americans that Oswald didn't act alone or if he even acted at all.   There sure appear to be a lot of coincidences that can't easily be explained away, such as the conflicting reports of his arrest and the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit, which led somehow to Oswald being charged with Kennedy's assassination.     Perhaps the Warren Commission realized that the American people simply couldn't handle the possibility of a vast conspiracy and settled for the "Magic Bullet" theory proposed by the late Arlen Specter.   Coups d'état occur in many countries.   JFK suggests that one already happened on November 22, 1963 and nobody noticed.   What a terrifying thought.    

The Passion Of The Christ (2004) 1/2 *

Directed by:  Mel Gibson

Starring:  James Caviezel

This is a tough film to review because I have to judge what I see on screen and understand the intentions behind what's there.     The Passion Of The Christ is simply too hard to watch.    I understand the film is a document of what happened to Jesus as he was led to his crucifixion, but is it possible a film can be too detailed?    Do we really need to see Jesus enduring the most horrific of torture before finally being nailed to the cross?   How many bone crunches. whippings, beatings, and blood spurts can we endure before we cry uncle?     I'm supposing this violence is somehow supposed to be more meaningful because it's Jesus enduring this torture, but that leads me to wonder:   If this film were about anyone else going through this, would there be a reason to watch it at all?   Regardless of any religious implications or intentions, The Passion Of The Christ is a high-budget snuff film.

This is where things get murky.   I'm not opposed to violence in films.    It's really all about context and how something is shown to me.    Someone gets shot or blown up and I don't think much of it in some cases.    Some films present this artfully and as entertainment, other films do so in ugly, overblown fashion.    Each film's violence is judged on its own merits.    It's a fine line that occasionally gets blurred.    Taking The Passion Of The Christ on its own merit, I think it's a depressing, sad film.     I also understand that films have different goals when it comes to reaching their audience.    What does it want to say?   It's only reason for existing is to show, as brutally as possible, a man being decimated.     I was unable to take anything more out of it.    If Mel Gibson's goal was to have the viewer truly understand what Jesus went through when he died, well, thanks but I wouldn't mind more being left to the imagination.

Others may likely get more out The Passion Of The Christ than I did.    That's certainly a personal, subjective view and people experience films in different ways.      I could discuss the performances, the visual look, and the pacing, but those are not really relevant when discussing unyielding brutality.   I simply failed to see what Gibson had to say about Jesus' death.    He showed it in almost loving detail, but since nothing else of substance goes on, what we get is documentation and not an actual moviegoing experience.   Perhaps Gibson's goal was to starkly show Jesus' passion and let the viewer decide what he/she feels.     That's up for speculation.

I don't know what led to The Passion Of The Christ being made.   The film grossed over $600 million at the domestic box office and Mel Gibson staked some of his money to it.    He certainly believed correctly that the subject matter would be something audiences want to see.    I saw it on home video and found myself weary and bored after about one hour.    I watched Jesus cruelly dismantled in escalating fashion.    I realized that because a film on this subject and portrayed in this fashion could be made, but should it be made?    It's up to the viewer to decide that.   Me?  I say no. 

The Godfather Part II (1974) * * * *

Directed by:  Francis Ford Coppola

Starring:  Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, Diane Keaton, Lee Strasberg, John Cazale, G. D. Spradlin, Robert Duvall

The Godfather Part II picks up twelve years after the original left off.   The Corleone family relocated from New York to Nevada and Michael is looking for ways to move the family business into legitimacy.   Michael, unlike his father, is a ruthless and cold Don.  He is a long way from the war hero who told his fiancee he didn't want to join the family business. Not only has he joined, it consumes him.   He is surrounded by betrayal and corruption.  One has to wonder if he truly knew what effect being The Godfather would have on his soul.

Like its predecessor, The Godfather Part II opens during a large family gathering.  In this case, it's the First Holy Communion of Michael and Kay's son.  Michael is behind the scenes taking care of business, which includes a hypocritical, corrupt Senator (Spradlin) who wants to extort money, and Michael's drunk sister Connie (Talia Shire), who was made a widow courtesy of Michael.    She wants to marry another man.   Michael disapproves.  "If you go against my wishes and marry this man, I'll be very disappointed," vows Michael and one can only imagine what that means.  

Later that night, Michael's bedroom is shot up.   Michael vows revenge and seeks out the person who ordered the hit.    It could be any number of people, including those who pose as friends.    Michael follows the age-old advice, "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."    Could the one who betrayed him be Frank Pantangeli (Michael Gazzo), a loyal underboss who is angry at Michael for not declaring war on family enemies in New York?   Could it be Hyman Roth (Strasberg), an old business associate with dealings in pre-Castro Cuba?   Or could the traitor be someone closer than Michael ever dreamed?   

This would be enough for one movie, but The Godfather Part II intercuts Michael's plight with flashback scenes of his father emigrating to America after his family is killed by a Sicilian Don, only to grow up to be the future Godfather.    Robert DeNiro (in an Oscar-winning performance) plays the younger Vito Corleone as a man who at first wants to be an honest citizen but circumstances force him to murder the reigning Don in New York's Little Italy.    Or was he destined to be Don all along?
DeNiro's performance is mostly spoken in Italian, but he effortlessly provides the genesis of the man who was the powerful, yet respectful and loyal Godfather.    These scenes provide an antithesis to Michael's scenes, suggesting, because Michael lacks the touch his father had, he is doomed to suffer.    Certainly Don Vito had a way about him that Michael would never duplicate.    Michael is simply too callous and ruthless to emulate his father.    The difference is that Michael is feared, but doesn't allow himself to be loved.   Somehow, Don Vito was able to walk that fine line.

Like The Godfather, The Godfather Part II allows us to care as tragedy unfolds.    Michael has a tragic flaw which forces him to sit alone in his yard at the end of film, pondering what went wrong.     Pacino truly grows into the role in this film.    With Brando gone, Pacino is center stage and creates a character nearly as mythical as Brando's, but for different reasons.     I also admired the supporting performances, especially John Cazale as Fredo, who takes on a bigger role here.   Fredo is the oldest brother, but weak and wounded.   His beef comes out in an angry speech to his brother,  "I know how to do things!  I'm smart.   Not like everybody says.   I'm smart and I want respect."    

The Godfather Part II doesn't make the mistake of many sequels.    It doesn't recycle the original, but it has a whole new story to tell.    The seemingly opposite scenes involving DeNiro's and Pacino's dovetail nicely in the final scene, which details how Michael's involvement in the family business may not have been by circumstance or accident.    There has been debate over which of these Godfather films is better (Part III never seems to enter into this equation despite being a fine film in its own right).    I can't really say because they go together as bookends.   They are a depiction of a family brought together and torn apart by crime.

The Godfather (1972) * * * *

Directed by:  Francis Ford Coppola

Starring:  Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, James Caan, Diane Keaton, Sterling Hayden, Richard Castellano, Abe Vigoda

What can be said about The Godfather that hasn't already been said?   The film has been copied, parodied, dissected, you name it.    Is there anything I can add to show my appreciation?   I can try and I will do my damndest to avoid quoting the film's most famous lines, for which there are many.

In a broad stroke, Coppola opens the film with the Godfather Don Vito Corleone listening to requests for his help on his daughter's wedding day.    It is said that he can't refuse requests on his daughter's wedding day, per some Italian tradition.     I hope he gets a break on Christmas Day.    The opening scenes establish the characters in one fell swoop.     We see the Don as a powerful man who is reasonable and not unsympathetic to the plights of the people who beg for his help.    Michael, the Don's youngest son, (Pacino) arrives with his fiancee Kay (Keaton).   He is a decorated World War II hero who ensures Kay he wants no part of the family business.    We see Sonny (Caan), one of the Don's sons who is a hothead (which turns out to be tragic flaw).    Tom Hagen (Duvall) is on hand as the Corleone family lawyer, who attempts to advise the Don on new business enterprises.    Hagen is logical, calculating, and professional.      We also meet Fredo (John Cazale), who is the Don's oldest son and is a weakling.     Over the course of this film and two sequels, we would get to know these characters inside and out.    

Even though the Corleone is a mob family, we care about them and we identify with them despite that they are criminals.    Perhaps this is because Coppola develops these people so well.  Or maybe because the Don is at heart a good man.    We see this in scenes with his sons and his grandchildren.    He is a family man and doesn't want his enterprise engaging in narcotics dealing.    In a crucial development, he rejects a fellow mobster's offer to begin dealing narcotics.    Corleone believes "it's a dirty business."    However, he's not above sending messages to those who take sides against him.    Ask Jack Woltz, the movie mogul who refuses to cast Corleone's godson in his next movie.

Michael, of course, is drawn into the family business after his father is shot by rival gangsters.    Despite his lack of experience in criminal affairs, Michael is smart, cool, and collected.    He is the polar opposite of Sonny, who wants to whack everyone who looks at him crooked.    After Sonny meets his untimely death, Michael takes over the family business.    Michael's way of dealing with things involves violence and death.    This upsets his father, who goes into semi-retirement after surviving the shooting.    "I always wanted more for you Michael," he candidly tells his son and perhaps Michael wanted more for himself.     Or perhaps Michael wanted to be part of the business all along. 

The Godfather is a gangster film with an epic scope and many powerful aspects.     The famous lines from the film really tell little of the story.    The Corleone family becomes tragic beginning in this film and explored further in its two sequels.       The mob of The Godfather isn't like the mob of Goodfellas, in which simple disputes escalate into murder.    This mob assesses risk and looks at its business coldly and analytically.     Murder is committed in the name of business.    Tom Hagen says to Sonny, "This is business Sonny, not personal."    This is the way corporations think as well and in a sense, mobs are corporations looking to protect the bottom line.     The only difference is how they choose to bend the rules to suit them.

Going into all of the plotlines of The Godfather would take far more patience than I have.   Coppola, who co-wrote the screenplay with Mario Puzo, develops a strong sense of post-World War II America.    Everything is anchored by Brando, who won his second Oscar for this performance (and famously refused it).    Brando is a towering physical and emotional presence who affects scenes he's not even in.   Brando's Don Corleone remains a mythical movie figure today.    I'd have to think it's because beneath the power and wealth, Don Corleone remains someone who believed in loyalty, respect, family, and even to some degree morality.     The Godfather will remain a classic because it allows others to see its characters with intimacy you don't see in many films.