Psycho

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Joseph Stefano (screenplay); Robert Bloch (novel)










If there is an iconic horror/slasher film, this is it.  I'm glad my local theater decided to run it as part of their "Classic Film Wednesday" series.

I hadn't seen the movie since high school, so some of the shocks and twists still felt new.

That's the key for this film: It still seems new.  The styles and effects may have changed since it was made, but the tension and mood is still top-notch.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who says they "like movies."

Skyfall

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan







Is this it?  Is this the film that finally elevates James Bond from mere genre flick to, perhaps, maybe, actual film?  My conclusion: maybe.

The third installment in the Daniel Craig iteration as 007 separates itself from the first two (2006's "Casino Royale" and 2008's "Quantum of Solace") while simultaneously establishing more connections to the earlier Bond worlds (the introduction and modernization of Q, for example).

Let's get straight to my point, though.  This film has a lot more depth to it than most of the other Bond films.  The characters actually have flaws!  And backgrounds! Oh my!  One of the hallmarks of everything Bond before "Skyfall"was the lack of background - as if nothing really existed before the moment the film began.  Even one of Bond's most significant moments - the death of his wife in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" - is all but ignored in every other movie in the series.  This is the first movie (beyond a few casual references in "Casino Royale") that James Bond was once a little boy.

Suddenly, Bond is grounded in reality!  Not only that, but he's actually lost a step or two (because of a minor plot point I'd rather not spoil here), and maybe isn't quite the agent he once was.  He makes mistakes - major ones - which have ramifications throughout the whole movie.  He's much more human than usual - almost weak - though he still kicks butt.

Mendes and the writers build into the story some recurring themes which help lift this film beyond the drudge of mere genre action.  For example, every character is dealing with some major setback in their past - Bond, M, Eve, Silva (the villain) - which has thrust itself into their present lives.  To overcome the drama of the present, though, they must confront and explore their pasts.  This element leads to one of the most significant revelations about Bond's past - a visit to his childhood home named... Well... You'll have to see that for yourself.

There is also the recurring element of betrayal. Or, at least, actions which could easily be interpreted as betrayal.  A significant portion of the film is spent with characters betraying each other, apologizing for betrayal, justifying betrayal, or recovering from betrayal.  And all of it is rich and subtle and deep, except for the blatant symbolism at the climax of the film - a literal knife in the back - but I'll forgive them that.

So, the usual question that follows all this is "Where does 'Skyfall' land in the pantheon of Bond?"  A lot of critics (especially the type quoted in advertisements) claim it's the best Bond film ever.  Personally, I'm not a huge fan of "ranking" things, but much prefer categorization.  Anyway, I would definitely list it in the same category as the other elite Bond movies.  Well done!

Hitchcock

Directed by: Sacha Gervasi

Written by: John J. McLaughlin (screenplay); Stephen Rebello (book)










I'm not sure how accurate this film is, in terms of historical veracity.  It is at least entertaining, as it tells the story of how Alfred Hitchcock came to make his landmark movie "Psycho."  The storytelling is a bit clunky at points, and it could have probably used a little more editing focus (a few subplots disappear or fall flat), but it definitely has its charms.  There are a lot of interesting shots of someone looking in on someone else, which obviously references the element in "Psycho," but also raises a lot of questions about the nature of making a film (not to mention suggesting something important about those of us who watch them).

Lincoln

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: Tony Kushner (screenplay); Doris Kearns Goodwin (book - "Team of Rivals)









Abraham Lincoln is such a massive figure in American history, that it's hard to believe that any one movie could reasonably define him.  Of course, only Steven Spielberg could even reasonably attempt a movie of this scale.  And, for the most part, he was pretty successful.

Part of the film's success lies in its relativey limited scope.  "Lincoln" only shows the president at the peak of his leadership, nearing the end of the Civil War while he is trying to have the 14th Amendment passed and ratified.

Daniel Day-Lewis somehow becomes Lincoln (or, at least, how I always imagined him to be), but great performances are pretty much expected from him.

The Sting

Directed by: George Roy Hill

Written by: David S. Ward










There was a time when, together or apart, Robert Redford and Paul Newman could carry any film into greatness.  "The Sting" stands as the prototypical example of what they were capable of, without seeming to have to try that hard.  This movie belongs in that special category of films which are simply entertaining and magical, and I'm glad I got to see it at a special classic film screening.

The plot can be boiled down to this: Two lowly, but charming con-men decide to pull a fast one on the high-powered mobster who killed their friend.

Most of the film's charm is carried by Redford and Newman, who radiate attractiveness and allure (though there is a lot of doubt as to how realistic they might be compared to real con-men - but I digress).  Both actors are at the top of their game and bring their characters to life without much effort.  There's a lot that can be said about these two, but I'd rather you just experience it for yourself - it's truly amazing.

Robert Shaw also deserves credit for bringing the villainous card-cheating mob boss Lonnegan to life.  He serves as the perfect foil for the heroes without over-playing the part.  It's impossible for me to imagine this movie without him, perhaps someone else in his place.  He is just nasty and mean enough to earn the viewer's disdain, but not so cruel or awful as to be off-putting.

There are enough twists and turns to keep the story moving forward, and enough moments where a con is revealed to make it worth watching.  There are even a few "cons" pulled on the audience, but I won't spoil those here.  The movie does drag a bit in the middle, as the anti-heroes slowly set up their foil for his comeuppance, but the nature of the set-up necessitates this somewhat lengthy dry period.  When the con is played out, though, it's totally worth the wait.

Of course, no review of "The Sting" would be official without mentioning the background music.  The ragtime piano music helps to really set the film in its time period (not necessarily the most realistic - but still).  In fact, once you've seen the film, it's basically impossible to think of the movie and not get the music stuck in your head again.

"The Sting" is a classic movie, with great performances, great music, and a great story.  It's great, all around.

The Dark Knight Rises

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Written by: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan (screenplay); Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer (story)









There's been plenty already said about this movie all over the internet, and there's really not a whole lot I can add to it in any meaningful way.  That being said, I'll limit my comments here to my own impressions and leave the larger debate for others.

I'm happy that this film pretty clearly ends the Bruce Wayne arc of Christopher Nolan's version of Batman.  Obviously (if you've seen it), there's plenty of wiggle room for more Batman films in the future, but this film ends much of what began in "Batman Begins."  The three films created their own cohesive unit, apart from anything that came before (and potentially anything else the studio tries to tag on).  There were also enough references, both major (the League of Shadows) and minor (Cillian Murphey's brief appearance in each movie) that the movies felt like they belonged together rather than forced together.

I look forward to seeing all three movies - "Batman Begins," "The Dark Knight," and "The Dark Knight Rises" - together to see how Batman evolves from the beginning of the trilogy to the end.  The different films show how he progresses so that, even though he's different at the beginning than at the end, it doesn't feel inconsistent or arbitrary.  Rather, the events in the films have forced him to evolve.

I was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway's performance.  When her part was announced, I had serious doubts.  Instead, her role was one of the most rich and complex characters in the entire series, and she pulled it off in a subtle but convincing way.  I also enjoyed the way that the whole "Hey!  It's Catwoman!" thing wasn't rubbed in the audiences face.  In fact, it was the opposite.  I don't recall the name Catwoman ever being mentioned, and her costume was sleek without being obnoxious.  She was definitely one of the highlights of the film.

"The Dark Knight Rises" was not a perfect film.  It was long, and - worse - felt long.  There were a few plot twists which theoretically added to the drama, but really only managed to complicate things and make them unnecessarily longer.  (For example: The threat of a nuclear explosion in an urban area has enough drama in and of itself.  Why did they need to add the element of "there are three identical trucks and we don't know which truck the bomb is on" except to add a couple of extra scenes?)

Last, but not least: I heard Tom Hardy just fine.  I'm not sure what everyone else was complaining about.

Jaws

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: Peter Benchley, Carl Gottlieb










I'll start by being as clear as possible: I love "Jaws."  It's the kind of movie that, no matter what else is going on, I will go out of my way to see.  I've seen it on the big screen three or four times (thanks to midnight movies and my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series).  It was one of the first DVDs I purchased.  Heck, I'll even watch it edited on TV - commercials and all.  This fanaticism may seem a bit much, but Spielberg's final product is so great that I feel it's totally warranted.

Let's start with the cast.

--Roy Scheider plays police chief Brody, who has moved to Amity to get away from the dangers of being a police officer in a big city.  A bit ironically, he's taken a job as police chief on an island despite the fact that he's afraid of water - an irony that comes into play when the shark attacks begin.  What makes Scheider's performance so amazing is the way he managed to flesh out the character with little subtleties.  There are hints that something traumatic happened to him wherever he worked before, but he wears that trauma in his eyes and the way he responds to situations.

--Richard Dreyfuss is fantastic as Hooper, a young marine biologist who arrives to investigate the shark attacks and finds out exactly what kind of monster they are up against.  He manages to keep one foot in the world of "preppie" and another in the realm of "rugged individual."

--Robert Shaw brings mad shark hunter Quint to life, a character cut from the broken mold of Captain Ahab.  The "Indianapolis" speech he gives just before the final scenes is unforgettable.  Shaw's performance in this film is, without a doubt, one of the greatest acting performances in the history of cinema.

--The supporting cast - Lorraine Gary, Murray Hamilton, etc. - help bring Amity Island to life and provide verisimilitude to what could have easily deteriorated into an absurdity of horror.

I said I'd start with the cast, but I also think I'll end with the cast.  I could go on and on about "Jaws" and what makes it great, but ultimately you should experience it for yourself.  You need to hear for yourself John Williams's amazing score, which, without any visuals, could evoke the presence of the beast.  You need to see for yourself what happens to the Orca fishing boat.  None of it can be conveyed, it must be experienced.

I'll wrap it up simply: "Jaws" is one of the greatest films ever.  There is very little wrong with this movie, and a whole lot that is done right.  I'd even argue that it's nearly perfect.

Moonrise Kingdom

Directed by: Wes Anderson

Written by: Wes Anderson, Roman Coppola









I've been a huge fan of Wes Anderson for years (though, considering I've never covered a film of his here, you probably wouldn't know it).  I find his work to be complex, intelligent, and visually stunning. His films can be a bit abrasive if you don't know what you're getting in to, but require an open mind to understand what he's trying to convey.

"Moonrise Kingdom" tells the story of of Suzy (Hayward) and Sam (Gilman) - two young teenagers who decide to join their miseries together and run away into the wilderness.  Being stuck on an island, the children are easily tracked down by the local police force (Willis) and Suzy's parents (Murray, McDormand), but with a little help from some friends Suzy and Sam decide to try one more daring escape.

There's so much to say about this film, I don't know where to start.

I'm amazed at how Wes Anderson was able to pull fantastic performances out of each of his actors.  Even Bruce Willis, who has been phoning it in lately ("Cop Out," anybody?), is stellar as the sweet-but-not-smart police captain.  Some of the supporting performances, such as Jason Schwartzman, Edward Norton, and Harvey Keitel, were great and could have stolen the show if the stars hadn't been perfect.  Hayward and Gilman, with no previous experience in film, give the performances of a lifetime as the young couple at the heart of the story.

There is so much else I could talk about, but I'll cut it as short as I can: Wes Anderson knows how to make good movies.  He understands how to create a fictional world which effectively mirrors reality, both in content (Suzy's science fiction books) and emotion (the love story).  He uses all the tools of the filmmaking medium - set design, camera movement, coloring, musical cues - to enhance his film both as story and as art.  I could point to almost any scene in the film as an example of how much depth the movie has.

I could go on and on, but I'd rather just encourage you to go see "Moonrise Kingdom" and enjoy it for yourself.

Harold and Maude - Revisited

I jump at any chance to see this movie.  It's definitely a contender on my "all time favorite" list (which doesn't actually exist).

This time, I caught a screening at my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series.  There's definitely a special charm to seeing it on the silver screen.

Charm.  That's the key-word that came to mind after seeing it this time around.  "Harold and Maude" has a lot of charm.  And it's important, because that charm draws the audience in to what would ordinarily be an absurd situation.  An adolescent millionaire obsessed with faking his own death?  An old woman who refuses to recognize boundaries and property, but never seems to get into any major trouble?  Total nonsense that goes completely unquestioned because the characters have charmed us into believing in them.

The amount of music struck me this time.  Cat Steven's backing tracks have always been a key element in the film.  But this is the first time that I noticed that basically every transition - especially early in the film - is a musical transition.  It helps to set "Harold and Maude" apart most typical films.

Go see it.  Right now.

Prometheus

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof










The debate surrounding the different interpretations of "Prometheus" can be very simply summed up:

Thinker or stinker?

I've gone back and forth between both sides, and am now firmly in the "thinker" camp.

There are many reasons why.  One, put very well by a friend whose opinion on films I take very seriously, is that the reviews that hail "Prometheus" as great tend to be very well thought out essays while the reviews that dismiss it tend to be very poorly written.  Granted, this is not a very scientific analysis, but it does reveal something significant.  Those viewers with very analytical minds were able to find a lot to appreciate in the movie, while those who were looking for a cheap thrill on a big screen were sorely disappointed.

And I initially understood their disappointment.  I felt it myself.  Watching the trailers, I was hoping for a full-on "Alien" reboot with lots of chests exploding and people blowing things up.  When those things weren't there (actually they were, but more on that in a minute), I was left shaking and scratching my  head.  I had a bitter taste in my mouth, and spent some time wondering why I didn't see all the awesome things I was hoping to see.  Then it hit me: those things I wanted to see were there, but I hadn't seen them because they weren't quite what I had anticipated.

Take, for example, the chest explosions that the original "Alien" movies made famous.  There was really only one (maybe two?) of those in "Prometheus."  But, stepping back, the essence of the chest explosions - life bursting forth mysteriously from something else - is littered throughout "Prometheus."  It happens several times, (the alien squid baby being the most notable and memorable for reasons obvious to anyone who has seen the film).  Numerous times something or someone thought dead, lifeless, devoid is revealed to be much more than they appear.  It happens over and over again, but most of us weren't able to see it.

The biggest key to the movie is to stop thinking of it as part of the "Alien" series of films.  Its connection to that series is significant, but incredibly thin.  I've found the best way to think of it is as an episode of "Lost" (where writer Damon Lindelof made his fame).  In "Prometheus" as in "Lost" there are clues, references, fleeting moments which point to something larger.  Themes, images, symbols are repeated but never explained, leaving the viewer to ponder their meaning, if any (which, in turn, has led to some absolutely wonderful discussions).  The film's ambiguity - its unwillingness to even hint at answers to its biggest questions - is what makes it a movie worth discussing.

Does the movie have some flaws?  Sure.  Some big ones, too.  Characters do things that don't make any sense.  Contradictions, like the planet being totally habitable except for those massive storms which will rip humans to shreds, are plenty.

But ultimately, the fact that there are so many discussions - and heated ones - tells me that there's something to "Prometheus" which makes it more than B-level sci-fi fodder.  See it, ponder on it, reflect on it, and tell me how anyone can argue it isn't a "thinker."

The Avengers

Directed by: Joss Whedon

Written by: Zak Penn, Joss Whedon










I have to admit, I was very late to the "Let's all go see 'The Avengers!'" bandwagon.  Like, a month and a half late.  I've had the problem lately that I get extremely excited about an upcoming blockbuster, but then lose almost all of the will to see it when the movie is finally showing in theaters.

The plot of "The Avengers," is pretty standard fare for a superhero flick.  Bad guy Loki (Hiddleston) decides to align himself with some nasty aliens to take over the earth.  Nick Fury (Jackson) decides to bring together a group of otherwise-unconnected heroes to fight off the evil onslaught.  The heroes must realize that their concern for the survival of humanity trumps their individual personality conflicts.  Action ensues; heroes win.  (And sorry for that last spoiler.)

I've got to say that this movie was 100% what I expected it to be.  Unfortunately, that was also it's biggest weakness.  "The Avengers" played out pretty much exactly how I imagined it would, with a few inconsequential variables.  There was never a moment where I thought, "Hey!  I didn't see that coming!"  The dialogue was sharp, as is expected from a Joss Whedon script, but the plot didn't deviate at all from the simple hero archetype.

Now, that being said, the movie was awesome.  The effects were phenomenal.  The actors really brought the characters to life.  The action scenes were pretty fantastic.  It hit every mark with flying colors.

A friend asked me what grade I'd give the movie.  I said I'd give it a solid A.  I'm just bummed there wasn't that extra-special moment to push it up to an A+.

Sunset Boulevard

Directed by: Billy Wilder

Written by: Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, D. M. Marshman Jr.

"Sunset Boulevard" is one of the great films of yesteryear, and I'm so happy I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen at my local Classic Film Wednesday.

Joe Gillis (Holden) is a down-and-out screenwriter who, while trying to avoid the repo man, stumbles upon the decaying home of silent film great Norma Desmond (Swanson). Gillis finds himself struggling to remove himself from the deluded machinations of Desmond and her loyal butler Max (von Stroheim). Too late, he finds himself tied down to her and caught up in her schemes to return to silver screen glory.

So much can be said about this film (and much of it already has, elsewhere and better).

To start: Gloria Swanson's portrayal of Desmond's descent into total madness is one of the greatest performances of the era, if not of all time. The audience, like Gillis, is captured by her spell. She makes the climactic moment absolutely unforgettable, and delivers several classic lines that have been quoted (and parodied) ever since.

The way the story is told is also incredibly well done. We see everything almost exclusively through Gillis's eyes, which enhances the dark and mysterious atmosphere of the film - quite literally, we don't know what will happen next. Only at the end of the film, when the last key element revealed, is the audience able to see from a greater perspective.

I'm sure there is a lot to say about the film's subtext (or, perhaps not-so-subtext) regarding the changing winds of Hollywood, and whether or not that topic can still be applied to the modern film industry. Unfortunately, I just don't have the will to talk about it here. But, come on - think about it. Do I have to explain everything?

Something I noticed in this film that is worthy of discussion is the set design. A significant amount of the film takes place in Norma's grand and decaying mansion. There are several small details, like the missing door locks, which are perfectly executed. The mansion itself becomes a reflection of Desmond - once great, now diminished - and the set helps create this effect. The rooms are vast, but mostly empty. There is beautiful ornamentation and evidence of massive conspicuous consumption everywhere, but it has obviously been neglected for some time: the pool being the perfect example.

I could gush on and on about this movie. It's near perfect in most ways, and it's hard for me to criticize it in any meaningful way. I kind of want to watch it again right now...

Vertigo

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Alec Coppel, Samuel A. Taylor (screenplay); Pierre Boileau, Thomas Narcejac (novel)

It may hard to imagine now, but Hitchock's masterpiece "Vertigo" was apparently not well received when it was released. In retrospect, though, it is clear what a cinematic achievement the film represents, and its influence is hard to ignore.

Detective Scottie Ferguson (Stewart) has been forced into retirement after a terrible accident in which his acrophobia resulted in the death of another officer. But when his old friend Gavin Elster (Heldmore) asks him to follow his wife Madeline (Novak) around, Ferguson agrees to take the job on. It seems that Madeline is periodically possessed by the spirit of one of her ancestors, and Ferguson becomes obsessed with breaking her of this problem until she throws herself from a church bell tower. Her death, though, is not the end, and nothing is quite as it seems.

The film starts off slow - almost tediously slow. As Ferguson stalks Madeline around various locales in San Francisco, there are long droughts lacking dialogue or meaningful action. But be patient - the payoff is absolutely worth it. (Also, it's fun to look at old San Francisco.)

There are several major twists placed throughout the story, so don't get too comfortable thinking you know what is going on. I'd seen this movie before several years before, and I was still surprised at one point. There are layers and stories-within-stories which can make trying to follow along somewhat dizzying. (Hence, the title.)

This may not be James Stewart's most spectacular performance, but it is definitely one of his most believable. After a few early scenes, he easily shakes off that "Hey, you're watching Jimmy Stewart!" feeling. He manages to play his character subtly, providing him a rich range of feelings without necessarily needing to show all those feelings.

Lastly, it was fun to see the film which plays such a large part in another one of my favorite films - "Twelve Monkeys."

"Vertigo" is an excellent starting-off point for those unfamiliar with Hitchcock's work. It is easily the most accessible film while also being representative of his style. It is absolutely a classic.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Directed by: Tomas Alfredson

Written by: Bridget O'Connor (screenplay), Peter Straughan (screenplay), John le Carré (novel)

I reviewed the original novel here not too long ago, so I won't bother mentioning a plot summary. Let's just move straight into analysis here.

Going into it, I was worried that the running time of the film would require huge chunks of the novel to be truncated. The screenwriters did a fantastic job of keeping the core story together while making only minor alterations to the side stories. Aside from opening the film with what happened on the operation in Hungary (which is not revealed until near the end of the novel), the most important elements of the story were kept almost entirely intact.

The acting performances are all superb. Gary Oldman is excellent as George Smiley, though the character is intended to be mild-mannered and quiet. All of the supporting cast, such as Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch, really shine in their smaller parts.

Some of the symbolism, especially the bloody tear drop at the end, was a bit heavy-handed.

I did have one major blind spot in regards to this film - I'd already read the novel, so I knew what was going on. The major criticism I've heard in regards to this film is that so much of what goes on is very subtle that it becomes very hard to follow. I was able to follow it fine, but I can see where it might have been confusing for those not already familiar, especially in regards to the Ricki Tarr flashbacks and the sting operation at the end. There are also many tertiary characters - such as Bland, Alleline, and that bunch - whose roles and jobs are much more clear in the novel but are inserted in the film with little to no explanation.

It's nice to see a good spy film that doesn't resort to James Bond style action. The ideas of espionage and double-agents have fallen into darkness when it comes to spy stories. It was nice to see them revived.

Overall, I'd recommend this film. It's a bit long, but well worth it, if only for Oldman and Hardy's performances.

Carnage

Directed by: Roman Polanski

Written by: Yasmina Reza, Roman Polanski

Based on Yasmina Reza's play "The God of Carnage," this film tells the story of two couples who have come together to settle a violent incident between their two children. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and things quickly turn sour between the two couples. Each character begins to suffer from various personal and emotional breakdowns as the dynamics of power and conflict continually shift, with the help of a few spontaneous moments (including one of the characters vomiting).

Personal and legal issues aside (and they are are to ignore), Polanski should be applauded for making such an emotionally intense film. The total running time is less than ninety minutes, but every minute is jam packed with tension. Adding any more length would have been more of the same.

As it is based on a play, the entire action of the film takes place in a single day within a single apartment. Polanski's use of close-ups and stationary cameras helps to enhance the claustrophobic effect. The characters pace around the rooms like animals in a cage.

Each of the actors does a fantastic job. Jodie Foster plays an uptight liberal mother better than any. (This is high praise, considering that I'm not a huge Foster fan.) John C. Reilly plays his usual slightly above-average Joe.

This movie is fantastic. It's hard to say I "enjoyed" it, but it is definitely worth seeing.

The Ides of March

Directed by: George Clooney

Written by: George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon

It's not too often that a good political thriller comes along anymore, but "The Ides of March" fills that need exceptionally well.

Stephen Meyers (Gosling) is an up-and-coming campaign strategist who has hitched his wagon to the presidential primary campaign of Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) because of Morris's take-no-prisoners and tell-no-lies style. But when Meyers is contacted by a rival campaign manager (Giamatti), it begins a chain of events that threatens to destroy Meyers's career and derail the Morris campaign entirely. It is in this face of adversity that the characters reveal their true selves and what they are willing to do to take power.

To start, the acting in this film is fantastic. Gosling is just about the weakest link, and it's merely because he under plays his part, which is a bit tough to deal with given that he's protagonist. Marisa Tomei's character of the nitty-gritty-political-journalist is completely unnecessary except to advance one minor plot hitch, but she does a solid job considering the minor role. Clooney and Giamatti are at the top of their game, as is Philip Seymour Hoffman.

What this film does exceptionally well, which has not yet been tackled by a modern political thriller, is show the workings of a modern campaign. Not since "Primary Colors" has a high-profile film tried to cover contemporary election tactics. And "Primary Colors" was based clearly on the Clinton campaign, but "The Ides of March" is not based on an actual campaign, although there are references and allusions to some recent strategies.

There movie does rely on a cliche plot twist at a major key point, which is rather disappointing. (I can't give it away here, as it is basically the climactic turn.) I just felt that with all the creative starts and turns, there could have been something more original to use at that point. To give credit, that one twist was predictable, but how that twist plays out and affects the story is more more effectively done.

Kudos to Clooney for making the film. It was effective and enjoyable.

Young Adult

Directed by: Jason Reitman

Written by: Diablo Cody

Overall, I tend to look at Jason Reitman movies with a bit of bitterness. Partially because I find his tone a simultaneously smug and whiny. Partially because they seem like the kind of movies I would make if I had his pedigree and position. And partially because they're a heck of a lot better than if I would have made them. In any case, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by his most recent film - "Young Adult."

The film tells the story of Mavis Gary (Theron), a young adult novelist seemingly one bad day away from a nervous breakdown. When she gets an e-mail announcement about her ex-boyfriend's new child, Mavis decides to head back to her hometown and try to respark the love they once had. But Mavis's homecoming romanticism is put in perspective by Matt Freehauf (Oswalt), who pushes her to accept reality, all leading to the dramatic climax.

To start: Both Charlize Theron and Patton Oswalt give performances are out-of-this-world (although Oswalt's character's geekiness may or may not be too far from reality for him). Theron is adeptly able to play her over-the-top character with a masterful subtlety. Oswalt is somehow able to be charming and repulsive at the same time.

I'm not going to say the film is perfect. It isn't. I wouldn't even call it "great with a capital G." But it's definitely an excellent example of some of the recent heights of independent film production, and is well worth seeing.

Young Frankenstein

Directed by: Mel Brooks

Written by: Mel Brooks, Gene Wilder (screen story and screen play); Mary Shelley (original novel)

"Young Frankenstein" is one of the highlights of writer-director Mel Brooks's career, showcasing his relationship with actor Gene Wilder. (This relationship, according to the man who runs my local theater's "Classic Film Wednesday" series, thrived on improvisation and off-the-cuff acting, leading to an original cut of nearly six hours!)

Dr. Frankenstein (Wilder) is a biologist who is trying to distance himself from his family's name due to an incident with a mad scientist of a distant uncle. But, when given to opportunity to explore his uncle's castle, he manages to uncover his uncle's greatest discovery - the reanimation of dead tissue. Hilarity ensues.

Although I love this movie, I will say that it has not quite held up over the years. It suffers from odd pacing and uneven levels of humor.

Luckily, Peter Boyle (credited as The Monster) and Marty Feldman (Igor) steal the show! The "Puttin' on the Ritz" sequence is still one of the best scenes in any comedy. Although Feldman's scenes are limited, his mere presence elevates the film. The Gene Hackman cameo itself is worth the price of admission!

"Young Frankenstein" may have lost some of its shine over the years, but it's influence is clear and far reaching, including allegedly inspiring Aerosmith's song "Walk This Way." (That's a schoolyard rumor, so I'm not sure if or how to cite it - just take my word for it because I heard it in eighth grade.) (And, as a philosophical aside, is it that the film has not aged well, or has the world of comedy film changed so drastically that "Young Frankenstein" no longer easily fits into the mold? Must discuss.)

If you've never seen it, you're definitely missing out. I'm very glad that I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen.

The Birds

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Daphne Du Maurier (story), Evan Hunter (screenplay)

Most people are at least passingly familiar with "The Birds" and some of its more famous sequences. Few people have actually seen the film from beginning to end, and I now count myself among those lucky few.

Intrigued by the mysterious Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) after he hits on her at a bird store (really!), Melanie Daniels follows him to his home in Bodega Bay under the auspices of delivering a pair of love birds for his younger sister's birthday. Chaos ensues as the local birds begin coordinating violent attacks on the people of the town, leaving several dead and the rest to wonder if they will survive the night.

What surprised me most was how long it took for the action of the film to develop. For the first half of the film (give or take), the story is merely merely one of cat-and-mouse romance between Brenner and Daniels. Of course, this adds to the tension - knowing that at some point, somehow, the birds are going to start attacking. (Although, this raises the question - if one didn't know that the birds were going to attack, would that tension exist at all? Or is that prior knowledge essential to the film?)

The effects are cheesy. Hitchcock, although a master of suspense and horror, worked best when relying on his actors to pull off the drama. It was hard to be afraid of a bird that either didn't look real, or seemed to be spliced in from stock footage.

The climax is a masterpiece, though. Considering that almost everything that makes the scene scary is happening completely off camera, it's amazing how terrified the film made me feel. The sounds effects, and small but important visual effects, make this scene. Knowing that all the birds are outside the house trying to get in (and that they occasionally find a weakness in the home's exterior) was absolutely frightful without needing any blood and guts. (OK, so there's a little blood and guts - but nothing like a slasher film).

The other great scene in the film occurs in the local diner, when the birds begin their first major attack on the town. The way the different personalities in the diner interact with each other and react to the situation is priceless. Although the dialogue isn't the strongest, the scene feels very real - as though that what normal people would do given some kind of avian apocalypse. That scene alone makes the film worth seeing at least once.

Although I'm often a fan of the "No explanation given; no explanation needed" philosophy, I'm afraid "The Birds" relied too heavily on that concept. We have no idea why the birds are doing what they're doing, how they're communicating with each other, or, well, anything. It's basically senseless violence. (Although, as I type this, now I'm wondering if there may have been a message about senseless violence in our society sewn into the film? I will ponder further.) The lack of explanation and the slow pacing of the first half of the film are definitely the major flaws and hinder the film from really taking off (pun intended).

Although I enjoyed the movie, I wouldn't recommend it as a starting point for Hitchcock. It's not one of his strongest films, nor even emblematic of his work in general. It's worth seeing at some point because of the two scenes I mentioned, and because of it's place within the canon of American horror, but that's as much as I'll say for it here.

Unforgiven

Directed by: Clint Eastwood

Written by: David Webb Peoples

Hands down, one of the best westerns of all time. No further comment.