4 1/2 Vulcan Salutes out of 5

Confession: I am a Trekkie. Not a “Trekker,” or whatever the hip fans call themselves these days. I’m an old school Trekkie, and it is as a Trekkie that I say that Star Trek into Darkness is Good Trek. It hits all the right notes, and the cast proves that their ability to take on the iconic roles of the Enterprise crew was not a fluke in 2009. Moreover, Star Trek Into Darkness manages to walk the line between escapist entertainment and social commentary much like the original TV series did, but that other Trek movies rarely accomplish.

If I had any criticisms of Star Trek (2009), it was this:  The villain was not particularly memorable, and by necessity the bigger picture took a backseat to the internal conflict of the crew getting to know each other. As a sequel, Into Darkness mostly alleviates this problem. Benedict Cumberbatch delivers a fantastic performance as John Harrison, and demands the audience’s full attention in every scene he has. While the crew is established following the events of the first movie, the script manages to work in some conflict between characters without straining credibility. Also, the addition of Peter Weller and Alice Eve in key roles is more than welcome – although I wish Eve was given more to do.

While the first film played a sort of ‘getting the band together’ game and took its time with the revised origins of the ship and its crew, Into Darkness assumes that you know Trek – or at least have seen the first film – and hits the ground running. The script still takes the time to briefly explain things when necessary, such as a crash course in the Prime Directive early in the film, but overall the story is presented as a continuation with no stopping for drawn-out recaps of earlier events. There are also frequent references and allusions to characters and stories from other versions of Star Trek which, while fun for fans like me to catalog, come so quickly that they shouldn’t call undue attention to themselves for those not “in the know.” Moreover, Into Darkness latches onto, and plays with, the idea of what it means for the Enterprise crew to be a kind of family. This, more than almost anything else, is a theme I associate with Classic Trek and, in particular, the Classic Trek films. In addition, the film tackles issues of preemptive war, due process, and most directly the question of military expansion versus scientific exploration. Granted, most of these topics are only touched on, but did anyone really expect a preachy, didactic monologue in the middle of a summer blockbuster? That these issues are invoked at all is surprising, considering the pure escapism of Star Trek (2009), and it suggests a return to the kind of social commentary which defined the original series, albeit adapted to contemporary blockbuster sensibilities. This all feeds into the big picture conflict missing from the previous film, and gives the plot much higher stakes.

However, Into Darkness never loses sight of the (apologies to Mr. Spock) human element. To invert Mr. Spock’s saying from the original film series, the needs of the one DO outweigh the needs of the many. The crew’s obligations to each other are familial, and they go beyond duty or regulations. This comes directly from Classic Trek – for example Spock risking his career and life to help Commodore Pike in The Menagerie, Kirk disobeying orders to save Spock in Amok Time, and the entirety of Star Trek III all show the crew placing personal relationships above regulations and, in the process, reveal the distinction that can be made between doing what is appropriate or expected and doing what is right.

This is not to say that the film is perfect. As I said, Alice Eve really doesn’t get much to do aside from look pretty and provide a few bits of key exposition. Into Darkness at times feels episodic. This could be in part due to Abrams’s TV background, but I think it is also because Star Trek is by nature episodic. Virtually every film installment has played essentially like a feature-length addition to the various TV series. Whether that is a negative depends on the criteria you use to measure the film. To me, it is simply part of the Trek formula. However, I do think the closing scenes could have done a little more to emphasize how the events of the film have changed and affected them. The information is there, but some of it is perhaps too subtextual and reliant on viewers’ pre-understanding of the characters. Also, there are a couple of moments in the last third of the film which, while not inappropriate, are such deliberate callbacks to earlier Trek that I could only experience their emotional impact in terms of the plot AFTER recognizing them as references or quotations. Does that make these moments forced? That’s debatable; they are appropriate to the scenes in which they appear, but there is no escaping that they are also clearly designed to remind fans of other Trek installments. That’s a fine line to walk, and for the most part I think Into Darkness does it well. But there is a case to be made for at least two moments that take things a little beyond homage. As fun as the film was, I do hope that in the next film the writers are comfortable enough with the characters and franchise to develop a wholly original story for the characters rather than relying so heavily on existing plot lines.

Measured against the rest of the Star Trek franchise, Into Darkness is a solid entry in the long-running series. It is not the best Trek film of all time (oh boy is that a post for another time), but it shows the revived franchise taking another step in the right direction.

There has been much speculation since Prometheus was announced regarding what exactly it would be, and how (if at all) it would connect to the Alien franchise. Make no mistake: this IS a prequel, and it answers some of the questions left blissfully unanswered by the original Alien film. Ultimately, this is both the film’s blessing and its curse. That said, it is a solid, well-made science fiction film that blends contemporary effects with a more old-fashioned, deliberate pace and tone. In addition, the 3D is worth the money, serving typically to add depth to shots – and most importantly it is NOT a post-conversion.

Ridley Scott and his collaborators were deliberately coy in the marketing for , and more often than not they avoided making any direct connections between it and Alien. At one point Scott was quoted as saying the film carried “strands of Alien‘s DNA, so to speak” (a comment which becomes much more interesting once the new film has been viewed). Just a few minutes in, however, it becomes clear that this was all misdirection. In terms of narrative, the film actually follows fairly similar beats as Scott’s original film. However, I think with Prometheus Scott has much different intentions, and it all has to do with characters and themes.

Alien was not a film about exploration. Its themes are rooted in distrust of corporate authority and that space brings death and uncertainty rather than any sort of answers. The characters, as well as the audience, learn virtually nothing about the planet or creatures that are encountered. It is an exercise in claustrophobia, suspense, and the terror of an inhuman, highly sexualized unknown. All of this is summed up in that film’s tagline – “In space, no one can hear you scream.” Prometheus retains the mysterious setting of that film (I don’t think that’s a spoiler at this point, since it’s clear from the trailer that both it and Alien are set on the same planet), but rather than a set of blue collar space truckers the crew is a mixture of regular crew and scientists. These explorers, like the director of the film, are focused on the existential question of mankind’s origin, the transitory nature of life, and a desire to investigate life on other planets. In this respect it is thematically closer to 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: The Year We Make Contact than Alien, although Prometheus never forgets its horror roots. It is a movie about belief – faith, even – and the danger of seeking proof. Thus, while the crew in Alien are reactive, avoiding the unknown unless absolutely necessary, the crew in Prometheus pokes the hornets’ nest and tries to illuminate the darkness.

With this in mind, it stands to reason that for better or worse several of the unanswered mysteries of Alien are given explanations. I am definitely of two minds about this; I have always loved those mysteries, especially the throwaway appearance of the “Space Jockey,” and was fairly confident that no subsequent film would do justice to the speculations I had come up with over the years. Yet the film does not fail in this regard. I think I will still do my best to pretend that I have not seen Prometheus when watching Alien, but for the purposes of this new film, those explanations are serviceable. It also helps that the film is not content merely to provide answers. Rather, Scott and his collaborators use the bait of these revelations to draw the audience to a new line of questions which, by the end of the film, provide a new direction for the franchise which could remain within the same continuity while potentially departing radically in theme and narrative. I would complain only about the final scene of the film – it looks good, but I could have lived without it as it felt an awful lot like tacked-on fanservice.

The cast for the most part manages to avoid being overshadowed by the effects and of effectively making the roles their own rather than simply doing variations on Sigourney Weaver, John Hurt, Harry Dean Stanton, et al. Some of the supporting characters don’t feel as fully developed as those of the original film, but they all get a chance to show at least a little of their personalities. Noomi Rapace is probably most like the Ellen Ripley character of the other films, but she brings a level of vulnerability and intimacy to the role that is distinct from Weaver’s performance – I wouldn’t go so far as to call one better than the other, but both are appropriate to their respective films. Charlize Theron delivers an appropriately cold performance as the corporate representative on the expedition. Yet I hoped for a little more development from her character; the moment that I think was supposed to reveal her motivations was not surprising or meaningful enough to be satisfying. The real standouts of the movie, however, are Idris Elba and Michael Fassbender. Elba, as the captain of the ship, is the closest link to the blue collar characters of Alien, and his pragmatism easily makes him one of the most relatable characters in the film. Fassbender plays the android David as a kind of combination of David Bowie and Peter O’Toole (i.e. The Man Who Fell To Earth meets Lawrence of Arabia). Without going into plot details, I’ll say it’s a pleasure to watch him in action, and his performance raises, for me at least, some interesting questions about the androids in the Alien franchise.

Visually, the film is impressive. The design of the ship, spacesuits, and other technology deliberately evoke the styles and lines of Alien without being bound to the 1970s limitations which informed those designs. Some may complain that this gives the humans of this chronologically earlier film more advanced technology than those of the “later” one. For me it’s all a matter of suspension of disbelief, and I never had trouble buying it. Besides, a trillion-dollar corporate expedition probably WOULD have much better technology than a rickety space truck. For the alien structures and creatures Scott was able to bring in H. R. Giger, designer of the sets and creatures from Alien to expand on those designs and further emphasize continuity with Alien. The film uses a mixture of practical and CGI effects, both of which look as good as I would expect from Weta, and the 3D definitely compliments the sets and effects nicely. There were only a few moments where the CGI crossed the uncanny valley and looked computer generated.

I’ve spent most of this review talking about Prometheus in comparison to Alien. From the interviews I have seen, this is not what the writers and director want me to do. However, the film in structure and content demand it. This is not a bad thing – the film does mostly stand on its own – but be aware that this is a franchise film with some direct connections to the rest of the series. “Prequel” seems to have become something of a dirty word over the years. Yet Prometheus rises above the average prequel by avoiding simply rehashing the existing material. Certainly the formula is still present, yet Scott uses it as a frame to springboard the franchise he helped build into a new, bigger direction. Also, while the film does reveal backstory and offer explanations for events in the original film, it is not content to leave it at that.

As it stands, Prometheus is not as groundbreaking or original as the marketing had led me to believe (but then, what movie is?). Even the thematic elements which separate it from Alien have been tackled in other sci-fi films. 2001, Star Trek (the tv series, at least), Mission to Mars, and even the works of H.P. Lovecraft ask similar questions and in some cases offer similar answers. Despite this, the film succeeds both on the level of being suspenseful and engaging the audience with its existential questions. In recent years science fiction has become more about action-adventure and  space opera. This is not a bad thing (see my glowing review of John Carter), but it is nice to see a film that remembers that science fiction’s great potential is not only to show us the stars, but also to reveal something about ourselves. With all the special effects, spaceships, and scares, this is a film that tries to tackle the question of what makes us human. Does it succeed in answering those questions? Not entirely. But even in making that effort I think Prometheus is a film worth watching, and in leaving some of its questions unanswered there is the potential for a sequel which could totally break from the Alien formula. Should that sequel come to be, I will welcome it. Until then, I think I am content to revel in the unanswered mysteries of Prometheus, just as I did for years with its predecessor.

© Ralph Lawson III, 2012, All Rights Reserved

4 Cosmic Cubes (out of 5)

Iron Man. Thor. Captain America. The Incredible Hulk. The Redhead Spy from Iron Man 2 and That Arrow-Shooty Guy Who Didn’t Do Much in Thor (Okay, yeah, Black Widow and Hawkeye. I know who they are. I’m a comic book reader. I’ll get to my point in a minute). Marvel has been building their cinematic universe for about four years now, and it has all been building to this film. How does that kind of buildup pay off? Pretty damn well for fans of the series and/or the comics.

Joss Whedon deserves a lot of credit for successfully balancing a team of characters (and actors) who are, for the most part, used to headlining their own solo projects. Of course, crafting a balanced ensemble out of strong personalities is one of Whedon’s specialties, right up there with clever, witty banter and creating powerful female characters who fight barefoot. He is helped in part by the existing cinematic storyline, which allows him to reduce most of the character introductions to a kind of shorthand which reminds the audience of the characters’ personalities and styles without retreading too much familiar ground.

The danger in this is that The Avengers really only works if you have seen all of the prior Marvel films (except, perhaps, for the various Hulk movies – all one really must know about Dr. Bruce Banner is that when angered he becomes a not-so-jolly green giant). I’m not saying it is impossible to go into The Avengers cold, but I can’t imagine it’s as much fun if a viewer can’t fill in the blanks. However, for the informed viewer, the movie delivers just what it promises: a band of misfit heroes brought together by a threat that none of them could face alone. That is THE archetypical superhero team-up story, and the key to making it work is escalation. The film introduces villains, both familiar and new, which lead to a scenario in which the heroes’ need to work together is plausible. In upping the stakes, the film takes a typically Whedon-esque approach, using the apparent death of [redacted] to suggest the potential expendability of the characters. While it’s kind of an obvious play, it’s mostly effective and helps maintain tension throughout the last third of the film.

That is in contrast to the first section of the film, which is by far the weakest. The introductory material, especially the pre-title scene, plays out in a very “TV pilot” sort of way. It takes a bit for the film to achieve a pace and scale appropriate to its subject matter. However, once the team is all in one place the movie hits its stride. Robert Downey Jr (Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), and Chris Evans (Captain America) bear less comment, I think, as their performances essentially match those from their solo films. This is not to discount them – they do what they do well; however, this isn’t exactly a surprise. Samuel L. Jackson is given more to do here than in any of the prior Marvel movies, and it is nice to see finally Nick Fury in action. Also interesting is his apparent subservience to a higher governmental power, which I hope will be elaborated on in future films, along with his manipulative, if good-intentioned, management style. Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye) and Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), although introduced in prior films, remain less developed than their more powerful costars. They both deliver solid performances, but I would have liked to see their characters elaborated on. As it stands, their roles ultimately felt less important than those of their fellow Avengers.

Tom Hiddleston also returns as Loki, and he solidifies the villainous turn his character began in Thor. While his motivation of revenge may seem shallow, in some ways it is shallow villainy in the most Shakespearean sense; there is a healthy dose of Iago and Richard III in his character, among others. For me the real standout was Mark Ruffalo, whose Bruce Banner is probably my favorite take on the character since Bill Bixby in the 70s/80s. For the record, I am a fan of both Hulk with Eric Bana and The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton, and each brought their own unique spin to the character. Ruffalo builds on those earlier performances and delivers a Banner who is cursed by his power without being overcome with angst. He provides a surprising amount of humor as Banner, and the film’s approach to Hulk cleverly transitions from horror-esque cinematography to something more heroic and, at times, playful. He is somewhat let down by the Cliff’s Notes approach necessitated by the film, as the Hulk’s transition as a character seems far more abrupt that it should have been, but it doesn’t take much for a viewer to fill in some blanks and make it work. Also, Whedon gets major props for giving Harry Dean Stanton a cameo in one of Ruffalo’s scenes. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, any movie featuring Harry Dean Stanton can’t be all bad.

The film’s effects are quite good, and the 3D was surprisingly effective for a post-conversion. I wouldn’t say it is necessary to pay the extra, but it was a nice enhancement during the battle scenes. During those action sequences, Whedon makes good use of a moving camera, using pans to move from character to character without cutting. In doing so, he visually emphasizes the teamwork of the group and helps to increase the scale of the battle. The CGI was mostly effective, and this version of the Hulk probably looked better than any cinematic attempts thus far.

The plot is somewhat episodic, but that is par for the course when Marvel’s stated goal is a single cinematic continuity. The actors bring their A-game, even those lacking substantial character development. The writing is fun, the action is fast-paced, and the film delivers on its promise to bring together all the existing corners of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. That ambitious goal sometimes leaves the plot stretched a bit thin, but it always maintains its sense of fun. This is not the best Marvel movie, but it is definitely the biggest. In bringing together the existing films, The Avengers sets the stage for an even broader (dare I saycosmic) scope to the Marvel Movieverse, and I look forward to seeing what lies ahead.

(Note – There are TWO postcredits scenes in this one. One occurs in the middle of the credits, and the other at the very end. Be sure to stay for both. It’s worth it.)

 © Ralph Lawson III, 2012, All Rights Reserved

4 1/2 White Apes (out of 5)

John Carter has been a long time coming. I can’t think of many other projects that have been in development, almost nonstop, for as long as Edgar Rice Burroughs’ planetary romance. The first novel, A Princess of Mars was first serialized in 1912 before its full publication in 1917, and a big-budget film adaptation has been in various stages of development since the 1930s. A surprising list of filmmakers, including Bob Clampett, Ray Harryhausen, John McTiernan, Robert Rodriguez, and Jon Favreau, were all attached to the adaptation as it passed from studio to studio over the decades until it finally made it to the screen thanks to Disney and Andrew Stanton.*

An unfortunate side-effect of such an influential story taking so long to be filmed is that its innovations can be (and have been) seen as derivative thanks to all of the subsequent science fiction adventures which have “borrowed” plots, themes, and characters from it. It is not an overstatement to say that without John Carter of Mars there would not have been Dune, Star Wars, Flash Gordon, Avatar, or any number of other sci-fi tales. So any accusation that John Carter is derivative or unoriginal has things backwards, and is more than a little unfair.

An entirely different question would be whether this particular film does the source material justice. I, like most who are familiar with the books, was really underwhelmed by Disney’s bland, uninteresting marketing campaign. Luckily, this proved only that Disney had NO CLUE how to sell this movie and did not in any way reflect the quality of Andrew Stanton’s direction or any of the performances.

I don’t think even the most ardent fan of the novels or the film will be upset when I say that this is not an especially deep movie. There is social commentary, etc, but that is all subtextual and is ultimately secondary to its primary focus (like that of its source) – entertainment. It is in this mode that I think John Carter succeeds. Through its performances, production design, and adherence to the spirit (if not the letter) of the novel, John Carter manages to create a tone that is pulpy without seeming retro or dated, and as science fiction, adventure, sword & sorcery, and even romance, I think it mostly hits the right buttons.

Taylor Kitsch defies his last name and delivers a standout performance as the titular character. His casting was one of many reservations I had going in, but I was happily surprised. He ably embodies Carter’s transition from ex-Confederate soldier to interplanetary übermensch. (It doesn’t hurt that he also fills out a barbarian chestplate & loincloth nicely.) I jest, yet there is something to it – not any actor would look equally at home in ex-Confederate/cowboy attire, tailored 19th century suit, and various Martian outfits. Of course, looks aren’t everything, and Kitsch is quite good at transitioning through Carter’s identities as an outlaw, a stranger in a strange land, a warrior, and a lover. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the film actually manages to give the character more dimension than was present in the novel, which was much more manichean in its depiction of its characters and races.

Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Mars referenced in the novel’s original title, has her moments, but I found her to be the weak link of the cast. She is best when going between the poise and formalism of her royal upbringing and the charisma and aggression she assumes in combat. Some of the character’s more vulnerable moments were less effective. Of course she, like Kitsch, looks perfect in the role, and is certainly believable as a kind of Helen-esque beauty caught at the center of a war.

Other supporting cast members deliver solid performances. Standouts are Willem Dafoe providing voice and motion capture for the Green Martian warrior Tars Tarkas, Mark Strong as Matai Shang – a key character to a subplot not originally present in the first novel, and Dominic West as the villainous Sab Than. These performers are all supported by gorgeous production design that extends to the costumes, locations, weapons, and vehicles.

The CGI in particular was a welcome surprise. The martian creatures – especially the Green Martians (Tharks) – fit into the world of Mars/Barsoom without having to look photoreal. The filmmakers made a deliberate choice to find a middle ground between realism and the high fantasy style of the various book covers, paintings, and comic books which the John Carter stories have inspired. Is it perfect? Of course not – no CGI is; yet it manages to allow the actors’ performances to show through. It allows live characters to interact relatively believably with CGI characters. And, most importantly, it allowed me as a viewer to be pulled into the story without being distracted by obvious or unsatisfying effects. I found myself to be just as invested in the CGI characters as I was the live action ones – up to and including Carter’s dog-like companion Woola, who could have easily been another Jar-Jar Binks.

As I mentioned, the film is not without some substance beyond its action/adventure. Because Stanton and the writers (thankfully) chose to retain the novel’s post-Civil War setting, the film explores issues of loss, expansion, imperialism, and race – even if only tangentially. Yet this is balanced by a sense of humor that caught me off guard (in a good way). I found myself laughing with the movie much more than I ever expected. Best of all, the filmmakers manage such moments of levity without making itself a punchline or fully giving over to camp.

I realize now that I have gone out of my way to avoid the specifics of the plot. On some level I suppose this is unnecessary, since (as I have noted) it has been cribbed from so many times over the years that there probably won’t be too many surprises. Yet in spite of that, and in spite of having read the books, I thoroughly enjoyed being pulled into the world of Barsoom. Its action, its pacing, its visual style, its (surprising) sense of humor, and its performances make John Carter the kind of big budget genre adventure that rarely gets made anymore. More character-driven than the Star Wars prequels and less didactic than Avatar, John Carter is refreshing in its dedication to being fun above all else. I sincerely hope the box office is profitable enough to give Disney the confidence to put a sequel into production. I would love to see more of Kitsch as Carter exploring Stanton’s vision of Barsoom, and besides - John Carter: the Gods of Mars is a hell of a good title.

Bonus – 1930s test footage for an animated John Carter of Mars

Had it been produced, the MGM/Bob Clampett adaptation could very well have beaten Snow White and the Seven Dwarves to become the first feature-length animated film.

 © Ralph Lawson III, 2012, All Rights Reserved

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

&

Mission: Impossible
Ghost Protocol

4 Silenced Walther PPKs (out of 5)

This past weekend I saw both Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol. Rarely have I seen two films technically of the same genre, yet almost entirely different in tone, style, and plot. However, both films do what they do very well, and present interestingly contrasting interpretations of the spy genre.

Confession: I am a fan of John le Carré – especially the George Smiley books – and so that will necessarily cloud my response to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Tinker, Tailor in particular has always struck me as a difficult story to adapt specifically because it goes out of its way to depict espionage in a very anti-James Bond sort of way. Gary Oldman gives an impressively subdued performance as aging spy George Smiley. Oldman as Smiley is as deliberately and methodically paced as the film itself, as shown by an opening sequence which goes on for several minutes before his character speaks. Other casting highlights include John Hurt as Control, Benedict Cumberbatch (from the BBC Sherlock series) as Smiley’s assistant, and Mark Strong, Tom Hardy, Toby Jones, and Colin Firth in key supporting roles. In other words, it’s a veritable who’s who of currently popular British actors.

This cast is key to the film’s success. Unlike most contemporary spy films (Bourne, Bond, Mission: Impossible, etc), this film – like the novel on which it is based, sets out a very real and mundane vision of British espionage. The spies presented here deal with paperwork, archives of documents, and bureaucratic meddling with nary an explosion or gadget in sight. When shots are fired, it is jarring and decidedly not fetishized. The spies of the Circus are real people who face real consequences for their actions, both right and wrong. The film impressively condenses the events of the admittedly dense novel to feature-length, preserving its tone and style even as it necessarily omits or glosses over some elements of the plot. Unfortunately, at times the film can be heavy with spy jargon and light on definitions or explanations, which may be confusing to those who have not read the novel.

In spite of that drawback, the film admirably addresses issues which are typically presented only superficially in spy movies. Namely, it makes the bureaucratic hierarchy of spy organizations, loyalty, and the control/flow of intelligence central to the plot. As a result, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is focused almost entirely on the internal conflicts and affairs within a spy agency, with international missions existing only as a fraction of the espionage game.

I’ve heard various friends and critics call Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy boring and incomprehensible. However, I had no trouble following the film or maintaining interest in the plot even though it has been easily five years since I read the novel. While it lacks explosions, gunfights, and anything resembling the quick-cut style that has come to dominate post-Bourne Identity spy films, it is unlike any other recent spy film in its treatment of character and politics. It requires a greater attention span than the average film of its genre, but is well worth the effort. I sincerely hope it leads to adaptations of other novels in the series, ideally with the same or a similar cast.

Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol is, on the other hand, much more what would be expected from a spy movie. Unlike Tinker, Tailor, but in keeping with the prior three films of the M:I franchise, the emphasis is more on action with any subtle attempts at espionage quickly failing and giving way to brute force. Tom Cruise returns as Ethan Hunt, top agent for the IMF, and Simon Pegg is back as the team’s tech guy. For me, however, the highlight was newcomer to the series Jeremy Renner as agent/analyst William Brant. It seems to me this new character is being set up as a key player in a continuing M:I franchise, with Ethan Hunt moving up to more of a leadership role. This makes Mr. Renner a very busy action hero; in addition to this film, he will be featured in the upcoming The Avengers and The Bourne Legacy, which are also expected to lead to sequels.

Especially impressive for this film was the live action feature debut of director Brad Bird (The Incredibles). Under his direction, the film manages the fast pace and energetic camera movement which is to be expected from contemporary action films. Yet he manages this without resorting to the kind of incomprehensibly fast cutting that makes films like Quantum of Solace so difficult to watch. Honestly, one of my favorite moments of the film is the opening credit sequence, which takes the form of the opening of the TV series (clips pulled from the week’s episode hinting at events to come, intercut with the iconic burning fuse) and updates it with current filmmaking techniques and a lovely interpretation of Lalo Schifrin’s theme song arranged by composer Michael Giacchino. The result makes this film, more than any of the other sequels, feel connected to the history of the franchise. However, rather than dating or weakening the film, Bird uses this connection positively, to show how Mission: Impossible can continue to be relevant as a franchise while staying true to its 1960s roots.

What surprised me most about this Mission: Impossible film was the amount of humor – especially at Tom Cruise’s expense. I lost count of how many times one of Hunt’s otherwise cool-looking stunts went wrong, usually ending with the master spy banging his head on something. The sense of humor is also aided by the continued presence of Simon Pegg’s character, whose function (in addition to providing the team with plenty of technobabble and gadgets) is to lighten the mood with his charming mix of sarcasm and typically English self-deprecation.

As with all the M:I films, there are some logical gaps (though none so bad as M:I 2) yet in this case they do not detract in any meaningful way from the film’s entertainment value. While I think my favorite of the series is still the first (directed by Brian DePalma), this one is easily the best of the sequels, and I look forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here.

So that’s that – two almost totally different spy films seen in one weekend. Both are a lot of fun, although clearly M:I4 is the one set to appeal to a broader audience. That is a shame, though, because as fun as the cast of that film is, it pales in comparison to the all-star cast of Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Your mission, should you choose to accept it…is to see both. Trust me – they’re quite good.

Note: In support of the SOPA/PIPA protests on 1/18/12, this blog will go dark from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

© Ralph Lawson III, 2012, All Rights Reserved

Trey’s rating: 5 mighty shields (out of 5)

So often when a superhero movie comes out, both studio & press rush to compare it to prior successes. Thus, we were sold Green Lantern as being kinda like Iron Man, but with outer space & aliens, and references are already being made to how The Amazing Spider-Man will take the Spider-Man franchise more into the realm of The Dark Knight. A valid comparison (that nobody but me seemed to be making, probably because I’m the only one who doesn’t think it an insult) was that Marvel’s earlier film this summer, Thor, owes more than a little to 80s sci-fi/fantasy superhero movie Masters of the Universe. However, it is with great pleasure that I say Captain America: the First Avenger is unique on the increasingly crowded list of superhero films.

What makes this film stand apart from its predecessors, and what I appreciate most about it, has little to do with explosions, special effects, or Nazis getting punched (although those are all cool too). Captain America, both character and film, radiates pure unadulterated optimistic idealism. It’s not about revenge (like Batman) nor is the character spurred on by guilt or redemption (Iron Man, Thor). It’s not even really about killing Nazis (see the other fairly recent alternate history WW2 movie, Inglourious Basterds). Captain America: the First Avenger is about stopping bullies and standing up for (in the words of the film) “the little guy.” Steve Rogers isn’t a man with the money, means or power to fight much of anything, but he never gives up or backs down. For his persistence he is offered the chance to pursue his dream of serving his country and standing up for good in the face of evil. Yes, I realize the way I’ve written it sounds pretty corny, and I suppose that it is, but the film is so sincere in its ideals that it virtually obliterates any trace of cynicism (Superman producers – I hope you’re paying attention!).

As one would expect, the version of World War 2 presented here is not exactly historically accurate. But then, that’s not really the point. The laser guns, energy weapons, super tanks, and dual-flamethrower-wielding soldiers in creepy costumes all serve to depict the Allies as “the little guy,” technologically outmatched by HYDRA’s superior weaponry. The film takes what it needs from the period – visual style (LOVED the Stark Expo! – and was that a Human Torch cameo I detected?), dialogue, music (ALSO LOVED the USO sequences), and setting, and then infuses it with the stylized comic book sensibility that has defined the other recent Marvel films.

Chris Evans is perfectly cast as Steve Rogers/Captain America. He totally embraces the genuineness of the character, but without making him wooden or boring. His Rogers is a hero who never thinks about how heroic he is, and that naive selflessness is a big part of his appeal. Hugo Weaving is also very good as the Red Skull, the Nazi/HYDRA counterpoint to Captain America. His German accent somewhat reminded me of Christoph Waltz’s character from Inglourious Basterds, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Most importantly, the makeup/visual effects used to create his disfigured appearances are very good – they create the look of the character from the comic without sacrificing any of the actor’s performance. What is really striking about the film is how good the supporting cast is. Stanley Tucci is surprisingly effective as the Einstein-like scientist who creates the super soldier formula. Sebastian Stan as “Bucky” Barnes is a standout, and it is his place by the hero’s side that helps define who Rogers is and what he becomes. Hayley Atwell, as British agent Peggy Carter, provides the necessary romantic subplot, but more importantly serves as the female embodiment of the same idealistic qualities that define Captain America. Dominic Cooper is fun in a minor role as Howard Stark (father of Tony Stark/Iron Man), who is sort of like Tony Stark crossed with Howard Hughes. The Howling Commandos don’t get a lot of dialogue, but they’re delightful as the squadron willing to follow Rogers into the gates of hell if necessary. Best of all, Tommy Lee Jones is the perfect actor to play the gruff-yet-endearing Colonel Phillips. One scene in particular, an interrogation that features Jones chowing down on his prisoner’s steak dinner, could be a metaphor for his whole performance; he spends most of the film stealing scenes & chewing scenery – and I wouldn’t have it any other way!

As a side note, I saw the film in 3D. While I wouldn’t say that it’s worth paying the extra for, I thought the post-production conversion was better than usual and was especially fun during the big action sequences. However, there were a few things I wish had been handled differently story-wise. I’m very much on the fence about the bookends to the film proper – especially the opening. I understand the reasoning for it, but I can’t help but think it gives away too much of where the film is going before it has even begun. I’m always an advocate of more screen time for Hugo Weaving, and he really wasn’t given as much to do as the Red Skull as I would have liked. I totally understand the danger of letting the villain overshadow the hero (see: virtually every Batman movie ever), but I think he could have been given a little more to do. Last, and this really is a minor detail, I really wish there had been at least a nod to the superhero identity of British soldier James Montgomery Falsworth.  In the film he is merely one of the Howling Commandos, but in the comics he is British hero Union Jack. I’m not saying he needed the full costume, but maybe just the flag somewhere on his uniform, or maybe being nicknamed “Union Jack” by the American soldiers, or something. Of course at that point you might as well work in the rest of the Invaders team that he & Captain America were on…but now I’m really diving deep into the bottomless pit of continuity. UPDATE: Upon second viewing (and thanks to the keen eyesight of a friend), it has been determined that James Falsworth does in fact have a Union Jack crest on his beret – but it can be hard to make out except in close up.

In any case, you can see how much I have to nitpick just to find things I don’t like about the film. The point I’m trying to make is you should go see it. I’m already trying to figure out if/when I can see it again. I’ll go ahead and call it here – Captain America: the First Avenger ties with Super 8 for best summer movie of 2011. There are still a couple months to go, so I suppose that could change, but I’ll be very surprised if it does. And don’t forget to stay all the way through the end credits!

© Ralph Lawson III, 2011, All Rights Reserved

Trey’s rating: 4 Spielbergs (out of 5)

It has been said that with North by Northwest Alfred Hitchcock made the quintessential Hitchcock film by intentionally filling it with as many “Hitchcock moments” – tropes, gags, and sequences that had become associated with the director throughout his career – as he could.  Love it or hate it, J. J. Abrams appears to have set out to make the quintessential Steven Spielberg movie.

I went out of my way to know as little as possible going into this movie.  I’m vaguely aware that there was viral marketing and such, but if it wasn’t in a theatrical trailer, I didn’t see it.  In deference to those who, like me, want that sort of movie experience, I’ll do my best to avoid too much plot summary or spoilers.  In making his late 70s/80s Spielbergian sci-fi movie, Abrams utilizes virtually every trope that Spielberg combined in films such as E.T., Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and even his more recent work.  Thus, you get some unresolved daddy issues, untrustworthy government/military types, kids who are more observant/knowledgeable than the adults, and some others I won’t go into.  The movie evokes a time when movies weren’t afraid to allow kids to talk like kids (unrestrained cursing and all), and a time when a character could almost get away with blaming the Russians with a straight face.

The movie is at its best when it deals with (I’m choosing my words carefully here) the human element.  The kids are all very good, and considering how much of the story unfolds from their point of view, it could have easily gone wrong.  Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning (sister of Dakota) were easily my favorite actors in the film, and when all the kids are together it plays like a quirky combination of The Goonies and the autobiographical anecdotes of Sam Raimi & Bruce Campbell.  The adult actors are also good, although they are given substantially less to do, and their characters don’t get the same level of development as the kids.

It is not too far off the mark to think of the movie as Stand By the Goonies’ Close Encounter of the E.T. Kind, or some other hodgepodge of Spielberg (and Spielberg-ish) properties.  This is both Super 8‘s blessing and its curse.  It evokes the kind of science fiction film that simply isn’t made anymore, and a big part of that is that, like in the best of Spielberg’s films, it seldom loses sight of its human characters.  However, in the 70s and 80s, this made Spielberg’s films unique, and dare I say groundbreaking.  Here, the best Abrams can really hope for is accomplishing a semblance of what Spielberg did.  I don’t necessarily think this is bad – it’s a kind of film that has not been made in years, and for people who didn’t grow up watching Spielberg movies it could certainly seem like something new.  However, the end result for me was a warm blanket of nostalgia.

As far as real negative impressions, I thought the weakest part of the film was the science fiction element.  The designs are all good (if a little too similar to the kind of things seen in other Abrams-related films Star Trek and Cloverfield), but I really wish there had been more practical effects.  It’s not that the CGI was poorly done – it actually fit in with the rest of the footage pretty well – but I just would have liked to see some animatronics or puppet work, at least for some of the shots.  In the end, I didn’t feel any of those sequences leave me with the sense of wonder that I felt I was supposed to be getting.  In fact, it felt like there could have been a whole other alternate movie that just followed the kids as they worked on their movie throughout the summer (and I would have watched and enjoyed that one as well).  I guess (maybe because of the CGI, maybe because Abrams was trying so hard to evoke Spielberg) the sci-fi scenes felt a little too calculated and pre-planned.  A lot of the jumps and scares were predictable, and it lacked the sense of unpredictability that would have made the movie pitch-perfect.  They’re still fun to watch, and exciting to a point, but those elements are, for me, what kept this from getting a 5 out of 5.

Super 8 is a film that struggles with the double-edged sword of nostalgia.  It is one of the most original summer movies I’ve seen in a while (maybe since District 9), but without being directly connected to any one prior film it consciously owes much of its thematic and stylistic material to the Spielberg filmography.  In trying to make the archetypical Spielberg film Abrams mostly succeeds, although more with the normal suburban situations than with the science fiction elements.  I think Abrams allowed himself to be boxed in by adhering too closely to a Spielbergian template, which at times led to scenes too controlled and preplanned to work as well as they should (come to think of it, I have had similar complaints about some of Spielberg’s later work).  However, as a fan of all the movies Super 8 pays tribute to, I had a lot of fun watching it.  Now I just need to set aside some time to revisit some of my favorite Spielberg sci-fi movies, starting with my favorite: Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  My advice is this: Go see Super 8. Take a friend who is unfamiliar with 70s/80s Spielberg. If they like it, get them to watch E.T. and/or Close Encounters.  If Super 8 has a legacy, that will be it – a fun, sincere tribute to a particularly creative period in an auteur’s career.  (Also – keep watching during the credits. You’ll be glad you did.)

© Ralph Lawson III, 2011, All Rights Reserved

Trey’s rating: 3 Furry Blue Geniuses Piloting Supersonic Jets (out of 5)

I’ll be honest – I’m not the biggest fan of the X-Men, in print or on the screen.  In general the franchise tends to suffer from an unbalanced ratio of character quantity to level of character depth, as well as some very complicated continuity, which makes even the most basic exposition difficult.  Add to that the fact that the last two X-movies were decidedly sub-par (read: GARBAGE), and you’ll understand that it was with some hesitation that I went into the theater to watch X-Men First Class.

Surprisingly, this movie is pretty entertaining.  Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are both well cast as the young, 1960s version of Magneto and Professor Xavier, and the film is at its strongest when it follows their respective exploits.  McAvoy’s Charles Xavier comes across as more human (for want of a better word) than Patrick Stewart’s – I don’t think this is entirely a performance issue, as Stewart was very good in the previous X-movies.  However, in First Class the younger Xavier is shown joking, drinking, hitting on women in pubs – essentially offering a glimpse of the life that would later be totally replaced by his duties at the School for Gifted Youngsters.  Similarly, Fassbender’s Magneto is more physical than Ian McKellan’s could ever have been.  For the first section of the film, the newly revised and elaborated backstory given to Magneto plays kind of like a 1960s extension of Inglourious Basterds – with Magneto traveling the world to hunt former Nazis.

Unfortunately, the “original” team of gifted youngsters (mostly made up of mutants who didn’t show up until much later in the comics) are not nearly so compelling.  Most of them are given little development, and – whether an issue of performance quality or lack of material – the actors mostly failed to impress me.  It was with these characters (especially Mystique and Beast) where much of the same ground was covered as the previous X-Men films.  In other words, it follows the same ‘young people trying to come to terms with being different from others’ scenario that worked so well for Bryan Singer.  Beyond that, their interactions, reversals, and betrayals never ring particularly true and have almost no major impact on the plot.  Along with that, their dialogue, especially when it functions to try and work in “code names” and such from the comics, just comes across as clunky and awkward.

As a comic book fan I think Kevin Bacon was an inspired choice for the role of Sebastian Shaw, and he makes a threatening and interesting villain.  Sadly I felt the character became less effective as the film went on, and nothing later in the film even came close to topping his introductory scene.  His supporting villains (as with any X-movie the villains like working on teams as much as the heroes) look very cool, but lack anything resembling real characterization.  The next largest villain role is January Jones as telepath and unofficial Tifffany & Co. spokesperson Emma Frost.  She is given less motivation or development than Shaw, and I suspect was mostly present because she’s a fairly well-known character (having appeared anachronistically as a younger character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and because she is mostly known for wearing white lingerie.  The other villains, Azazel (older, taller, more vicious red-skinned version of Nightcrawler) and Riptide (who can throw tornadoes at people) are there purely for fight scenes and “cool” factor.  In fact, Azazel barely speaks and I don’t think Riptide spoke at all.

When the film works, it is because of the strength of the performances by James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Kevin Bacon.  Luckily, the movie spends a lot of time with them.  Also, director Vaughn does a great job of evoking the 1960s period, and the retro style goes a long way toward adding to the sci-fi/adventure vibe.  Of course, it totally oversimplifies the complexities of US-Soviet relations in the time leading up to the Cuban missile crisis, but you can’t go into an X-Men movie expecting Thirteen Days.  I appreciated the more comic book-style blue & yellow costumes, which were much more colorful and eye-catching than the black leather look of the earlier films, and the production and costumes in general used the period to great effect to make things vibrant within the context of the 1960s a la James Bond (Speaking of which, I am officially going on the record saying that Michael Fassbender should replace Daniel Craig as the next James Bond – I don’t care if he’s half German).  There is also a very fun cameo which I won’t spoil here except to say that it is the best use of the one-time-only PG-13 F-bomb that I have ever seen.

I haven’t watched the original three X-movies recently, but I am willing to say that I enjoyed First Class at least as much as my prior favorite, X2 – and possibly even more.  In some ways I am reminded of Batman Begins, which in retrospect has a lot of flaws mostly related to its emphasis on the origin story.  I don’t think it’s as good as the more recent Marvel output like Iron Man or Thor (the X-franchise is still controlled by Fox), but it is certainly an improvement over X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine.  This seems to be the summer for less conventional comic book genre hybrids, with the fantasy-based Thor, period sci-fi/action X-Men: First Class and Captain America, and the even more sci-fi Green Lantern all being released within months or even weeks of each other.  X-Men: First Class is a solid, if flawed, release which gives me hope both for the summer and for the future continuation of the franchise – so long as McAvoy and Fassbender can be retained as Professor Xavier and Magneto.  And maybe by then the writers/producers will be willing to use some proper characters, like Cyclops, Angel (not to be confused with the female character in this film), or Jean Grey/Marvel Girl – but let’s leave Wolverine to his own franchise, okay?

© Ralph Lawson III, 2011, All Rights Reserved

Trey’s Rating:  4 Agent Coulsons (out of 5)

The start of summer (which has actually crept pretty far into late spring this year) means blockbuster season has begun. Once again Marvel is kicking off the season with their first of two (three if you count X-Men: First Class – which I don’t) superhero movies: The Mighty Thor. As with Marvel’s other recent films, Thor serves as an introduction to the title character, along with his powers, backstory, supporting characters, and (most importantly to Marvel) his connection to the rest of the Marvel movieverse.

This clearly invites comparison with the other movies of the franchise, and I must admit that Thor holds his own admirably. I’m not even really sure such a comparison is fair, as it plays with somewhat different generic material than its predecessors. Iron Man, its sequel, and Incredible Hulk were all squarely in a quasi-realistic (qualified to allow for giant green radioactive monsters and powered suits of flying armor) science fiction setting. By contrast, Thor for obvious reasons draws more from the magic and fantasy of Norse mythology as filtered through the comics of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby (along with all the writers and artists who came after them). If I had to place it cinematically, I would say Thor owes a lot to the action fantasy movies of the 1980s – and I mean that in a good way.

I can’t help but think a lot of the film’s success is due to the direction of Kenneth Branagh. The various elements of the film – magic, action, comedy, romance, etc – are all balanced fairly well, and he maintains a tone that allows the emotions to always feel genuine without the movie ever taking itself too seriously. I wouldn’t say that it is a perfect movie, or even a perfect superhero movie. Natalie Portman’s character has an intern who exists solely to deliver comic relief which I found to be mostly unnecessary. The film has a fun sense of humor without relying on one-liner interjections which at best distract from the plot and at worst will end up dating the movie through topical references (re: “I’m totally posting this to Facebook!”). I figure she is supposed to be the ‘blank slate’ character for the audience to relate to, but I just don’t see what she accomplished that Portman as Jane Foster didn’t accomplish better. Also, a certain Avenger makes a cameo during a key scene in the film, only to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They might as well have paused the film and had Marvel producer Kevin Feige walk onscreen to say “Hey, don’t forget – we’re setting all of these characters up for a big team movie!” That said, it was cool to see the character in costume. I just wish that the scene hadn’t felt so superfluous. I’m pretty sure every shot featuring the cameo character could be edited out of the film and the sequence would still make perfect sense – I would bet that anyone not familiar with The Avengers or Marvel comics in general would be at least somewhat confused by the character showing up and not doing anything. The cameo scene is indicative of a problem with the movie as a whole; the SHIELD subplot feels like it was added solely to quickly connect Thor to the Avengers movie and in the process give the movie one or two extra action scenes. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but because of that recurring character Agent Coulson didn’t really get much to do. I suppose we have reached the point of no return in the Marvel movieverse: if you have not seen the earlier films in the franchise, there are references you will miss.

What really held the film together were the performances. Chris Hemsworth is just about perfect as Thor. I remember being impressed by his performance as George Kirk in the opening of Star Trek (2009), and I think after this film his name will be thrown around a lot more frequently. He pulls off just the right combination of confident swagger and naïve sincerity, and (maybe most importantly for a superhero movie like this) he looks really good in the costume. Natalie Portman plays Jane Foster who, for the purposes of the movie, has been reimagined as a scientist investigating strange phenomena in New Mexico. She is accompanied by her assistant Darcy (Kat Dennings) and her colleague Dr. Erik Selvig (the always watchable Stellan Skarsgard). I’ve already expressed my disdain for the assistant’s role as comic relief, but Portman and Skarsgard are very good. They bring humanity to a film that would otherwise be all CGI action and explosions, and their presence is a pretty big part of what makes the film work. Of course, being a huge Stellan Skarsgard fan I always wish for him to have a bigger role, but as it was the earth scenes balanced pretty nicely with the Asgardian scenes. The Asgardians all are very good, especially Tom Hiddleston as Loki and Anthony Hopkins as Odin. Thor’s companions, Sif (Jaimie Alexander) and the Warriors Three (Ray Stevenson, Tadanobu Asano, and Joshua Dallas – who seemed to be doing an impression of Cary Elwes doing an impression of Errol Flynn), are also fun, if a little underdeveloped. Rounding out the Asgardian cast is Rene Russo as Odin’s wife Frigga and Idris Elba as Heimdall, guardian of the bifrost bridge. Needless to say, this paragraph is driving my spellchecker insane.

As one would expect from a major superhero movie, the special effects are a major selling point. In the case of Thor, there is a pretty good balance between realism and stylization. There are a few battle shots, especially early in the film, that look like they could have been taken from a video game, but overall the effects work and are appropriate for the tone of the movie. I opted not to see the 3D version, so I cannot comment directly on its quality. I will say that I didn’t feel I missed anything by seeing it in 2D, and I would imagine that the 3D process would have a detrimental effect on color and visibility – especially in the darker, less well-lit scenes.

Thor is a worthy addition to the Marvel movieverse, and manages to both hold its own as a standalone film and leave me excited for the Captain America and Avengers films. It mostly sticks to a traditional superhero origin, although the mythological elements allow for some more theatrical, dare-I-say-Shakespearean developments – especially concerning Thor’s relationship with his family. I think this is one of those superhero movies that manages to introduce and integrate comic book continuity without being too beholden to it; in other words, it should please both fans and casual viewers alike.   Also, as with all the previous Marvel movies, be sure to stay after the credits for a tie-in to the next couple of movies.  It even delves into some serious James Bond territory with a “Thor will return in The Avengers” credit.  Verily, by Odin’s beard I declare this movie to be good!

© Ralph Lawson III, 2011, All Rights Reserved

I think this speaks for itself.  These are the films which, I believe, have made the greatest contribution to cinema both as an entertainment medium and an art form.  I won’t be going into too much detail – I’ll save that for the individual reviews.  Instead, think of this as a preview of things to come on the blog.

Last of the Wild Horses (1948)

This classical Western has everything going for it – authentic sets & locations, thrilling action, and even a healthy dose of comic relief.  The story of a cowboy wrongfully accused of murder, the film transcends its formula by introducing some nonlinear elements.  It’s all very impressive, and could even be said to rival Shane for the title of best Western of the classical period.

Santa Claus (1959)

Santa Claus is a perennial holiday classic from Mexico, and it perfectly captures the spirit of the season.  Just like in the children’s stories we know and love, Santa Claus teams up with Merlin to stop the Devil from corrupting the children of the world.  It’s heartwarming, sentimental, and occasionally exciting.  Plus the film utilizes some truly innovative special effects, especially for the reindeer.

Space is the Place

This is a science-fiction film unlike all other science fiction films.  It has action, music, sensuality, and some very impressive special effects.  But the real focus is the philosophical/metaphysical debate which is carried out throughout the film.  Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the standout performance by the film’s star, Sun Ra.  Space is the Place rivals even 2001 for the title of most cerebral sci-fi film.

From Justin to Kelly

Forget Chicago.  Forget Moulin Rouge!.  This is the film that resurrected the movie musical and placed it into a context which contemporary audiences can appreciate.  Like the best movie musicals, this is at its heart a love story, set at a time that everyone can relate to – Spring Break.  The songs are catchy, the choreography is entertaining, and the performances are compelling.  If you doubt that this synthesis of cool television personalities, fun pop music, and stylish music video-style editing has defined the contemporary movie musical, look no further than the incredibly successful (and equally entertaining) High School Musical trilogy.

Robot Monster

Don’t let the simplistic title fool you – Robot Monster is an intelligently-written, thought-provoking monster movie.  Set in a post-apocalyptic future, the last remaining humans (one of whom is played by Golden Globe-winning George Nader) are besieged by a monstrous invader from another planet.  What results is a film that weighs the importance of individuality versus authority and emotion versus pure logic.  The stereoscopic 3D used in the film is of especially high quality and likely rivals anything produced using contemporary formats.  Also, it has a fantastic score by legendary composer Elmer Bernstein.

These are all incredibly important films, both to me personally and to the cinematic medium, and I have certainly not done them justice here.  However, I promise to you now that each film on this list will receive its own individual review.  Until then, I certainly recommend that if you are not familiar with any of these films that you seek them out and watch for yourselves – you will NOT be disappointed.

© Ralph Lawson III, 2011, All Rights Reserved

APRIL FOOLS!!!!!