Top Gun

Directed by: Tony Scott

Written by: Jim Cash, Jack Epps Jr.

In the U.S. Navy, the best fighter pilots are sent to a special school in Mirimar, California - Top Gun - to hone their skills. Seriously. This movie, though, has both everything and nothing to do with that premise.

Maverick (Cruise) is a navy fighter pilot with an attitude and a bad reputation as being reckless. Fate intervenes, and he and his co-pilot Goose (Edwards) are given a chance to prove themselves as the best pilots in the country. To succeed, Maverick must both overcome the ghost of his father and control his feelings for his flight instructor Charlie (McGillis).

(Even that plot description is a stretch and gives a lot of credit to the film. But more on that later.)

"Top Gun," when taken piece by piece, is awful. But somehow, as a whole, it overcomes its inadequacies to become one of the definitive films of the 1980's. Tom Cruise's acting is a perfect example of the film's contradictory nature. Cruise is campy and hammy, but he's also charming (in a 1980's kind of way). The film is both action packed, but, considering that most of the missions are training, devoid of any real danger.

The songs on the soundtrack are awesome - until you realize that almost all of the music in the film is made up of variations on just three songs. (But then again, those three songs rock, so...)

Elements of the story come and go at the convenience of, well, the story itself. For example, Maverick is supposed to be haunted by the ghost of his father - who was, himself, one of the best fighter pilots of his time, and who disappeared mysteriously on a mission. But, this fact only comes up at random times to explain his behavior within a certain scene, and is abandoned the moment his behavior is different. It's even easy to argue that he is more haunted by his former co-pilot than his father. At times, Maverick's romance with Charlie must be kept a secret from everyone (lest a conflict of interest arise), but at other times they are completely out in the open with their relationship. Baffling, yes; problematic, not really.

Just as Maverick is all torn up inside, so am I in how I feel about this film. I both laugh at and fall in love with "Top Gun." And you should too!

(Please note: I've avoided any interpretations that delve into any depth on the film. But there is potential. It could be a propaganda piece for the military strength of the US in the face of the eminent collapse of the Soviet Union. It could be an examination of the modern American military conscience, needing to overcome its failures in the Vietnam conflict. It could be an examination of masculinity in a hyper-masculinized world. Those are all there. But yeah, I'm not getting into any of those here.)

Cowboys and Aliens

Directed by: Jon Favreau

Written by:

- Screenplay: Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby

- Screen story: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Steve Oedekerk

- Comic book: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

There are few things that capture the pre-adolescent male mind more than cowboys. One of those things, though, may be aliens. Jon Favreau asks: why not both?

Jake Lonergan (Craig) awakens in the New Mexico desert with no memory of his past and a strange metal bracelet attached to his wrist. He wanders into the nearest town to try to put the pieces together, only to see aliens abduct several people of the city. With the help of Doc (Rockwell), the lovely but mysterious Ella Swenson (Wilde), and Woodrow "biggest cattle rancher in town" Dolarhyde (Ford), Lonergan chases after the aliens to rescue the missing people.

Favreau's film attempts to balance the tropes of both the western ("Cowboys") and science fiction ("Aliens") genres. The exposition draws on western film tradition - a lone gunman wanders into town and upsets the status quo - while also remaining fresh and original. The resolution is also gleaned from past westerns, although it slips slightly into the cliché. In fact, the whole plot culls from the annuls of the great American western film tradition. But, the action and effects - which make up a significant chunk of the screen time - are totally science fiction. It's amazing how the two styles were sewn together almost seamlessly.

The actors were, generally speaking, great for their roles. Sam Rockwell felt out of place for the first half of the film, although that may have had more to do with his character than with his performance. Olivia Wilde's character - and the fact that no one in town noticed her presence - also struck a false chord, although (without spoiling anything) it does get explained away later in the film. Craig and Ford were both top-notch and it was good to see Ford back in the action genre.

The special effects were good, but they were not outstanding. I was not blown away by any sequences in the film, which I had been expecting. On that end, I was disappointed. I was hoping for at least one earth-shattering effect, but, alas.

In general, kudos to Jon Favreau for making a pretty wonderful film. It gave exactly what it advertised - "Cowboys and Aliens" - and even a little more than I expected.

Win Win

Directed by: Thomas McCarthy

Written by: Thomas McCarthy (Screenplay, story), Joe Tiboni (story)

There aren't too many movies that tell stories that truly capture real life, even if the story isn't real. Many movies attempt to, but they usually become overly dramatic or become unbelievable or rely on deus ex machina tricks to help wrap up the story. "Win Win," though, effectively captures the complexities of the struggling middle class in this early 21st century recession.

Mike Flaherty (Giamatti) runs a small and struggling law firm. When an opportunity to earn some extra cash arrives, he becomes the guardian for the elderly Leo (Young), takes the monthly guardian check, and then dumps Leo in a retirement home. But when Leo's estranged teenage grandson Kyle (Shaffer) arrives suddenly and alone, Flaherty takes Kyle into his home without explaining the shady financial dealings. With Flaherty, though, Kyle begins to come out of his shell, and Flaherty falls deeper into deception.

"Win Win" manages to tell and sell a story that is "realisitic" without falling into the trap of making it "gritty." All of the characters - especially Amy Ryan who plays Flaherty's devoted wife - are archetypes easily recognized from everyday life. No one is idealized; everyone has their faults.

Part of what makes the film great is that it asks us to make a moral judgement about the Flaherty character. But this judgement is complicated. Although he starts the film by making a terribly ethical decision - one which will affect the course of the movie at several points - we're also shown the realities of the financial dilemma which led to his decision. Over the rest of the film, the audience also sees his generous and loving side in his dealings with his family and Kyle. He is neither purely good, nor purely bad. He is in the middle. He is an everyman.

Someone (and I forget who - you can google it, if you want) described "Win Win" as "a wrestling version of 'The Blind Side.'" And, in a sense, it's true. "Win Win" strips down the glossy veneer of the "The Blind Side" and made it a more personal story. With "The Blind Side," there were issues of class, race, and financial status at play, but with "Win Win" the story is much more down to earth and a more realistic and contemporary story (even though "The Blind Side" was technically a true story). (And don't get me wrong - I loved "The Blind Side" and I think it's a great movie. But I feel that "Win Win" is a much better examination of the American conscience in these troubled times, and better reflects life for the average person.)

Radio Days

Written and Directed by: Woody Allen

Woody Allen is easily one of the most nostalgic filmmakers in American cinema, and Radio Days could easily be classified as his most nostalgic film.

The film sets out telling the story of young Joe (Green), the usual Woody Allen character as a child in the 1940s. He quickly introduces his family, focusing on their favorite radio shows. The movie then jumps around between the actors on the radio programs and the family members. Individual stories are told, such as Aunt Bea's (Wiest) love life and the saga of actress Sally White's (Farrow) attempts to make it big. Interspersed are also scenes of Joe's family life with his mother (Kavner) and get-rich-quick planning father (Tucker) in World War II New York.

This film is hard to summarize because it doesn't have a direct narrative. Rather, it's a series of vignettes all tied together. Of course, once I realized this (about thirty minutes into it), the movie became much more digestible because I stopped trying to pick out the plot.

Each story, on its own, feels like the premise of a separate Woody Allen film, without the necessary meat to turn it into an entire separate film. So, taken on their own, they are quite enjoyable. It's a little hard to keep track of who's who, and where the stories are when the film's focus jumps around, but it once you get the hang of it, it's not so bad.

"Radio Days" manages - without a linear, cohesive narrative - to evoke the very specific emotion of nostalgia. In that, it is incredibly successful - possibly a masterpiece of sorts. But it's definitely not a traditional movie, and a viewer needs to be prepared for a different experience. But that experience can only be described as unique, and good.

The Fighter

Directed by: David O. Russell

Written by: Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson (screenplay)

Written by: Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington (story)

In the world of boxing movies, eventually they must all be compared to "Rocky." Against "Rocky," though, most other boxing films are bruised and battered before being knocked out. "The Fighter," though, manages to match up with "Rocky" - pound for pound - and might be a true contender for the crown of Best Boxing Film.

"The Fighter" tells the true story of boxer Mickey Ward (Wahlberg) and his contentious relationship with his family, especially his junkie brother Dick Eckland (Bale). Ward's mother (Leo) seems to only care about reviving Eckland's boxing career, and uses Ward's talents to mainly promote Eckland. But as Ward's career starts taking off, his girlfriend (Adams) warns him that his family is only holding him back.

Obviously - based on critical reception - the film's cast was amazing. Everyone - including Amy Adams (about whom I'd had my doubts) - was completely believable as the real person. Bale, shedding weight to match his character's lifestyle, is superb. Leo perfectly nailed the nasty, manipulative mother role. Even Wahlberg managed to play a strong but passive character, showing how torn he was between his loyalty to his family and his opportunity to live his dream.

What makes the movie great is that the it portrays not just a boxing drama but a family drama. Everyone has a junkie brother - some literally, most figuratively. Everyone struggles to win their mother's affection. Everyone sets out to carve their own path. Everyone must choose between their family and their spouse. These struggles are not merely struggles of contemporary society, but struggles that all humans face. These problems can be traced back to the early biblical stories in Genesis. (Cain and Abel competing for God's favor nicely parallels Ward and Eckland competing for their mother's affection.) Mickey Ward's story is only a medium - a vessel - for the battles we all face within ourselves and with our families.

And, to boot, it's got some great boxing scenes.

The 400 Blows

Directed by: Francois Truffaut

Written by: Francois Truffaut, Marcel Moussy

I hold the people who put the Criterion Collection together in very high esteem. The work they do is pretty remarkable. So, when they release a film, I take it as a recommendation of some cinematic achievement. (That doesn't mean that the movie is necessarily great - they once released an edition of "Armageddon.")

Antoine Dionel (Leaud) is a little hellraiser of a boy. The film opens with him getting in trouble at school, and getting the classic school punishment - sitting in the corner and missing recess. His overbearing though emotionally detached mother (Maurier) and happy-go-lucky father (Remy) seem to have little interest in him. Dionel's problems escalate when he decides to ditch class one day and accidentally comes across his mother having an affair. He even decides to steal and try to pawn a typewriter from his father's business, though he is unsuccessful. Ultimately, his parents hand him over to the police and he is sent to a reform facility, realizing too late how serious his situation had become.

This movie is entertaining, to say the least. A lot of things happen over the course of the film. From beginning to end, this is a plot-rich film, which keeps things moving along smoothly. Despite all the action, the film felt long, though, and dragged on at a few points.

One of the struggles with the film was that it failed to make any of the characters sympathetic. The mother, father, and schoolteacher are all authorities acting seemingly arbitrarily. Even the boy is a bit of a brat - although we're supposed to feel bad regarding his background circumstances. Still, after stealing from his father's business, it's hard to feel much pity.

The final scene of the film does draw forth a strong emotion, despite the general lack of sympathy for Dionel. Without spoiling it, the last scene embodies one of the key struggles of adolescence - structure versus freedom - and it's hard not to feel something while watching it. (Though whether that "something" is exactly what the audience is supposed to feel is up for debate elsewhere.)

Last, but not least, this movie represents Francois Truffaut's rookie effort in film making. You can see that, even early on, he had the talent that would eventually develop and make him one of French cinema's great directors - if not one of the great directors of all time.

Harold and Maude

Directed by: Hal Ashby

Written by: Colin Higgins

Simply put, "Harold and Maude" is one of my all-time favorite movies. No matter how many times I've seen it - on DVD, in the theater, or, most recently, projected against the side of a building - I always feel I'm getting to enjoy it for the first time.

Harold (Cort) is a wealthy young man with an unhealthy obsession with death, and he gets his kicks by shocking his mother (Pickles) with increasingly elaborate fake suicides. While visiting a funeral, he meets Maude (Gordon), an old woman with a lust for life. Harold becomes inseparable from Maude and begins learning to appreciate the many things that life offers.

I love this movie, and I could easily go on and on about it. But I'll try to limit myself to a few things I noticed on my most recent viewing.

Part of what makes this movie so great is the use of subtleties. Harold's appearance rarely changes, except at key moments (and a few times for humor, in the scenes with the therapist). A few quick lines and a brief shot of her arm - it can't be more than two seconds - allows the audience to absorb that Maude may have been a Holocaust survivor. These things are small and seemingly insignificant, but all the small things build up to make the whole film greater.

At this most recent screening, I gained a new appreciation for the character of Harold's mother. She only has a few scenes, but she literally steals each and every one.

I can't write - or even think - about this movie without mentioning the montage used at the emotional climax. Usually, I'm an anti-montage person. My position is based on my feeling that no montage can ever be more effective than the montage in "Harold and Maude." It is an emotionally wrenching scene, and no matter how many times I see it is nearly brings me to tears. Every clip and cut is perfectly balanced by Cat Stevens's "Trouble."

You must see this movie, if you haven't seen it yet. And even if you have, it's probably time to see it again.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind

Directed by: George Clooney

Written by: Charlie Kaufman (screenplay), Chuck Barris (book)

There are movies that are true. There are movies that are fiction. And then there are movies like "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" in which the truth and fiction bleed together.

The movie is an "unauthorized biography" of TV producer Chuck Barris (Rockwell) known for creating and developing shows such as "The Dating Game," "The Newlywed Game," and "The Gong Show." As he rises to the top - or, to some, bottom - of television celebrity, he is simultaneously dragged into working for the CIA as an international assassin. All the while, he strings along long-time girlfriend Penny (Barrymore). The question is, how long can he keep up the juggling act? And which will destroy him first - his secret agent work, his television career, or his hollow love life?

(Side note: In this post, any reference to "Chuck Barris" will be a reference to the character in the film, not necessarily the real person. Although I realize that Barris is a real person and that the film purports to tell his life story, it is obvious that much embellishment and dramatization occurred. So, to prevent confusion, and to make the text clearer, Barris will simply be described as a fictional character.)

George Clooney's rookie effort as a director was strong, but ultimately evident as a rookie effort. The film's strengths lie in its actors and its stories.

All of the actors, from Rockwell and Barrymore on down - including Clooney himself, Rutger Hauer, and a brief appearance by Maggie Gyllenhaal - are absolutely fantastic. The characters are rich and consuming, and at no point does the audience slip into thinking of the actors as actors. Each performance is compelling and believable, although the plot of the film pushes the extent of belief.

The film follows three different story threads out of Barris's life: his TV production work, his romantic affair with Penny, and his involvement with the CIA. Each of these angles could have been a separate movie, but are combined and balanced in this film. In this way, we see Barris as a much more complex and deep character than if we'd only been exposed to one side of his life. The three different stories are juggled around well, always leaving you wanting more of one before moving on to the next.

One problem with the film was that it could have been edited down a bit. A few scenes run longer than necessary, and a couple scenes were harder to place within the larger narrative arcs. (Admittedly, these parts had significant symbolic value - but a symbol is most effective when grounded within the story itself and not used tangentially.)

The visual style was artistic and jarring. Unfortunately, it felt like some of the shots and design was used simply to use those specific shots and design. Again, like the symbolic scenes, these features could have been more effective if they'd been used as an element to advance the story. Instead, by the end, they'd lost their value.

The movie was impressive and is well worth watching, if only to see Sam Rockwell dominate his role in a way few actors could have accomplished. Don't be discouraged by the challenges presented in the first few scenes - it pays off later. Although Barris's life may have collapsed like a house of cards, this movie does not.

Surrogates

Directed by: Jonathan Mostow

Written by: Michael Ferris, John Brancato (screenplay)

Written by: Robert Venditti, Brett Weldele (graphic novel)

There's been a rash of graphic-novel-to-film adaptations lately. Some are good, some are poor, and some fall right into the middle of mediocrity. "Surrogates" falls squarely into that final category.

In the future, people rarely go outside of their homes. Instead, they send robots - the titular "surrogates" - to do their dirty work with no risk of physical harm or death. But when the son of the inventor of the surrogates is somehow killed via his surrogate, detective Tom Greer (Willis) is assigned to investigate. What he unravels, though, is a scheme that goes far beyond a murder scheme to the battle between authenticity and artificiality.

This film had a lot of potential. And the opening sequence - a montage explaining the history of the robotic surrogates - lives up to that potential. Things fall apart after that.

There are a few interesting twists - such as who is behind this plot to destroy the surrogate network. But, given the limited cast of characters, it's not too hard to figure out that it's got to be one of them. The moment when the audience realizes that the first murder is only a small part of a much larger conspiracy adds a bit of excitement at a crucial moment, even if that plot point is revealed in the trailer.

Once again, the one and only Bruce Willis falls short of a great performance. His character falls flat, considering that his purpose is to show the dynamism inherent in humanity. He only shows moments of life, and most of those are action sequences. Moments in this film that require any form of emotion are lost with Willis.

Most importantly - for a movie that is supposed to call to mind the need for true human contact - the film failed to make the audience care about any of the characters. This prevents the theme of movie to become fully realized.

Ultimately, the film "Surrogates" felt itself like a surrogate for a better film.