Star Wars blogs 1: Episode IV A New Hope

This is the first in a series of five video blogs documenting my impressions of watching the Star wars films in the, now famous, Machete order (4,5,2,3,6). Enjoy!

Curse of the Demon (1958) Review

Jacques Tourneur is arguably the most underrated director of the classic film era. His sense of light, shadow, and storytelling is on par with directors like Wilder and Hitchcock but he worked on much less prestigious and expensive projects. His early Val Lewton produced chillers Cat People and I Walked With a Zombie reused sets from previous films. His classic film noir Out of the Past was a B picture that has received A status. Arguably his coolest film however, is Curse of the Demon made in Britain in 1958.

Curse of the Demon is one of those filmic gems that makes one realize just how incredible and diverse the output was during the Hollywood studio system . It's a movie that very few have heard of let alone seen and yet its better than most of its classic horror brethren. It stars Dana Andrews as a Psychiatrist who is traveling to London for a convention but discovers when he gets there that his London colleague has died unexpectedly while investigating a cult of Satanists led by a suave and sinister leader. Needless to say things soon become sinister for our hero and his duel of wits with the leader will lead both of them to the brink, Oh and there's a demonic creature and some ancient symbols involved too,

What is so cool about this film is how unabashedly pulpy it is. It involves curses, cults, demons, and luxurious mansions. It has a tone at some points humorless, at others thrilling, and at still others utterly terrifying. Tourneur pulls out all the stops in the directorial department. His ability to create a tense situation and to build that tension to the breaking point is part of what makes him an incredibly effective director. That, and his use of shadows and beautiful black and white cinematography. The shadows are beautiful in both their atmospheric and otherworldly quality.

While working in the Lewton horror unit Tourneur had to work with what little was at his disposal. On this film he is aided by the wonderful Ken Adam. Ken Adam is the production designer who created the look of the first James Bond films. His style has an elegance and modernity that is rarely ever created so effectively. This film works because the pulpiness of the story is brought off with such sophistication. A lot of the credit for this is due to Ken Adam.

Apparently Tourneur didn't want the audience to ever see the Demon but the producer put shots of the creature in afterward. This is a shame as the weakest point of this film is the dated look of the creature. It shows up sparingly however, and it has a classic charm to it like the rest of the film. Rarely have horror films been as pulpy, sophisticated, or fun as Curse of the Demon. This is one to savor and enjoy on a dark autumn evening with a favorite beverage 4.5/51

Bridge of Spies (2015) Review

Steven Spielberg is probably the most recognizable movie director in the industry. He made his name on blockbusters like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark in the 1970s and 80s'. Today, He devotes most of his movies to biopics of historical figures. With Bridge of Spies he continues this tradition in fine form even if nothing in the movie is particularly spectacular.

Tom Hanks plays James B. Donavan a highly skilled attorney who soon finds himself being asked to defend an accused Soviet spy. While reluctant at first, Donavan eventually comes to respect the accused and his right to a defense. The climate of the time however puts everybody against Donavan including his family. The plot eventually involves the U2 incident and sees Donavan in East Berlin, how he gets there will be for you to find out.

There's something very old-fashioned about Bridge of Spies. Hanks' character with his lofty ideals and down-to-earth manner is played by Tom Hanks in a way that channels Jimmy Stewart in a Frank Capra film. The pacing and style of the film also evoke a timeless feel. this feeling also pervaded Lincoln. there is some nice sharp humor provided by the Coen's script and moments of intensity are punctuated by moments of levity.

The performances are entertaining and in some cases excellent. Hanks carries the film well and in a way that makes him easy to identify with, again this evokes Jimmy Stewart. the supporting cast turn in fine performances in what really becomes a cold war epic. This epic quality may be the film's strongest point. Through this story Spielberg is able to explore many aspects of the cold war and view the conflict from many angles. The production design helps to bring this point home with its attention to detail.

While all of the above are points in the film's favor this viewer couldn't help feeling that the whole was really good but not excellent. One reason for this is that the script hits the right notes almost too perfectly. In some scenes I could figure out exactly what would come next. This predictability probably won't be an issue for many viewers but with the number of great and unpredictable films I've seen so far this year it was a point against this film for me.

Overall, Spielberg's direction is on form and he tells the story in an exciting and evocative way. He does it so well that he makes it seem as if he isn't even behind the camera. bridge of spies has great direction, good performances and an energetic and witty, if slightly too predictable, script. It's a very good film 4/51

Meru (2015) review

It's been far too long since I have written a blog post. This time of year tends to be particularly busy, but now I plan to be back with a vengeance, beginning with my review of the outstanding documentary Meru.

Meru tells the incredible story of three climbers and their journey up one of the most difficult ascents in the world. To say any more about what happens would be to ruin one of the most exciting stories I have witnessed on film this year, fiction or non fiction.

Meru is filmed in a style that  allows the audience to be both an observer of the climbers incredible feats and right there in the center of the action. It's incredible to think that the film was even made at all. To have to deal with cameras, no matter how small, on a journey of this difficulty seems incredible. But, thankfully, cameras were brought along on this journey every step of the way.

Meru succeeds primarily because of how incredible its story is. To say why the story is so incredible would be to spoil the film. If this had been a fiction film I would have found it unbelievable. The story also unfolds in a way that works on a very emotional level, hitting beats at the right moment. There must have been hours of footage to go through and the editing is expert. Interviews are placed at the right moments and never slow down the action like some interviews in films of this sort can.

The other aspect of Meru that makes it a one-of-a-kind film experience is the way that the story lets us ask questions of what these guys are doing and why they do it. These men are risking their lives for what? that question pervades the film and it will continued to be pondered by anyone who sees this incredible achievement. There is something about this documentary that feels special. It should be experienced on a big screen and with as little about it known to the viewer as possible 5/5!

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015) Review

This is the year of the spy. More specifically it is the year of the retro-spy, the secret agent personified by Sean Connery on the big screen and by many other dashing heroes on the small one. This will become apparent to anyone who sees this new Mission Impossible film in the theater. Directly proceeding the film at my theater was a trailer for both Spectre (the new 007 adventure) and the Man from U.N.C.L.E. (an update of a classic spy TV show) all three of these properties have their origins in the Cold War with the USSR and the last time that all three were on our collective screens was 1967. In that year You Only Live Twice with Sean Connery was released, the Man From U.N.C.L.E. was in its third season (admittedly its worst), and Mission Impossible debuted. Adding to the retro feel is that all three of these properties seem to be going back to their roots. Bond is resurrecting a villainous organization he hasn't faced since 1971, U.N.C. L.E. is set in the 1960s, and this new Mission Impossible brought the classic organization "the Syndicate" up-to-date. I hope for great new outings for both 007 and Napoleon Solo but what is clear is that in 2015 the new Mission Impossible has set the bar very high indeed.

The film's opening tells you everything you need to know about this series in its current form. An airplane carrying some weapons is about to take off and it has to be stopped. There's a whole team trying to stop it but their technology is failing them. Coming to the rescue is Tom Cruise who jumps on the plane just before it takes off and has to hang off the side of the airplane while it takes off. The fact that this stunt was done for real only adds to the entertainment factor and before we know it we're passing the popcorn and the classic theme song is playing. Mission Impossible moves at the break-neck pace that the best blockbusters do. Its twisty plot is woven through impressive stunts and lots of fun. Like its 1960s counterparts no one here will win an award for acting but that's not the point, it's pure entertainment.

One of this new Mission's strongest assets is its strong female character. Ilsa is given complex motives and is never allowed to become marginalized by being "just another love interest". Simon Pegg also excels with both comedic gravitas as well as a good character arc. The action itself is well shot and the stunts are sometimes jaw dropping.

If I have to nitpick it is that the film may be slightly too long. This seems to be a problem with many action films these days. It all works to bring great entertainment though. Forget Mad Max, this is the best action film of the summer so far 4.5/5

Ted 2 (2015) Review

Comedic sequels do not tend to be good. I think there are many reasons for this. One of them is that part of what makes something funny is that it is different. I mean different both in the sense that something can differ from other things of its type, but also in that it can differ from what one was expecting it to be. This uniqueness is strongest when that comedic concept is done for the first time. Not only is it difficult to come up with new ideas and jokes for a sequel but the freshness of the original will not be present. Ted 2 suffers from everything bad comedic sequels suffer from and then some.

I have never been a big Seth MacFarlane fan. I wasn't allowed to watch Family Guy as a kid so when I finally saw that show for the first time I had a lot of other comedy which I had seen, I found it quite underwhelming. I saw the first Ted in a college dorm and was surprised that it was actually pretty funny considering the low opinion I had of Family Guy. Unfortunately, Ted 2 is not only worse than Family Guy, it may be less funny than late period Family Guy.

There are jokes galore here but many fall flat and some don't even make sense. There are also plenty of pop culture nods but they are just that, nods. It's like we're being told  "see how many famous movie scenes I remember". This isn't bad in and of itself but when those homages contain nothing clever or the hint of a joke they become shallow and frustrating.  Also unlike many directors seem to think, watching people smoke marijuana does not by itself constitute a funny joke.

Amidst all of this is a strange plot about Ted trying to gain civil rights. It's played as some sort of allegory for the recent court challenges to gay marriage but it just came off as both ridiculous, in a bad way, and boring to me. Comedic sequels are not easy projects but you have to do better than this 1.5/5

Inside Out (2015) Review

When Walt Disney set out to create the first feature-length animated films he was not merely trying to make colorful films that kids would enjoy and which parents could gleam some slight humor from, rather, he wanted to use animation as a tool that could tell stories live-action couldn't. This spirit of experimentation is visible in the earliest Disney films but as profitability concerns began to play a factor the experimentation was done away with. In its place came quality stories which are fun to watch but which lack the adventurous spark of the earlier efforts. This spirit wouldn't be regained until the 1990s. The studio that would bring it back was not the studio Walt started but rather PIXAR. Regular Disney movies were getting better in the early 90s but Pixar with its CG animation really stepped things up. They made movies from the perspective of toys, a family of superheroes, a rat that could cook, and an elderly man. It felt like Pixar had taken up Walt's legacy and wasn't letting go. Then, a string of mediocre films made us doubt whether animation would ever reach that original glory ever again. I am very pleased to report that with their latest, Inside Out, Pixar had ended their losing streak and achieved one of their most decisive victories.

Inside Out tells the story of the emotions inside an 11 year old girl's head. These emotions are each embodied by a character and run her brain from a control room. When the girl, Riley, moves from her hometown to San Francisco the action begins. I don't want to spoil what happens for anybody that hasn't seen the film, but needless to say the plot will involve new challenges for all of the emotions as they deal with the move.

The plot of this film is outwardly simple and inwardly intricate. It's a riveting piece of storytelling that allows for the audience to get an all access tour of Riley's head. The film excels in detailed symbolism which is so good that I almost chuckled at how clever some of it was. There are explanations given for how dreams are made and why songs get stuck in our heads as well as an exploration of abstract thought. All of this scenery propels the story forward, but it also adds depth. Sure, kids will find it colorful and exciting but the deeper significance of the locations in Reilly's brain will only be gained by older kids and adults. There's so much here that it could be worth a second viewing.

Aside from the setting, the plot is an emotional roller-coaster. It's full of highs and lows and twists and turns. some of these moments are so profound they may have you in tears. Most importantly, the finale is fulfilling in a way that few endings in mainstream film are. What's even more impressive than this film's profundity is its humor. There are plenty of great jokes in this film that are more than just cheap pop culture references.

The voice cast is uniformly excellent but Amy Poehler's joy is of particular note. This is animation telling a story only animation can tell and thus it is not only vintage Pixar but vintage Disney. Inside Out is also the best film I've seen so far this year, I'm sure that somewhere Mr. Disney is smiling 5/5!

Jurassic World (2015) Review

Jurassic World was a movie engineered to make money at the box office. Its a film about running away from dinosaurs, starring one of the most popular leading men right now and it was based on a beloved franchise from the 90's. The plot is also easy to follow and there is no real thinking necessary on the part of the audience while watching it. Jurassic World was destined to be summer gold but how does it stand up as a movie?

To me watching this film was like watching a 1950's Universal Studios monster movie. the plot is simple, the characters are cliché, and the dialogue sometimes unintentionally funny but the overall effect the film has is that it is fun. Fun is what I would describe Jurassic World as. It's not great, but it isn't trying to be. It was fun and I was never bored. This may seem like faint praise but with what I've seen from blockbusters this summer the fact that I was not bored is praise indeed.

Chris Pratt continues to cement himself as a movie star and in terms of acting he's the best thing here. That's not to say the other actors aren't good it's just that there isn't much written for their characters. As stated above the plot is simple and I think that works in this film's favor.

Overall, this was a fun summer movie experience that wasn't anything earth-shattering but that was a lot of fun. If you haven't already, go to your local theater, put on the ridiculous 3D glasses and enjoy a fun dinosaur spectacle for 2 hrs. 3.5/5

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) review

I wasn't a huge fan of the first Avengers film. It lacked a really menacing villain and it fell apart in the third act. Despite those criticisms, it did have some brilliant moments, particularly in its first half, when we just got to see the characters act like real people who just happen to have super abilities. The thrill of the first film was that we got to see the characters on screen in a way that felt so natural and was so entertaining that it was nearly irresistible. It was in those quieter moments that Whedon, the director, took what could have been an overblown Transformers movie and turned it into something enjoyable. I wish there had been more of this brilliance in the first film but the film managed the rest of the less alluring parts well enough that the thing flowed together. The same cannot really be said for the second film. While Age of Ultron has a better villain and some of the best individual moments in all of the Marvel film universe it fails to fit all of its moving parts together.

Age of Ultron feels like a brilliant superhero film squashed under the weight of bad editing. This doesn't mean that the individual cuts of the film are bad but rather that what we have in terms of a story feels like its missing something. While the story is missing some beats, it seems as though every bit of every action scene that was shot was left in the film. What results is a frustrating film with moments of Whedon brilliance marred by an even more action-heavy third act. Apparently the first cut of the film was 4 hours. I don't want to see four hours of this film, but I do wonder whether the disjointed nature of the plot comes from leaving some stuff out. It feels as though, for whatever reason, too much of the action was left in. It's not as drawn-out as the third Hobbit but it really hurts a film that's already seemingly missing some plot points. It feels as though in the last two acts the film never really had a good rhythm.

On the positive side, Ultron is a great villain and better than Loki. Spader's performance is menacing in a way Loki wasn't. Ultron poses a real threat, it's just a shame that the plot's disjointedness dulls his impact. As mentioned above, there are several sequences of character that could easily rank amongst the best stuff to come out of the Marvel studio. Whedon can write incredible dialog between these characters and that dialog is delivered by actors who embody their characters. Robert Downey Jr. is the stand-out. Never before has an actor and a superhero been more perfectly meshed.

Apparently this is Whedon's last stint in the directors chair for Marvel. This seems a shame since I feel we didn't ever see him sustain his brilliance for a whole film. Whether it be the moments when he shows us human carnage or the snappy and natural dialog found in the film, Whedon brings brilliance to the table but it is weighed down by the repetitive action. Age of Ultron is a frustrating film, but I believe that just enough brilliance shines through to make it worth watching. 3.5/5

TV Tuesday: The Office vs. Parks and Recreation

If you read my list of the top 5 greatest sitcoms of all time you may have noticed that neither the American version of the Office nor Parks and Recreation was on it. With both shows now having come to a close, I thought I'd write this piece comparing the two shows.

If the list of five had been increased to ten either one, or possibly both, of these shows would be on it. I appreciate both in their own unique ways but I think they are interesting to compare because both were created by the same man, Greg Daniels, and both sometimes shared the same production and writing team. There was even a time the both had the same actress in a supporting role. What's even more interesting is that they shared the same format. This format was a mockumentary-style format that allowed for a shaky single camera as well as interviews with the characters. Both shows also eventually ignored this format for the most part.

Despite these similarities the shows were incredibly different. A lot of this difference doesn't just come down to the fact that the Office was set in the private sector while Parks was set in the public sector. The difference was both in tone, and quality of supporting character development. The tone of the Office was happier than the British version but still darker than your average comedy. If you want evidence of this taken to brilliant extremes, you can watch the best episode of the show "Dinner Party" which is a hilarious cringe fest.  Parks and Recreation on the other hand, is one of the most positive shows ever to come out on modern television. In terms of character, the Office was more held to its British roots. Michael was a fully fleshed-out character and Jim and Pam were meant to be the "normal people", but the rest of the cast feel like outlandish caricatures. The supporting players are not developed as well and they are not as full of depth as Michael is. Even Jim and Pam cannot bolster the show on their own. This can be evidenced in the final two seasons following Michael's departure where the show saw a noticeable dip in quality. Parks, on the other hand, is filled with a cast of great characters which it takes time to develop. It is truly an ensemble show with most of the comedy coming from its character interactions.

These differences show why the shows developed differently and had different periods of high and low quality.  It may seem like I was bashing the Office in the previous paragraph, but Parks really got off to a horrible start. The characters weren't working and at first Amy Poehler couldn't lead the show on her own. The Office started out strongly because Steve Carell's performance as Michael is one of the funniest performances on television ever. As Parks grew it got better quickly, developing its characters and allowing them to grow. As the Office ran out of things for Michael to do it began to get stale because the other characters couldn't pick up the slack. Jim and Pam's romance was too drawn out and the characters weren't that interesting. Dwight is outrageous but doesn't have much depth. The other cast members are basically "one-note". When Michael left, the show lost virtually all of its steam and had only a fraction of its former glory. 

All of that being said, the Office was great at one time even if it was "the Michael Scott Show". At its best, the supporting players added a little drama and outrageous humor to compliment Michael. The best individual episodes of the Office are better plotted and stand-out more than some of the Parks and Rec episodes, but there are some great stand-out Parks episodes as well. In fact, I am struck at how hard it is to find a stand-out Parks episode because they are almost uniformly excellent when the show reached the peak of its powers. While Michael is a great character and the Office had some incredibly funny episodes, the Parks and Recreation team brought some of the best television comedy to the table consistently. At its best, Parks gave us great characters (Leslie,Tom, Andy, Ron etc.), funny writing, and a sense of warmth that no other modern TV comedy can match. add to this the fact that it finished strong and there is no question in my mind that Parks and Recreation is the better show.  

TV Tuesday: Batman '66

With the release of the first trailer for Batman V. Superman this week, audiences were introduced to a new Batman, one clad in armor and as menacing as possible. Last November, a completely different take on the character was finally released on home video. This version was played by Adam West and he was a character who fought crime by day, had a young side-kick named Robin, was helped by the police, and fought some of the most colorful villains TV has ever seen. This was the famed 1966 TV series, a show that played the ridiculous straight and in doing so changed superheroes and comedy forever. I have a pretty personal connection to this show from when I was younger, so when it came out I had to get it. I set out to watch the first season wondering if a show this over-the-top could still be fun. The answer was yes, emphatically yes.

Batman may be fresher today than when it first came out. Today as we take our superheroes so seriously it feels unique to see a superhero who just enjoys being a hero and who fights villains even more ridiculous than he is. If you want to get into this wonderful show, here are a few rules before you watch:

1. Do not expect this to be the Dark Knight: This is a light-hearted take on Batman. If you are looking for a darker version, you will not find it here.

2. Suspend your disbelief: The show knows that it is ridiculous and there are plenty of plot-holes to be found if you search for them. That being said, this series is far more enjoyable when you aren't trying to pick it apart and instead take it on face-value. Some episodes are genuinely, bad, but in the first season at least, they are almost uniformly excellent.

3. DO NOT binge-watch: Batman is a show with a definite formula. Binge-watching will only serve to dull its impact as a piece of entertainment.

With those out of the way here are some recommendations I can make based on the first season.

Best episode to start with: "Hi Diddle Riddle" All stories are two-parters in the first season and this is the first one. It's one of the boldest pilots ever to be broadcast and it contains some of the best moments in the show. It also features Frank Gorshin as the Riddler, one of the best portrayals of a villain ever. All Gorshin's Riddler shows in the first season are fantastic.

Best episode overall: "the Purr-fect crime" Catwoman's introduction is a perfect episodes with loads of great lines, action, and a great villain. The sets and death-traps also look great which makes this an incredibly entertaining episode of television and Batman's best.

Other great episodes: "Joker's Wild" is pretty much just as good as the others mentioned above. "the Bookworm Turns" Is one of the zaniest and most surprisingly good episodes you will find. Unfortunately, in the first season none of the Penguin episodes are really excellent, but "the Penguin Goes Straight" is a pretty good episode overall. There were really only a handful of first season episodes that I disliked, so overall it's hard to go wrong.

Overall, whether it be the humor, the fights with the sound-effects spelled out, or the crazy death-traps, Batman has so much to offer as a piece of entertainment. It is something that I would recommend to not only fans of the character but anyone who enjoys television in general.

TV Tuesday: the Sopranos Season 2 vs. Breaking Bad Season 2

TV has recently received almost as much, if not more, attention than film. Particularly these two crime shows, along with many others have been held up as the gold standard of the "new golden age" of television. Because of this, I am currently in the process of watching both and thought I'd compare both the shows' second seasons to see which was best. Why the second season you ask? for one, its the most recent season of each which I have watched and secondly I think the second season is when a show hits its stride. I will compare both seasons in a variety of categories and then give the overall winner. I will try to stay as spoiler-free as possible. So lets get down to business.

Expectations Based on the First Season
Both Breaking Bad and the Sopranos had good first seasons but both also had their struggles. For Breaking Bad, the writer's strike shortened the length of its season to seven episodes. For the Sopranos, it seemed to be a season spent finding its footing. There were brilliant episodes like the pilot, and "College" but there were also times when the show felt like it was still growing. While they both had missteps, the Sopranos and Breaking Bad both show great potential in their first seasons and so I had very high expectations for both.

Winner: tie

Main Character
Both Walter White and Tony Soprano are two of the most interesting characters ever created in any medium. In the second seasons of both shows each character got the ability to grow and explore new depths. Tony had to share screen time with a larger supporting cast while Walt was very much at center stage the entire time. I think both characters made great impacts on their series and continued to be incredibly interesting in equal proportion to each other.

Winner: tie

Supporting Cast
Here we finally have a clear victor. While Jesse and the rest of the Breaking Bad cast are good I find their actions as characters, particularly Skyler's, predictable and somewhat repetitive. This cannot be said for the supporting cast of the Sopranos. Every character has something interesting about him or her and this creates a world that feels like it doesn't just exist but that it is a living and breathing reality. The Sopranos spends more time focusing on its characters and building to action. Looking back its incredible how enthralling the characters and the universe of the Sopranos is and this is largely due to the supporting cast.

Winner: the Sopranos

Stand-out Episodes
In this category I'm going to look at what I thought were the two best/most memorable episodes of each show's second season and compare which stand-out more. This doesn't mean that they are necessarily better but that they stand on their own as great pieces of entertainment. For Breaking Bad my two favorite episodes of the second season were "Grilled" and "4 Days Out". Both of these episodes were intense and exciting pieces of television which focus on Walt and Jesse being involved in incredibly intense situations. This suspense is something that Breaking Bad does incredibly well and both of these episodes have plenty of it. They also stand out because they almost work as self-contained little suspenseful and entertaining short stories. The two Sopranos episodes I liked best in season 2 were "Commendatori" and "Funhouse". These were not as easy to choose because there were so many great ones. Both demonstrate the way that the Sopranos utilizes a slower pace to tell incredible stories. The first also has incredible cinematography in Italy and the second is the amazing season finale which even incorporates some surrealism. While these two episodes of the Sopranos were incredible and possibly better than the Breaking Bad ones they do not "Stand-out" as much and thus Breaking Bad gets the victory in this round.

Winner: Breaking Bad

Overall Story Arc
So it all comes down to this. If you were to take only the first part of the Breaking Bad's second season it might have a better chance, but while season two introduced several important characters and situations, I felt that its overall plotting was contrived. The Sopranos did not have as much action but the way that it managed to tell a great story over the season while also creating a fully realized world made its second season pretty incredible. In fact, there was hardly an episode of the Sopranos second season which I didn't think was great while I can't say the same of Breaking Bad. While I think Breaking bad is a great show the one I can't wait to get back to is the Sopranos.

Winner: the Sopranos

So their you have it the Sopranos has won this battle but we will see how things shake out when season 3 comes around.

Check back next Tuesday for a look at the 1960's camp classic Batman!

Gimme Shelter (1970) Review

It is not often that I review documentaries on this site. Part of the reason for this is that I am not as well acquainted with this area of film. That being said, I recently got some tickets to the 2015 summer tour of the Rolling Stones so I thought I'd revisit this exceptional documentary of their ill-fated 1969 tour.

It began as a typical tour documentary of one of the greatest and most popular musical groups of all time, it turned into something much more powerful and disturbing. The raw power of Gimme Shelter is its greatest asset. One gets the feeling that one is watching history unedited. The film is about the end of an era, the 1960s, but it is also the journey of one man, Mick Jagger. It is clear that if this is a theatrical tragedy then Jagger is our protagonist. His journey begins on stage in front of adoring fans and ends in a chilling freeze frame. Likewise, the 1960s and the counter-culture movement begin the piece with enthusiasm, but it all ends as the camera captures the concert-goers leaving Altamont speedway after tragedy has occurred.

The film builds to that tragedy, that will effect both our protagonist and the world around him, expertly. It is foreshadowed right from the start and this creates an increasing sense of dread. This dread is not shared by our protagonist on stage, who is shown greeting the audience while saying "welcome to the breakfast show" before breaking into a spirited performance of "Jumpin' Jack Flash". Jagger looks untouchable in this performance with his dance moves and his oscillating vocals. It is when these stop during the performance at Altamont that we really know tragedy has struck both off the stage and on. We further see a juxtaposition between the beginning and end when we are shown how Jagger reacts while watching a rough cut of the documentary. the look on his face sums everything up perfectly but is impossible to describe.

The film's power comes from both what it captures, but also from how it captures it. It feels gritty and real. While watching the extended coverage of Altamont I felt like I had been there. This ability to witness history is powerful, and in this case disturbing. Gimme Shelter perfectly tells the story of a man and his group, Jagger and the Stones, but it also tells the story of the end of an era. The fact that it does both so well is reason enough to recommend that everyone sees this move. Add to this the wonderful music that is played and you have a powerful and disturbing winner on all counts! 5/5!   

TV Tuesday: the Top 5 Sitcoms of All Time

This is the first in a series of articles which will take a look at the world of television.

The sitcom has become an institution. It has its roots in the farce of theater and radio. The sitcom helped television reach the popularity it has today, but it has also evolved and changed with the times perhaps more, and better, then any other TV genre. Narrowing down a list of 5 stand-out shows was difficult and many deserving shows are not on this list. Also keep in mind that this is a subjective list and just my opinion and that I am not claiming that this is the definitive list. In fact, I would welcome your lists in the comment sections below!

So without any further ado on with the countdown...

#5 Frasier

This has to be the most successful spin-off if all time. Frasier Crane was a supporting character on the incredibly popular, and pretty good, series Cheers, but he really shined in his own series. All the credit can't be given the prominent radio psychiatrist however because part of the success of this show, or any sitcom for that matter, was its supporting cast. Possibly more impressive was the way this show could handle straight-up farce. In some ways, more than any other sitcom, this series harkened back to the screwball comedies of the 1930's and 1940's where the rich elitists were both looked up to and made fun of, the wit was biting, and the situations were farcical. The show didn't always play to this strength however and some episodes verge on soap opera territory. Nevertheless, when Frasier stuck to what it did best it was something extraordinary.

Where Can I Watch it? Netflix or practically any other streaming service you can think of
Favorite episode: "The Ski Lodge" is an example of Frasier at its absolute best but there are many others

#4 The Dick Van Dyke Show

The classic sitcom that would normally be on a list like this would be I Love Lucy and that would be very well deserved, but in my humble opinion the best sitcom from the ""golden age of television" is this one. Why? Because it has strong characters, strong writing, and a fantastic cast. Not only do you get he comedic genius that is Dick Van Dyke but you also get the incredible talent that is Mary Tyler Moore. pretty much the entire cast deserves praise and the show was one of the first to introduce a workplace environment into the comedy. This sets the show apart and so does the writing. The show-runner Carl Reiner was a comedic genius and it shows in some of the best comedic episodes television has ever seen.

Where Can I Watch It?: Netflix, DVD, even Blu-Ray
Favorite episode: "That's My Boy?" A classic which you just have to see

#3 Seinfeld

This show about nothing is definitely something special. Seinfeld essentially created a whole new brand of sitcom and that brand has stuck with us to this day. Seinfeld was not based on the farce of old Broadway as Frasier was, or in the sitcoms like I Love Lucy that came before, Instead, Seinfeld demonstrated a unique personality and created characters that have been imitated time and again. On top of this, the show experimented with comedic narrative and taboo subject matter that would pave the way for other sitcoms to come. So much more could be said but I think the material speaks for itself.

Where Can I Watch it?: DVD
Favorite Episode: For its memorable characters and its ingenious plotting I'll have to go with "the Bubble Boy"

#2 The Simpsons

For the Record, I'm only talking about the first nine seasons here when I say that the Simpsons is one of the most important and hilarious sitcoms ever created. In these early years the show was a powerhouse of a new type of comedy: a comedy without limitations. There were seemingly no limitations in terms of narrative, content, and number of jokes that could be crammed into an episode. These golden years contain several 25-minute episodes with more humor in them that almost any feature film. It should also not be forgotten that the Simpsons was the first shows of this type and that all modern animated comedies owe their existence to it.

Where Can I Watch It: DVD, pay-streaming
favorite Episode: "Cape Fear" perfection!

#1 Arrested Development

Why is this the greatest comedy series of all time? because it has everything the other shows on this list have but it also brought us some of the greatest comedic characters and situations ever created as well as giving us a more serialized structure with running jokes that stretched across seasons. These things, along with the brilliant writing, make the show endlessly re-watchable. Although the fourth season was not completely up to par with the original run, with a new set of episode just announced we can look forward to seeing these wonderful characters on screen again and maybe this time they will reclaim the old magic

Where can I Watch It?: Netflix, DVD, and almost all other formats/services
Favorite Episode: There are so many but "Good Grief" is a brilliant example of everything the show has to offer.

Comment below with your favorites and check back next Tuesday for a face off between the Sopranos season 2 and Breaking Bad season 2!

American Sniper (2014)

This is a late review for a film that has garnered much attention. I finally got a chance to see American Sniper this last weekend and aside from the quality of the film itself, it was an interesting experience. Interesting in the sense that for once I was seeing a highly talked about film months after it was released. This meant that I heard an opinion of the film from nearly everyone I knew not to mention any major news site I had visited. I did my best during the screening to evaluate the film itself and separate it from its controversy. This film, more than any other last year, sparked political debate which was fueled by comments on the left by Michael Moore and on the right by commentators on Fox News. I will do my best in this review to look at the film on its own terms and separate it from those comments, but, in some cases, I think the film begs to be talked about in a political manner.

This biopic comes to us from the veteran lens of director Clint Eastwood. Eastwood has a way of making films that feel like a piece of workmanship. In this way he is like the old studio director Michael Curtiz in that he isn't begging you to notice his directing. Some people see films like this and thin that the director is "phoning it in" by not having many "artsy" shots, but in this case, like with many of Eastwood and Curtiz's films, the lack of flashy camerawork only serves to better tell the story. It is a testament to his skill that Eastwood makes it look easy.

Politically this film has been talked about on both sides. It has been both derided and embraced as a propaganda piece and I think the simple truth is that it is not a propaganda piece. It also does not criticize the Iraq war the way that some seem to expect, and want, it to. It is instead a story of Chris Kyle's heroism told mostly from his perspective. You may disagree with Kyle's perspective but the honesty with which it is portrayed is admirable. If you embrace his perspective the film will give you a lot of reasons to be happy,  If you don't, I think it is still possible to marvel at the filmmaking and acting. I think much of the criticism on both sides has misrepresented the film, but I think that particularly those who find the film offensive  have allowed their bias to unfairly taint their view of the quality of the film.

This quality is especially on display in the acting, particularly by Bradley Cooper. This is Cooper's best performance and it anchors the film. Without his performance the film would fall apart and in all honesty this was one of the best, if not the best, performance by an actor last year. The war scenes are also well done. The structure of the film is probably its other greatest asset because it makes the audience feel and empathize with the main characters struggle. This is an involving film which is what I think has made it so successful, but it is deceptively simple. American Sniper raises some very complex questions amid its bravado and these questions help to enrich the experience. I think this was one of the best films to come out last year and it is one of Eastwood's better efforts 4.5/5   

2014 Year in Review

Since we are one week away from the OSCARS here is my 2014 year in review. Here are the awards!

Best Film: The Grand Budapest Hotel

This film was a masterpiece of style from director Wes Anderson. With a wonderfully concocted story and beautiful 1930s aesthetic there’s a lot to marvel at, but it is the witty dialogue and Ralph Fiennes fantastic performance that made this film a winner. It may have come out earlier in the year but when looking back I realized that this was the film that I loved the most in 2014.

Honorable Mentions: Boyhood, Birdman, The Lego Movie, The Imitation Game, Guardians of the Galaxy

Best Ensemble Cast: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Just look at the names on the cast list and realize that they were all in one movie and you’ll know why this film took the two top honors.

Honorable Mention: Boyhood (for sticking together all 12 years)

Most Surprisingly Good Movie: The Lego Movie

I didn’t see this one coming but the year started off very well with this fantastic animated film. The best thing here is that it really stuck the ending. Everything is awesome about this one!

Honorable Mention: Guardians of the Galaxy (more on this later)

Most Disappointing Movie: The Hobbit the Battle of the Five Armies

With the director and some of the cast of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy returning to the screen it was disappointing that this film went on for so long that it became hard to watch. The action sequences were ridiculously drawn out and the characters seemed not to be drawn at all.

Honorable Mention: Inherent Vice

Best Utterly Stupid Movie: Neighbors

This Seth Rogen comedy made me laugh pretty hard and that is what this category is for.

Best Action Sequence: Docking the Ship, Interstellar

As a whole Interstellar could have been better but due to its scope it was one powerful movie. The docking sequence in particular had me on the edge of my seat as did Hans Zimmer’s score.

Honorable Mention: Slow Motion (X-Men Days of Future Past)

Richard Donner Award: Guardians of the Galaxy  

The Richard Donner Award for best superhero or comic book film goes to Guardians of the Galaxy! There was no way I was leaving this one out of the awards. Guardians was the most fun I had at the movie theater last year and it was one of the best blockbusters in years. Bravo!

Kingsman: the Secret Service (2015) Review

I love the superspy genre. The exotic locations, the fast cars, the beautiful women, and the diabolical masterminds make this genre the king of all blockbuster genres. The best era for superspies was the 1960s. Not only was Sean Connery playing Bond on the big screen, but spies were also on television in such imaginative shows as the Avengers (not the Marvel characters) and the Man From U.N.C.L.E. These shows were great because of their ability to take a familiar world, our own, and turn it into something exciting where danger and mystery lurked around every corner and Dom Perignon champagne flowed like water. There was a sense of escapism and comfort yes, but more importantly there was a playful imagination at work here that really hasn't been seen so much since. Matthew Vaughn, the director of Kingsman, must also feel the same way because this film is a love letter to superspies. a vulgar, blood-drenched, love-letter, but a love-letter nonetheless.

The film tells the story of a young man named Eggsy who finds himself in all sorts of nefarious activities. He had potential once, but due to the death of his father he, his mother, and his baby brother are struggling. Into all of this comes Harry, a superspy played by Colin Firth, who gets Eggsy involved in the super secret organization of the title. The rest you'll have to find out for yourself, but I will say that there is a supervillain played by Samuel L. Jackson and a henchwoman to rival any of the more recent Bond ones. this film is one of those examples where you know everyone making it must have been having fun doing so. Firth seems perfect for the role and he channels John Steed from the Avengers in every twist of his umbrella. Samuel L. Jackson also looks like he's having the time of his life playing his villain. The action, for the most part, is well executed in the most modern sense and the film has pretty much everything but the kitchen sink.

Unfortunately, sometimes you can get carried away when you're having so much fun. this film has so many different tones that sometimes the script doesn't balance them properly. The film also seems to overstay its welcome just a little bit. This is also not a movie for the family. The violence is extreme and the language is reminiscent of a Tarantino film. In fact this film feels like the Kill Bill of spy movies. Some people may find the violence upsetting and will not like the film for that reason and they may not be wrong. I, myself, felt that it went a little far sometimes.

That being said, one of the exciting things about this movie is its R rating. This allows it to tap into some uncharted territory when it comes to superspy movies and when it does this, it is at its best. Another great thing about this film is the actors which were enlisted to bring these characters to life. These respected actors give this film both a legitimacy and a sense of fun that is hard to deny.

My favorite parts of Kingsman were the subtle references to spy lore which were made throughout the film. These jokes and subversions are handled far more adeptly here than in almost any other superspy pastiche I've seen. because of this, Kingsman is not just another in a long line of superspy parodies but rather its own new product. a product that is not perfect and that will revolt some, but that will thrill many. 4/5

The Hobbit: the Battle of the Five Armies (2014) Review

Before I begin this review I will start with a short disclaimer. I have not seen the two previous Hobbit films, I have seen the original Lord of the Rings trilogy and read the book the Hobbit a long time ago, so long ago that I have pretty much forgotten the plot. With these things in mind, I understand that I come at this with a different perspective in that I am rating this film on its own merits and not in connection with the two that came before. I understand that some may view this perspective unfavorably or believe that I am at a disadvantage, so I just want to make sure it is known before we get into the meat of the review. I went into this film hoping for 2.5 hours of quality escapist entertainment with Martin Freeman's Bilbo as my guide and the world of Peter Jackson as my destination. Unfortunately, I found the experience disappointing.

I understand that I, who have not seen the previous two films, came at this with a disadvantage but it was not my lack of knowledge of the story thus far that disappointed me. It was rather the mechanics of the film itself. No matter how involved the stories that came before were, the story confined to this film felt drawn out and clichéd. The whole thing centered around a big battle much like Jackson's previous trilogy closer but here the battle felt long and uninteresting. The character development that occurred in this film also felt clichéd. I could predict where the story would go, what little actual story there was, and thus began to feel bored. This feeling was only accentuated by the drawn-out nature of several of the action scenes. The length of some of the fights harkened back to the long fights in a Zack Snyder film and I found myself wishing they would get to the point. I am willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt on some of the more emotional scenes because I am assuming the proper character development has been put in place for them to work. Even with that in mind the pacing just felt off to me.

The acting in the film was alright and I think Freeman was a good choice for Bilbo. It's always fun to see Christopher Lee on screen and I think the performances from the rest of the cast seemed on point but the scripting and directing seem to have lost the magic that the original trilogy had. The way Jackson filmed this installment seemed to suck the magic out of what made the Lord of the Rings so incredible. That magic lay in its sense of grittiness and its sense of realism. The world in those films felt realized and inhabitable. Here, Jackson films the proceedings so that one feels as if one is watching a video game. If you enjoyed the previous films don't let me dissuade you from going to see the conclusion, but from my perspective, on its own merits, it is a disappointment. 2/5

Night at The Museum: Secret of the Tomb (2014) Review

The most moving moment in film this year came from the most unlikely of movies. That moment was Robin Williams' last scene in his last film, the third in the Night at the Museum series. The movie itself was okay in its own right but that final scene is something that transcends it. Oddly enough this third, and presumably final, Museum film also included Mickey Rooney's last scene on film, making it a kind of "in memory of" piece. For most audience members the film won't be more than just that, but it is neither a bad way to end the series or a bad swan song for Robin Williams.

I can honestly say that whoever outlined the plot of this last installment did a good job. Unlike the atrocious second film in this series, this film seems like an interesting and natural sequel to the first film. It allows us to meet up new characters but also for those characters to face new challenges. I don't really need to go into detail because if you wanted a synopsis you would just use IMDb. what I will say is that this film involves our heroes going to the British Museum in order to protect the magic which allows them, as museum exhibits, to come alive at night. The reason I think the plot is better outlined then the second film is that here the universe of the film is actually explored further and we get new perspectives of the characters we thought we knew. The second film was just a bad retreading of the first film.

I said the plot was "outlined" well because unfortunately the execution is very hit-and miss. Some of the jokes are alright, but some just go a bit too far, and some are just plain awkward. It's really a shame that the dialogue does not live up to the premise because this could have been a very good comedy, but, as it is, its just passably enjoyable. In terms of direction and acting there is not much to say. Ben Stiller carries the film pretty well and the supporting cast bring back their characters nicely. Robin Williams is by far the best of the lot and there is something powerful about seeing his last screen outing. Overall I recommend seeing this for that reason alone, that it is Robin Williams last film and that his final scene may be one of the most powerful things you see all year, 3/5

The Imitation Game (2014) Review

The Imitation Game is a prime example of a “Hollywood” biopic.  These films are movies that use as their subject a famous person, generally a hero, who is played by a popular and respected actor. In this case it is Alan Turing played by Benedict Cumberbatch. These films take historical events and turn them into classic narrative formulas (i.e. beating the odds, rise and fall). They are generally well directed and they have an agenda that they wish to promote. These assertions about the Imitation Game are neither positive nor negative but rather simply stating the formula which it follows. Luckily for viewers, the Imitation game follows this formula very well.

This story of the genius who helped crack the German coding machine is a narrative of highs and lows. We have scenes of great accomplishment as well as scenes of great despair. It all centers on Alan Turing, a man whose life was seemingly full of these moments of exhilaration and despair. Events from his childhood up until his tragic death are intercut to form this story and I was surprised at some of the skill with which the intercutting was done. What was most surprising to me was the amount of humor and wit laced throughout the script. It really helps to bring the audience into the story, which is something that is necessary for a film like this to work.

Another key to the success of a “Hollywood” biopic is the acting. Cumberbatch carries the film with his wonderful performance. There are certainly shades of Sherlock here but he makes Turing his own. The rest of cast does well but their characters are not as “fleshed-out” as Cumberbatch’s. This is one of my complaints about the film: some of its characters are simply uninteresting. These people act like people in a movie and thus are predictable. Turing is the only one that seems real, while the others feel like plot devices.

The direction of the film is quite good and brings across the message quite well. This message is brought through with a power that never borders on preaching. The Imitation Game is a good film and a perfect example of a formulaic biopic but due to its stock characters it does not surpass the formula. For most however, it won’t have to. 4/5