42

3.5 Stars (Out of four)

What is it about sci-fi and sports movies that make for such good metaphors? Maybe it's because they represent something we all aspire to, by using those figures of mythological standing to communicate larger truths. It's even better when the myth is actually true, as in the case of 42, the story of Jackie Robinson. Baseball, for some reason, connects with us Americans on a deep, passionate level. While I would argue football has surpassed it as America's pasttime, it has never surpassed baseball in America's heart. It's something timeless, and uniquely American, as so few things are. This is OUR sport, and it is the perfect foil to which we can paint our collective experience. Whether it be the yearning for simpler ages or unrealized opportunities like Field of Dreams, to second chances like The Rookie or Bull Durham or The Natural, to the plight of the underdog like Major League or The Bad News Bears, to the beginning of the women's movement in A League of Their Own, to the complexities of race in America like 42. Baseball represents something pure, a canvas to paint our complex pictures in a cultural framework with which we can all immediately identify. 42 is just that much more rich because it is true; the beginning of a new, more complex, but ultimately, better age. While our eyes may moisten sometimes at more innocent times gone by, 42 demonstrates that there were no "good old days.". There were evil undercurrents in our facade of civility, and that those half-truths had to be smashed so that more enlightened ages and ideas can follow. For those who say America's best days are behind her, I would argue that the best is yet to come. We are constantly moving forward as a society that really is justice for all, that we are that shining city on a hill that others can, and should, emulate.

Now, I normally don't get so sentimental in my reviews, but this movie brought it out of me. This is not a backward-looking movie, a longing for more simpler times, but rather one looking ahead. While 42 does have its share of cliche and sentiment, it also has hard truths as well. Normally, movies that deal with the subject of race in America tend to gloss over the uglier facts of racism, or at least pays them only a token homage like The Help or Driving Miss Daisy. As good as these films are, I think they gloss over the racism angle to make it more palatable for all viewers. Hollywood has never really liked hard-hitting films on race. Movies like Malcolm X or A Soldier's Story tend to be smaller, more independent affairs and don't win Oscars. Hollywood has always been a tad hypocritical about this. 42 did not gloss over the attitude of people, the actions or words or deeds of our racist society then, nor the struggle Jackie had to go through, having the courage to not fight back. I remember when I was a kid and my dad talked to me about racism and unfairness for the first time when I was seven, and he used Jackie's example that he witnessed when he was a boy. He told me exactly what the film said. The courage to be the example, the bravery of not fighting back even with very justification to shame those who are in the wrong. Action follows example, and as 42 dramatically illustrates, we were seeing an entire new world being born with him. It shows what we strive to be as Americans, not necessarily what we are. We strive to reach the better angels of our nature as Shakespeare would say. It started with the Declaration and continues today. The fight still goes on, ever forward.

So why only 3.5 stars instead of four? Simply that it is very sentimental and cliched at times. That does not make it bad. Quite the contrary. I also think Harrison Ford has finally acted in a film. I knew he had it in there somewhere. At many times during the film, I didn't even recognize him, he was so good. Lastly, you'll note I didn't use the movie poster this time, but instead the iconic shot of Pee Wee Reese with his arm around Jackie's shoulders in Cincinnati in 1947. This signature shot of the movie graphically tells everything the movie is about in one striking image. This same moment is commemorated in bronze in New York outside The Cyclones' stadium. Did it really happen? Probably. But what matters is what it represents, and all good movies strive for that moment. Moments like this. Go see it. I think you will like it as much as I did.

The Lords of Salem

1 Star (out of four)

Forest Gump said "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.". The same is true for Rob Zombie movies. He's made some great films (The Devil's Rejects, Halloween), awful films (Halloween 2), and over-the-top ridiculous films (House of 1000 Corpses). But the two things I've always admired about his films is they are a.) ostentatious but well-crafted, and b.) he does NOT think horror films are misunderstood comedies. He actually thinks they should be scary in a horrifying kind of way, not a jump-out-and-shout-BOO! kind of way. Rob, like me, grew up with horror films that had a nihilistic streak a mile wide. The monster did not spout awful jokes and they did NOT end on a happy note. Compare the seminal films of the late 60's through early 80's. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Friday the 13th, The Hills Have Eyes, Suspirio, The Exorcist, Carrie, The Shining, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, The Omen, Rosemary's Baby. All of them intense, scary, and not a joke to be seen anywhere. They were endured, not enjoyed. Rob, so far, has subscribed to this story-telling mechanism for his films. And they, for the most part, have been really good. So I went into The Lords of Salem with great anticipation for another good scare.

But..

What I got was probably the most pretentious college student film ever made. Imagine if the worst nightmares of Torquemada, H.P. Lovecraft, H.R. Giger, Dean Koontz, Anton LeVay, Marilyn Manson, David Lynch and Ozzy Osbourne were vomited together into a stew and had a little blasphemy all stirred in for a little flavor, and you will have a good idea of the experience of The Lords of Salem. Kids should like it because it will freak out their parents and their parents will hate it, but anyone even possessing half a brain will see how stupid it is. Now, Rob Zombie's art has never been what anyone would call subtle, but this is just ridiculous. He is trying to out-devil The Exorcist, but it really just comes across as over-the-top buffoonery. Worse yet, it is actually well-made. Zombie has an eye for good direction, so what is supposed to be scary just comes off as pretentious. He's trying too hard to be outrageous, and therefore has made an unscary horror film. It's almost as if Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese suddenly made Plan 9 From Outer Space. It is that jarring. The only thing I can say is good about the film is the music is appropriately moody, courtesy of Zombie's guitarist, John 5, and that it is well-crafted. The problem is the story stinks. It makes absolutely no sense, hits every devil-movie cliche there is, and is just plain dumb. Zombie breaks my cardinal rule for any film: Never put in anything for its own sake. Everything must serve the story. Rob is so preoccupied with being outrageous here that he forgets to actually think about quality. Maybe outrageousness is the only way to make a dent in our desensitized psyches anymore, but plain old horror still works. Witness the like of The Seventh Sense, Se7en, or The Silence of the Lambs. All disturbing stories, but all great. Zombie is capable of these heights. I've seen it. I just wish he could consistently achieve them.

Oblivion

2 Stars (out of four)

Tom Cruise's newest film, Oblivion, has some good points and bad. First, the good. It is a beautiful movie, a visual feast for the eyes. There is rarely a boring moment as far as visuals go. The director who made this film also made Tron 2. And this is where the film goes off the rails. Tron 2 was also an incredibly interesting film for the eyes, but a fairly dull story. Oblivion has a good, but slow story. It's too bad, because the film's story has potential. The reveal at the end is quite good. Unfortunately, the film is what most critics call "deliberately paced," which is critic-ese for boring.

I like dystopian future movies. They are interesting, although a tad depressing. It is always interesting to see what people think the future will be like. It is just one of my quirks. I love The Omega Man, Waterworld, Escape From New York, The Terminator, all of them. Oblivion is a lot like Kevin Costner's The Postman. Both movies are actually pretty good, but take just a little too long to get to their respective denouments. It's too bad, because I really thought Oblivion was going to be good. I wanted it to be good, but it just falls a little short of the mark. I am not talking about the actual story because I don't want to give anything away. If you are going to see this film, you really do want to see it in a theater. It would lose a lot on a small screen. In the end, it's a lot of fun to watch, but it is a tad boring. There's really not a lot to say more about this film, I'm sorry to say. I know the review this time is short, but there really is not much else to say. Not great, but not bad.

Evil Dead (1983) vs. Evil Dead (2013)

1983 Version-2.5 Stars (out of four)

2013 Version-1Star (out of four)

Well, it may have happened.  Hollywood is now officially out of new ideas.  The new iteration of Evil Dead, is, in a word, awful.  Now, I know many of you out there are slapping your heads and saying, "Well, what the hell did you expect?  It is Evil Dead, after all."  I would first say that yes, you're probably right about that.  But, when you watch the original, it's so bad, so bloody, so amateurish, you can't help but sort of love it in a strange, but conspiratorial way.  I actually watched the original again to refresh my memory.  You can tell from its stupid, disjointed story, the over-the-top extreme gore (I can honestly say that the original is one of the goriest movies I have ever seen), the crappy synthesizer music, the generally cheap look of it all; that a very talented group of young, college students were trying to make their mark.  The DIY look and feel of the original gives it a subversive vibe, but in the end, it has a witty charm to it.  A wink-and-a-smile, a knowing grin that says we are all in on the joke.  The filmmakers themselves say in the DVD commentary they were out to simultaneously mock the horror films of the day and yet make a new type of horror the surpasses everything yet made up to that point.  They even stick in the poster for The Hills Have Eyes to say, you think you know horror?  This is real horror.  Many of the alumni from the original went on to great careers of their own including cult favorite Bruce Campbell, Sam Raimi, and Joel Coen.  So, objectively, the original is not that great, but this is art, and subjectively, it's a lot of fun if you don't take it too seriously.

Now, the new one, it's just bad.  The sad thing is,the setup would make a good film.  The reason they are in the cabin is that the first victim is a recovering junkie.  The rest are her friends and estranged brother who brought her there so she can get away from the temptations where she is from so she can kick her habit cold turkey.  This, in itself, would be a great movie with real drama.  As it turns out, the egghead of the group finds the evil book, stupidly reads it DESPITE the fact it tells him not to, and the dead rise and wreak havoc, blah blah blah.  The rest of the film is an exercise in gory excess with wooden characters and stupid situations.  The setups are predictable and cliche.  The original is bad, but charming.  This is just bad.  The problem is, is that good, studio professionals made this one.  At least the original has an excuse for being bad.  The young guys didn't really know what they doing.  The new one is like Michaelangelo doing finger paints.  Instead of crappy synth music, there's an orchestra.  Instead of stupid, rubber prosthetics, there's very realistic gore effects.  Instead of dropping the characters into a dumb story, this tries to add backstory, also bad.  It's only saving grace is that it at least the story is comprehensible that has the potential to be good.  It's just an exercise in condescending excess.  The producers feel their audience is stupid and not discerning, and they will buy any old crap.  Don't waste your time with this and rather go see the original instead.

Dazed and Confused (1993)

3 Stars (out of four)

Dazed and Confused does what all great art should do, evoke a feeling.  I didn't see this film when it first came out, and that's probably a good thing.  If I would have seen this in my 20s when it came out, it would have gone over my head.  The movie is about the last day of school in 1976 and what the kids do in an unnamed town in the U.S.  There is no nostalgia, no ruminations on how great it was back then, just what was.  Unlike American Graffitti, this isn't a longing look back at our teens and how great or bad those times were, a remembrance with rosy glasses.  Nor is it The Breakfast Club, which, when I saw it, spoke to me on a deep level, that the writers understood what I was thinking at the time.  It is simply what was, bored teens looking for a good time, waiting for something to happen and, whether they know it or not, waiting for their lives to start with no idea what lies ahead.  While I was not a teen of the 70s, nor was drinking my scene, as I watched the film, some feelings came through.  The memories of tmy teens, it all came back in a rush.  That feeling that something was ahead, that our lives were ahead of us.  But it was also tinged with sadness knowing what it is like on the other side.  It's been said that youth is wasted on the young.  I never really knew what that meant until recently.  While my life is not bad, it certainly isn't everything I expected or wanted at that age.  The point of all this is that is precisely what art should do, evoke feelings.

While nothing really happens in the film, it is wonderful.  It's really fun to watch to see so many future stars in some of their earliest roles including:  Ben Affleck, Milla Jovovich, Adam Goldberg, Matthew McConaughey, Parker Posey, and Joey Lauren Adams.  For me, it's always fun to see where they started.  While this movie may not be for all tastes, it's a lot of fun.  It will take anyone back as there are certain experiences that are universal to us all.

Killing Them Softly

2 Stars (out of four)

Brad Pitt's newest movie, Killing Them Softly, is a mystifying movie.  At times, it is one of the best crime films I have seen in recent years.  At other times, it is annoying and confusing.  The movie starts where two half-witted guys stick up a mafia card game and make away with $50,000.  Brad Pitt, a contact killer, is called to kill both of them.  He later calls James Gandolfini (Tony Soprano if you didn't know), a fellow killer to help with the job.  Gandolfini then goes on an alcoholic and whoring binge and then inexplicably disappears from the film.  Brad Pitt kills all the bad guys and demands payment.  The end.

If that seems abrupt, the movie does that a lot.  This being a movie from the Weinstein Company, it has to be arty, and this movie attempts to be just that.  First, I'll get I to what I liked about the movie.  It gets onto the gritty aspects of being in the mob.  It does not gloss over any of the gruesome aspects of being in the criminal element.  Movies like Goodfellas and The Godfather, while excellent, tend to glamorize the criminal life.  In Killing Them Softly, there is absolutely nothing glamorous about any of the characters.  All of them are dim-witted, dull and stupid.  What is even better about it is that most of the actors have played iconic mob roles.  In the vein of not glamorizing anything, the scenes of violence are some of the most visceral I have ever seen.  The violence is gruesome and cruel, nothing cool about it.  I, for one, think cartoonish violence is not a healthy thing.  It should be portrayed as it is, ugly and destructive.  Otherwise, it both loses it's dramatic punch and desensitizes us to its impact.

What I didn't like about the film was, first, it's abruptness.  The movie literally ends when Brad Pitt demands payment for what he has done.  The movie also tries too hard. It is trying to be arty, and it shows.  I have made it a point to say that there should be nothing in a movie for its own sake.  In this case, it is art for art's sake, sacrificing story for sentiment and making some kind of message.  The filmmakers are obviously trying to say something, but it is unclear what.  The movie attempts to be deconstructionist, but it fails miserably at this, as well.  It was done much better in Clint Eastwood's masterpiece, Unforgiven.  Finally, there was a specific element that annoyed me to no end.  Throughout the movie, which takes place during the McCain/Obama election, we keep hearing snippets from the news totally unrelated to the story.  It prattles with Bush speaking on the state of the economy and politicos saying how bad the economy is.  There is also inappropriate music in the soundtrack, using very old and time/subject inappropriate tunes.  The movie ends on a cynical take on the cut-throat business environment of the U.S.  This is probably the point of all the news snippets, but who knows?  Anyway, not a great mob movie, or movie movie for that matter.

Olympus Has Fallen

2.5 Stars (out of four)

Olympus Has Fallen looks like a big, loud and stupid movie, and that is exactly what it is, except that it is a hoot as well.  I wasn't expecting much, and I wasn't disappointed.  The movie is about a group of North Korean terrorists who take over the White House and make various demands.  The only man who stands in their way is Gerard Butler, an ex-special forces secret service agent who somehow gets into the White House after the bad guys get in and gives them all a bad day.  If this is beginning to sound like Die Hard or Air Force One, I'm sure it is a coincidence.

My question is, why does it seem so impossible for an American actor to play an American hero in an American action film?  Batman, Lincoln, The Walking Dead, Thor, Blackhawk Down, Taken, the list goes on.  Did American actors just suddenly become a bunch of sissies?  There is nothing wrong with their performances, it's just where did all the actors go?  Morgan Freeman plays his usual old, father-figure in charge.  I only have two complaints about this film.  First, most movies that have the President as a hostage seem to think the rest of the government would just lie down and capitulate. They seem to forget that we have continuity in command in our government.  While we do not relish the idea of our chief executive as a hostage, we are not a dictatorship or monarchy.  Our society and government will go on.  The terrorists at one point make ridiculous demands and the government just gives in to save the President.  This would never happen.  I realize it is just a movie, but there are limits to my disbelief.  The other is that director Antoine Fuquoi shoots most of the movie in the dark, so it is difficult to see what is going on and therefore the action tends to be confusing.  Also, since it is confusing, it tends to not be very exciting.

So, overall, it is a fine romp, but it is not exactly a masterpiece.