The Lion in Winter (1968)

Peter O’Toole and Katharine Hepburn are a knockout of a performing couple in this epic stage production turned motion picture that enthralls us in their royal problems around the Christmas season. O’Toole proves in this performance as Henry II that “Lawrence of Arabia” (1962) was not his high-point in his career. His persona as the arrogant and indecisive king of England really showed us that he was absorbed in his role. It’s quite fascinating that he played this same role as Henry II in “Beckett” (1964) opposite of Richard Burton. It may be a stretch to say this, but “The Lion in Winter” is pretty much a sequel. Hepburn is so convincing as Eleanor of Aquitaine that she just resonates whenever she pries into her husband’s and sons’ business and seduces everyone she comes in contact with. She’s really good at it. And to top it off Anthony Hopkins makes his film debut as Richard The Lionheart who is one out of three sons who wants the throne of England. I just love Richard and John are in the same movie and there’s no Robin Hood! Terrific!

One of the best things about this film is how well it adapted from the stage to motion picture. James Goldman who wrote both the play and the screenplay of this film makes this film so easy to watch. Sometimes an adaptation doesn’t go through the weeds all too well and gets roughed up a bit losing it’s authenticity and personality. Not with this film. Every scene is prepared, every bit of dialogue ignites the actor, and the tension is all too real. A husband imprisoning his wife. A knife fight between a father and son. The same husband making his mistress and wife sit at the same table. Unannounced and forced marriages. This makes my own family Christmas get-togethers look not all that bad. Perhaps there’s hope after all.

Katharine Hepburn (L) and Peter O’Toole (R) in “The Lion in Winter”

The Book Thief (2013)

I’ve seen a lot of World War II films. Some good. Some Bad. “The Book Thief” comes on the good side of my WWII radar. It stars Geoffrey Rush, Emily Watson (Not Emma Watson!), and introduces Sophie Nelisse as Liesel. This film covers the beginning and end of Germany’s home-front during WWII, which is a seven-year time span. Quite a bit of an eleven year old girl who witnesses the persecution and injustice to the Jews. We don’t see many German home-front films, and this one definitely does the genre justice. It’s a light, warm-hearted, and touching film that does everything right, almost.

I say almost with this film because it seemed that the persecution and violence with the Jews was done a little forcefully trying to get the audience have a reaction too quickly. It barely scratches the surface of the Holocaust. A good Holocaust film to watch that does everything naturally and still gets gut-wrenching reactions from its audience is Roman Polanski’s “The Pianist” (2002). I saw a little bit of the “Pianist” in “The Book Thief” when the Jew, Max (Ben Schnetzer), comes into the picture and hides in basements. It’s very dangerous to make a movie about the Holocaust that doesn’t show a concentration camp. Only “The Pianist” can pull that off. Maybe “The Diary of Anne Frank” (1959). But “The Pianist” does it the best.

I want to end on a positive by saying that this film did a very good job at showing the perspective from a child about 1940s Germany. Usually we only see the side of the Allies fighting the Germans in most war films, but seeing the city of Munich in ruins and the lives shattered in a simple German home makes the film have weight. Not as much as I wanted, but enough to help me feel a little sympathy. Enjoyable? Yes. But don’t watch “The Pianist” before this film.

Sophie Nelisse (L) and Geoffery Rush (R) in “The Book Thief”

Zulu (1964)

If you ever ask me to recommend a military movie, I will always tell you to watch “Zulu”. This film blew me away with its stunning cinematography, use of extras, and tremendous attention to detail about British military tactics. The story is so simple, but delivers an epic movie! Stanley Baker, Jack Hawkins, James Booth, and Michael Caine star in this war film about a British infantry company surrounded by Zulu warriors in 1879 South Africa. Every minute of the movie is drive to the survival and fighting of the protagonists. Nothing about this is lazy! And I personally believe that this is Caine’s best performance in his forty year career on the silver screen. His first and his best!

John Barry’s epic score is so catchy and simple that I could whistle it after seeing the film once. Hearing the kettle drums pounding away at the beginning of the film and when the Zulu come on-screen made me shiver with anticipation of what’s going to happen. The kettle drums sound ever so slightly when the Zulu are off screen, but then slap us in the face when the Zulu surprise us.The brass’s melody supported by the strings adds a bold and classy theme that could only fit to this movie.The score got reactions out of me as much as the fighting did. While I was watching this film, I notice that the fighting and the score never cross paths. The score stops every time fighting starts, and that makes for some powerful and intimidating moments. There is one battle scene that does have the main melody playing. If someone told me before I watched it, I would’ve been skeptical. But having watched the film a dozen times actually works and gives me chills watching it still. Pure movie magic people! The score adds the mood in every frame!

Eighty percent of the movie is set in real time. As time passes, Lieutenants Chard (Baker) and Bromhead’s (Caine) time passes with you. Every minute means life or death for all of the men under their command. Every decision effects how the battle and movie play out. One bad decision could end the movie pretty quickly. I felt the intensity of their situation every minute of this film. Thanks to Caine’s and Baker’s convincing acting methods to incorporate their fears and guts on their faces and in their actions. Zulus pounding and clawing with spears through a burning door will get anyone to tense up and act. Brilliant directing Cy Endfield!

Stanley Baker (L) and Michael Caine (R) in “Zulu”

Maleficent (2014)

Sleeping Beauty is the next princess to get a live-action remake (if you can call it that) as part of the Disney revival, which has taken hold in the last few years. When I heard about this particular remake and the title, I only thought about “Hook” (1991). That is a good remake! Anyway, I want to mention first that all of these animated remakes are unnecessary.  “Maleficent” especially. The 1959 Disney original “Sleeping Beauty” has every good movie ingredient in it. Drama, comedy, a strong story, and adventure! The color is beautiful, the music is mystical, and the fighting is down-right gritty. Maleficent is a big creeper in that film, which gave me nightmares! The fact that we didn’t know her past worked well for her image as the villain. Now that we have Maleficent’s watered down back story doesn’t make her as intimidating as before. Disney sure knows how to ruin childhood dreams. I had nightmares, but I liked those too.

One of the only things I liked about this film is Angelina Jolie’s accent. Voice acting is one of her talents and she does not disappoint. Halfway through the film I forgot that she even had an accent. That is pure talent of deception. Some actors try to pull off accents and fail miserably. Jake Gyllenhall comes to mind in “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” (2010). Boy was that a bad British accent! He would have been better off speaking without one. Sorry to go off on tangents, but you get the idea. “Maleficent” is a weak rendition of one of the most evil and scary villains in Disney history, but Jolie makes up for the movie with a good accent. See the movie if you don’t want to see real villains anymore. I like villains that scare me.

Sam Riley (L) and Angelina Jolie (R) in “Maleficent”

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014)

I was really looking forward to see this film. I’ve read Tom Clancy’s novels from “The Sum of All Fears”, “Rainbow Six”, and “The Teeth of the Tiger”. All of them engaged me and Clancy wrote the books in such a way that you get sucked into the realism and story telling make you a part of the books. Compared to previous Tom Clancy movies, “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit” falls short. It doesn’t get into nitty-and-gritty details or character development as I saw in “The Hunt for Red October” (1989) directed by John McTiernan. “Jack Ryan” is very cliche with its approach to the spy and military world of the twenty-first century. Almost as bad as Phil Alden Robinson’s “The Sum of All Fears” (2002), which is my favorite Tom Clancy novel. All of the acting and character development in “Jack Ryan” is weak, and the worst was Kenneth Branagh playing Vikto Cherevin who is the cheesiest of action villains. Even more cheesy than Hans Gruber in “Die Hard” (1988). I expected more from Branagh as a director and an actor. I really want to see him do Shakespeare again. Sigh…

Here’s a list of ten things that would make for a great  Tom Clancy movie:

1. Make the villain be unpredictable.

2. Have the technology match the contemporary world of the film. No Future crap!

3. Jack Ryan needs to look like an everyday guy. Not a movie star.

4. Give more realism. Make the audience think that Jack Ryan can die.

5. Have a better cast of supporting roles. Kevin Costner didn’t do it for me.

6. Don’t cast Keira Knightley.

7. Have James Horner compose the score.

8. Film the movie in the genre of drama rather than action. This means no motorcycle chases.

9. Have the plot involve more of a small-scale terrorist attack rather than full-scale destruction. Nuclear bombs are risky.

10. Kill off key characters unexpectedly. Quentin Tarantino is really good at this.

Now you have the formula of making a good and strong Tom Clancy movie. I sure hope that the next Tom Clancy movie coming out has some of these elements in it. If not, then I’ll have to be thoroughly convinced to go see it. Perhaps a call from Harrison Ford or something.

Chris Pine (L) and Kenneth Branagh (R) in “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit”

The Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

Tom Cruise gives a fun a and exciting performance in this action film mixed with “Groundhog Day” (1993) and “Independence Day” (1996). This movie has its own specific day that repeats itself again, and again, and again until Cage (Tom Cruise) and Rita (Emily Blunt) can find a way to fight and defeat an alien invasion on the beaches of Normandy, France. It’s a unique story with a fun cast, and awesome special effects. I got excited seeing practical effects mixed in with computer effects. This was such a fun movie to watch.

Cruise and Blunt balance out extremely well as the protagonists and support each other in each scene they’re in. Cage needs Rita’s experience in hand-to-hand combat and weaponry, and Rita needs Cage’s power to time travel. It’s all coincidental how they gain their skills, meet, and end up working together, or is it fate that brings them closer? Either way, they have great chemistry on screen with some funny and tender moments as they grow to love one another. This is an action and sci-fi film you don’t want to miss. You’ll want to watch it again, and again, and again, and again……

Tom Cruise (L) and Emily Blunt (R) in Edge of Tomorrow

CHINATOWN (1974)

Never have I ever been involved and hooked to a story as I have with Chinatown! This is an amazing film! No doubt about it. The acting is convincing, and entertaining with Jack Nicholson at the helm playing private investigator J.J. Gittes who gets wrapped up in a case involving infidelity and water possession in 1930s Los Angeles.  May I say that this film defines story telling? I think so! Thanks Robert Towne for such a captivating piece of cinema. It involves the audience 100% in the clues, the cues, and the whews. Very few films have given me this kind of reaction of going on this mysterious adventure with Gittes and solving the crime with him. Simply pure story telling. Thanks Roman Polanski for directing Nicholson in a great performance and a nasty nose job!

The score by the great Jerry Goldsmith is an eternal piece that defines the 1930s in all of it’s glory and mystery. Hearing the trumpet playing the melody and the strings in the background make me feel that I am involved in the story even more. True 1930s fashion. Whenever the story turns in a crazy direction (it happens quite a bit), the music turns from beautiful melodies to stomping and dangerous piano keys. The score summarizes how Gittes is feeling throughout the entire film. The score adds passion to Gittes’ journey.

My favorite piece of this movie is again the great use of the cast. Everybody in “Chinatown” serves a purpose. They either help Gittes, or try to stop him in his case. No unnecessary roles here! Nicholson stands strong playing a man with integrity, stubbornness, smarts, and full of gritty charisma. He drives the story the whole way! Fay Dunaway, Jon Huston, Perry Lopez, and John Hillerman all portray their characters with heart and deceit, which doesn’t make it easy for Gittes to find out who’s lying. You really can’t trust any of them. They are just that good of a cast! Chemistry is key to having a cast match the scale of the story. If that doesn’t work out, then you end up with a movie like “Lost in Space” (1998). Great idea, but horrible story telling and casting. No movie is immune to the possibility of poor stories and poor casting, but Chinatown hits it just right creating a class act.

Jack Nicholson (L) and Faye Dunaway (R) in Chinatown

Henry V (1944)

Laurence Olivier’s version of the Prince of Wales turned king is a colorful masterpiece and stays true to the spirit of the poet William Shakespeare. Unique, powerful, and inspiring, Olivier plays and directs this film during his younger years and gives a knockout of a performance with such clarity and devotion to the English monarch. The costumes are detailed and beautiful, the cinematography is outstanding, the art direction is crafty, and all of the performances by the cast are superb. This is by far one of the best productions of Shakespeare put to the screen. That color is awesome!

King Henry of England sets out to France to recover land that is rightly his by divine right. At least that’s what the Archbishop of Canterbury told him in act 1. That sly dog! Anyway, I enjoyed the film immensely. It tested my ability to follow Shakespeare’s words with the help of Olivier’s speech. Iambic pentameters flow smoothly helping the flow of all of the scenes. All of the characters in this film are convincing and give their characters heart.

One part of this film that I found to be the best part of the whole movie are the first twenty minutes. It starts off in the year 1600 in London at the Globe Theater. I saw actors portraying actors in contemporary costumes portraying characters in the early fifteenth century. We see the actors behind stage getting dressed and applying makeup, getting their lines memorized, and making sure that all of the sets and props get on their way. It is a very audience active scene set in real time. After those twenty minutes, the stage transforms into the fifteenth century reality with proper period clothing and backgrounds. We go into the past with  the actors! This transition is so smooth and so thought-out. It was pure movie magic.  Nothing else comes close to the blend of timelessness that Olivier gave it.

Laurence Olivier in Henry V

The Tale of Despereaux (2008)

This film involving talking rodents within an Early Renaissance story takes a lot of risks with its story telling and content. On the outside it looks like it’s a fun fairy-tale filled adventure and courage. On the inside it disappoints. Despereaux (Matthew Broderick) is the lead protagonist with large floppy ears who goes out to show his courage among humans, but does not have a strong presence in the film. In fact, he shares screen time with Roscuro (Dustin Hoffman) who has an opposite story that doesn’t have much drive either. Their stories don’t have much to do with each other, and their paths cross in a way that’s done forcefully. It’s poorly paced, boring, and baited me towards one direction, but would stop abruptly. It drove me crazy! There are also multiple minor characters what were forced into the film for variety. It felt like I was watching two movies that were fighting for screen time. After I watched it, I found out that the film had two directors:  Sam Fell and Robert Stevenhagen. It finally made sense.

It’s very difficult to get a two-director project to work well. There are two leaders, two creative minds, and two decision makers. From what I saw in “The Tale of Despereaux”, these two directors couldn’t make up their mind about what (or who) to cut or edit out and just put whatever made the other happy. This makes for a poorly paced and confusing film. Ethan and Joel Coen come to mind when two directors work well for a film. They have coordination and creative thinking giving them “grit” when they make their films such as “Fargo” (1996) and “No Country for Old Men” (2007). They’re not afraid to say “no” to each other. Something that “The Tale of Despereaux” could have used. This was a bit of a negative review. I hope I see some better movies soon. It’ll be good for me.

The Tale of Despereaux