Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

"You probably heard we ain't in the prisoner-takin' business; we in the killin' Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin'." – Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Writers: Quentin Tarantino

Producer: Lawrence Bender

Studio: The Weinstein Company (USA)

Major Stars: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger

In the genre of exploitation films, there are numerous sub-genres. The blaxploitation film, rape-revenge, splatter, sleaze...the different types seem almost endless. But one that hasn't been explored yet is the World War II exploitation film*.

That has changed. In Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds we have been given our first exploitation film covering WW2. And it kicks ass.

The multi-pronged story should be familiar to most of you by now. A unit of Jewish-American soldiers, led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), are air-dropped into Occupied France to terrorize the Germans. They take scalps and bash in heads, the bashing courtesy of "The Bear Jew", Sergeant Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) and his bat. They even have a German soldier who murdered Gestapo officers (Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) in their band. At the same time, a cinema owner in Paris who happens to be a Jew using a false identity is forced to host a German film premiere attended by the Nazi hierarchy, which is targeted by an Allied OSS operation. And tying all these different stories together is SS Colonel Hans Landa, "The Jew Hunter", played by Christoph Waltz.

The title may say "Inglourious Basterds", but the story is Landa's. He ties it all together. Nothing in the story would happen (except for one scene) without his involvement. And Waltz plays him to perfection. He is smooth, polite, intelligent and deadly. The opening scene where a Jewish family hiding under the floorboards in a French farmhouse are discovered and killed by Landa's unit is some of the best film-making you will ever see. Landa is exceedingly polite to the French farmer, but you know from the first how dangerous Landa is. From beginning to end, no other character grabs your attention like Landa. Waltz won the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award for the role, and he deserved it. In a perfect world Waltz would have won the Best Actor award. That is how good Waltz is in Inglourious Basterds.

The sole survivor of the Jewish family massacred in the opening scene is Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), who becomes the aforementioned cinema owner. She is the second most important character to this film. Dreyfus puts the climactic scene into action, an act of Jewish revenge upon the Nazi elite that is stunning and beautifully shot. But it begins to make you wonder why Tarantino named this film Inglourious Basterds when they are, in many ways, tangential at best to the unfolding story.

This isn't to degrade their performances. Pitt chews a bit of scenery as Raine but is a very enjoyable character, one that reminded me more than a little of Lee Marvin's Major Reisman in The Dirty Dozen. Roth is obviously enjoying his role as Donowitz, even as he mangles a Boston accent**. And Schweiger's Stiglitz is memorable in the short time we get to know him. But by and large, the Basterds are mostly ciphers who appear only a few times before the film's conclusion.

Review: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

“It's life, Captain, but not life as we know it.” – Commander Spock (Leonard Nimoy)

Director: Robert Wise

Writers: Alan Dean Foster (story), Harold Livingston (screenplay)

Producer: Gene Roddenberry

Studio: Paramount

Major Stars: William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, James Doohan, DeForest Kelley, George Takei, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Stephen Collins, Majel Barrett,

It’s Star Trek, friends, but not as we know it. Short on action and long on meditations about life, it’s purpose and it’s creation, Star Trek was an ambitious movie that inexplicably made the universe we all knew and loved god-awful boring.

You would think that the Enterprise flying out to intercept an alien cloud that has destroyed multiple Klingon ships and a Federation outpost would have some great action scenes. Instead, you get Spock trying to mind-meld with the remains of the ancient (by movie standards) Voyager space-probe that is now the heart and mind of a massive life-form called V'ger. That would be a nice compliment to a concurrent action sequence. Instead it’s just more of the same.

I was too young to appreciate the letdown a lot of Star Trek fans felt when it came out in 1979. These are the people that fought and begged NBC to keep the show on television and were teased by rumors of a second television show. So when this came out and it played like a snooze-fest, they were understandably pissed off. Throw in the fact it cost close to $50,000,000 and you didn’t get half the action of one of the television episodes, it’s amazing they went back to the well for Wrath of Khan. Thank God they did, but it was a leap of faith by Paramount. By comparison, Wrath of Khan cost just $11,000,000. Sometimes less is more.

Not that the whole film was a bust. Some of the sounds were unique, like that crazy buzz when V’ger appears. I liked a lot of the special effects, especially the interior of V’ger. Jerry Goldsmith’s soundtrack was a good one. And you have to admire the scope of the movie, even if its execution was flawed.

Plus, you have to give credit to what Star Trek: The Motion Picture gave birth to:

• 10+ more movies, including the new Star Trek reboot
• Four more television series (and undoubtedly more to come)
• Countless novels and tie-ins, video games and God knows what else

All that would never have happened without the first movie. In it’s own way, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was as influential on the science-fiction genre and entertainment in general as Star Wars was two years earlier. In some ways, maybe more so.

Movie Review: Rollerball (1975)

“You can't make me quit.” – Jonathan E. (James Caan)

Director: Norman Jewison

Writers: William Harrison (short story and screenplay)

Producer: Norman Jewison

Studio: MGM/UA

Major Stars: James Caan, Maud Adams, John Houseman, Moses Gunn, John Beck

I was worried going into this viewing that I would find myself disappointed the way I was with Logan’s Run. That a 70s sci-fi movie that I loved growing up would fail under the weight of those rose-colored expectations.

That didn’t happen here. Rollerball is still a solid sci-fi movie, one with a message. It doesn’t redefine the genre, but it carves its own niche into it and can hold its own with today’s flashy additions to the genre.

The plot is pretty straightforward. In the near-future, a handful of mega-corporations run the world. They provide all the basics of life and in return simply ask that the people let them run things as they see fit. To further distract the masses, they run a game called Rollerball where each corporation has a team. It is a hyper-violent sport that not only entertains the crowds but reinforces the idea that individualism is useless, that no one person can rise above the masses. It’s like if Mussolini ran a soccer league where all the players carried spiked bats.

On the Houston Energy team is the most popular player in the world, Jonathan E. (Caan). He starts to receive pressure to retire. No one will tell him why. His decision to seek out the answers drives the film to its conclusion.

Caan is great as Jonathan E. Jonathan begins the film content in his role as a player. He is a product of his world; a contented worker bee with a rudimentary education. But as he is pressured to retire, his eyes are opened to how rotted the world has become. Libraries are gone and now fully digitized, but information is constantly lost. Executives are awarded “privileges” where they can do things like take someone’s wife for their own (which happened to Jonathan). The Corporations run the world with unchecked power but rely on a faulty master computer for guidance.

That makes for one of the great moments of the movie. Jonathan demands to question the master computer in Zurich to find out why things are the way they are. Once there he is informed the computer has lost all the information pertaining to the 13th century, but that it doesn’t matter since the only thing of interest then was Dante. At which point the computer starts to babble incoherently. Jonathan realizes the computer is hopelessly corrupted, just like the world it has spawned.

And yet he doesn’t give in. The whole movie is, in part, a message about the individual fighting to claim their uniqueness in a world that tries to nullify it. The rollerball matches Jonathan competes in get more dangerous. His best friend on the team, Moonpie (played wonderfully by John Beck) is attacked during a match against Tokyo and intentionally placed into a permanent coma with a spiked glove shot to the back of his unprotected head. Jonathan is offered power, money and women. He is even offered back his wife, the one taken away from him by the Corporations so many years ago, as the ultimate bribe. All of this if he will simply retire.

But Jonathan won’t do it. Mostly because no one will tell him why they want him gone at first. But by the climax, he won’t do it because he sees everything the Corporations touch as rotted to the core, including the game he loves. The only thing he has that is untouched, that is his, is his name. And he won’t give that up.

Movie Review: Indigènes (Days of Glory) (2006)

"We're changing the destiny of France. Things must change for us, too!" - Abdelkader (Sami Bouajila)

Director: Rachid Bouchareb

Writers: Rachid Bouchareb, Olivier Lorelle

Producers: Muriel Merlin, Jean Bréhat

Studio: Multiple studios in France (production), IFC/Weinstein Co. (US release)

Major Stars: Sami Bouajila, Jamel Debbouze, Bernard Blancan, Roschdy Zem, Samy Naceri, Benoît Giros, Antoine Chappey, Aurélie Eltvedt

In the wake of France's utter defeat at the hand of the Nazis in May of 1940, the anti-German elements of the government were forced into exile. Following the Allies retaking of the French colonies along the North African coast in 1942, the Free French recruited soldiers amongst the "natives"; the indigenous inhabitants of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. These units were instrumental in French participation in battles in Italy as well as in Operation Dragoon, the Allied operation that attacked German forces in France from the southern coast in August of 1944. These soldiers fought, bled and died for a motherland that few of them had ever even seen, but believed in with a fervor. And France turned its back on them.

Indigènes follows four soldiers from Africa during this time. Each of them joins for a different reason. Saïd (Debbouze) joins to find security and a future in the Army. Messaoud (Zem) wants to live in Marseilles after the war. Yassir (Naceri) wants to earn enough money to marry off his younger brother. And Abdelkader (Bouajila) wants nothing less than France to live up to its promise of "Liberty, Fraternity and Equality."

None of them get what they want. And that forms the backbone of Indigènes, Rachid Bouchareb's impressive war film (nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2007) that is more a drama film with war elements. It looks at the institutional racism that the French military directed at it's African soldiers even as they died to liberate a country none of them had ever visited. Bouchareb looks mainly at the experiences of Algerian soldiers (Yassir is Moroccan), partially because of his background (he is French-Algerian) and partially because the Algerian veterans suffered a great injustice; having their pensions suspended in the late 1950s as Algeria was on the verge of independence from France.

The racism they suffered is expressed in various ways. Minor things like being denied tomatoes in the mess hall that the white soldiers get are almost more offensive to the African troops than the bigger examples, like getting inferior equipment and being denied boots in the dead of winter. Then there are the examples they never see. Messaoud meets a white French woman named Irene following the liberation of Marseilles. They fall in love and write to each other. But they never receive each others letters because the French military intercepts them.

Movie Review: They Live (1988)

“ I'm givin' you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eatin' that trashcan.” – Frank Nada (Roddy Piper)

Director: John Carpenter

Writers: Ray Nelson and John Carpenter

Producers: Andre Blay, Shep Gordon, Larry Franco and Sandy King

Studio: Universal

Major Stars: Roddy Piper, Keith David, Peter Jason, Meg Foster

If Robocop was a biting critique of the mentality of the 1980s (and that film is coming up next on this list), then They Live qualifies as a scathing all-out assault. John Carpenter’s pulp masterpiece (derived from Ray Nelson’s short-story Eight O'Clock in the Morning) is entertaining as hell while laying waste to the ‘greed’ mentality of that time period.

I saw this when it first came out in the theaters at the age of 16. I’ve seen it plenty of times since then and it is still one of my personal favorites. John Nada (Piper) is a homeless laborer who stumbles upon a crate of sunglasses in an empty church. The glasses allow him to see that the wealthy and powerful among us are aliens, using subliminal messaging in everything (from money to billboards to televisions) to keep humanity docile while they slowly foul our environment to suit their needs.

Of course, Nada will not take this sitting down. He gets his friend Frank (David) to help him take down a TV antennae that is broadcasting the signal that keeps the aliens and their subliminal messaging camouflaged. But not before a lot of entertaining fights, one-lines and gun battles take place.

It’s not hard to get Carpenter’s message in this movie. The wealthy elite appear as decaying aliens, willing to exploit everyone else for their own gain without a care for the consequences. He’s not leaving any room for reinterpretation here. What keeps the movie from being preachy (besides the fact that Carpenter is right in a lot of ways) is that he couches the message in a fun, entertaining package.

You don’t think of professional wrestlers as good actors (although Dwayne Johnson has done a good job of altering that perception), but Piper is perfect in the role of Nada. He brings a lot of energy to the role and he delivers those fantastic one-liners with obvious enthusiasm. I don’t think a more established actor would’ve taken to the role as well. And Keith David is great as his (at first, very reluctant) compatriot Frank.

I would be remiss not to mention the fight sequence in They Live between Nada and Frank. Quick setup. Nada has wasted two cop-aliens. He wants Frank to put on the glasses and see the truth. Frank only knows Nada killed two cops and wants nothing to do with him. Nada doesn’t take no for an answer. And so commences the greatest back-alley brawl of all-time, with Nada trying to force Frank to wear the glasses and see the light. It has everything, including an uncountable number of punches received and thrown, Frank slamming a knee into Nada's groin about 14,000 times in a row, a belly-to-back suplex by Nada on Frank, and a hilarious exchange where Nada almost brains Frank with a 2x4, and then apologizes (!) for it while they are fighting.

Depending on who you ask, the fight runs from anywhere between 5 ½ minutes to 7 ½ minutes. It’s pretty kickass.

Movie Review: Star Wars (1977)

“The Jedi are extinct, their fire has gone out of the universe. You, my friend, are all that's left of their religion.” – Grand Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing)

Director: George Lucas

Writers: George Lucas

Producers: George Lucas, Rick McCallum and Gary Kurtz

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Major Stars: Alec Guinness, Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing

I’m not going to discuss the plot here because, well, if you don’t know it by now you’ve either been in a 35-year coma or are an alien who has just landed on Earth. Whatever the case, go rent the DVD and see it now.

I led off with that quote from Tarkin for a reason. Contrary to what many people still believe, this wasn’t the first film in a trilogy about the growth of Luke Skywalker into a Jedi warrior. It was the first film in a trilogy about the redemption of Anakin Skywalker. And no one who saw the first film when it came out in 1977 ever saw that twist coming either.

I don’t even know if Lucas meant for it to happen. You read through the myriad rough drafts of what eventually became Star Wars and watch the film itself, and you never doubt for a moment that Luke became the centerpiece of the tale. And yet, by the end of the original trilogy the emotional center of the film is decidedly Darth Vader. And that says a lot about the universe the original film laid out, its flexibility and potential for depth.

Star Wars was a film that no one really saw coming. Fox moved it back to May from the summer because they were fearful Smokey and the Bandit would crush it. Only a handful of theaters originally wanted to run it; Fox had to strong-arm theaters into showing it. They threatened to withhold another film of theirs – The Other Side of Midnight – unless Star Wars was also carried.

From that it became a genre-defining film, the film that opened the door for sci-fi to come into the mainstream. Make no mistake; if Star Wars had been a bust the sci-fi genre would’ve been set back immeasurably in the film industry. Would Close Encounters of the Third Kind have been released that November if Star Wars crashed and burned in May? Does anyone take a chance on Alien in 1979?

It was also a cultural phenomenon that has been equaled only by Harry Potter, in my opinion. And in some ways, Potter still comes up short. Parents and children alike were lining up to see Star Wars again and again. Kids bought those action figures as soon as they hit the shelves. They were so popular that the manufacturer, Kenner, had to ship empty boxes with vouchers that could be redeemed for the figure in March of 1978. If you weren’t around for it you can’t even imagine how crazy it got.

And I must admit that likely colors my opinion of the movie to a degree. Let me put it this way; a year and-a-half later in November of 1978 they ran The Star Wars Holiday Special on CBS. This was one of the most insane things to ever run on television. A variety show with the Star Wars cast, Wookies galore and Han Solo straight-up murdering a stormtrooper (I shit you not). Lucas hates the thing; it has only aired once and Lucas won’t let a DVD come out.

Movie Review: The Fifth Element (1997)

“I hate warriors, too narrow-minded. I'll tell you what I do like though: a killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. Now a real killer, when he picked up the ZF-1, would've immediately asked about the little red button on the bottom of the gun.” – Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg (Gary Oldman)

Director: Luc Besson

Writers: Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen

Producers: Patrice Ledoux, Iain Smith and John A. Amicarella

Studio: Columbia Pictures

Major Stars: Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Gary Oldman, Ian Holm, Chris Tucker, Tommy “Tiny” Lister

When people discuss good sci-fi films of the past 15-20 years or so, it seems (to me, anyway) that people tend to deride or ignore The Fifth Element. I was one of those people once. Likely because when I first saw it back in 1997, I was a little…altered, and I thought it seemed ridiculous. Upon watching it again and again, I was way off; this is a solid, fun action/sci-fi film.

If you aren’t familiar with the film, the plot is pretty simple. Every 5,000 years the Great Evil visits the Earth. It must be repelled by a perfect warrior that releases the Divine Light. That can only be done by arranging and activating four stones representing the four elements (earth, fire, air, water) at a temple in Egypt, with the warrior (The Fifth Element) in the middle of the stones.

In 1914, aliens known as Mondoshawans remove the stones because of the advent of WW1. They promise to return the stones in 300 years, when the evil is supposed to return. 300 years later they do return, only to get blown out of space by mercenary shape-changing warriors known as Mangalores. They’ve been hired by Emmanuel Zorg (Oldman) to retrieve the stones. Of course, it isn’t that easy.

Recovered from the wreckage by the government are a few cells that are reconstituted into the perfect warrior. It’s Leeloo (Jovovich). She escapes the medical facility In New York City and literally falls into a flying cab driven by ex-Special Forces Major Korben Dallas (Willis). He gets wrapped up in the quest for the stones and getting them and Leeloo to the temple before the Great Evil, which has finally re-appeared, can destroy the Earth.

That rough outline doesn’t do justice to the film, which has lots of action and humor throughout. A scene where Dallas disarms a mugger outside his apartment is funny as hell, there’s a great flying car chase through New York, and the last 20-30 minutes of the film is pretty much a well-choreographed, kick-ass firefight between the Mangalores and Leeloo/Dallas on-board a space-liner where the stones are located. Very rarely does the film lag, with humor driving the story along when the action slows.

The casting is great as well. Not only in the major roles, but the smaller ones as well. Ian Holm is great as the flustered priest Vito Cornelius, whose sect has protected the secret of the Fifth Element for hundreds of years. Chris Tucker plays an over-the-top media icon known as Ruby Rhod, who escorts Dallas around the space-liner. Tucker’s manic delivery fits the character perfectly. And Brion James, a perpetual “That Guy” actor (Leon in Blade Runner, Ben Kehoe in 48 Hours) is solid as General Munro, Dallas’ former commanding officer who ropes him into retrieving the stones. And Tiny Lister as the President was inspired.

The music is cool as well. It’s has a Middle-Eastern flavor to it that works well. And there is a opera-techno fusion piece towards the end that is really nice.

Movie Review: Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo (Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War) (2004)

I wish this was all just a dream. I want to wake up in my bed, and over breakfast, I'd tell you that I had a strange dream. Then I would go to school, and you and mom would go to work. - Lee Jin-Seok (Won Bin)

Director: Kang Je-Gyu

Writer: Kang Je-Gyu

Producer: Lee Seong-Hun

Studio: Showbox Ent. (South Korea), Columbia TriStar (USA DVD)

Major Stars: Jang Dong-Kun, Bon Win, Lee Eun-Ju, Kong Hyeong-jin

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War blew me away. It’s a remarkable film, a war film that holds it’s own with the best of its Western counterparts. It’s a testament to the talent and quality that can be found in Korean cinema.

The film follows the Lee brothers, Jin-Tae (Jang Dong-Kun) and Jin-Seok (Bon Win), who live in Seoul with their family as the Korean War erupts in early 1950. Jin-Tae works as a shoemaker to put his brother through school. When the North Koreans invade, and Jin-Seok is forcibly enlisted into the Republic of Korea Army (RoK), Jin-Tae joins him to watch over him and try to get him home.

The only way to get Jin-Seok out of the RoK is for Jin-Tae to win the Taeguk Cordon of the Order of Military Merit, the Korean equivalent of the Medal of Honor. He volunteers for dangerous missions. By succeeding he gains attention from the staff officers and the adulation of his fellow soldiers. And Jin-Tae volunteers for more exceedingly difficult missions. But Jin-Seok sees this as changing his brother, who becomes more violent. And so Jin-Seok grows more distant from his brother.

That is what makes Tae Guk Gi so effective. It marries the dynamic of a deteriorating relationship between brothers to some remarkable war scenes. This is where war films go from good to great.

And the scenes are amazing. The first major battle sequence occurs in the early weeks of the Korean War when the North Koreans have all but taken the South. The Lee brothers and their unit are surrounded by the Nakdong River and are being starved to death. They decide to launch a desperation attack against the North Koreans to break out.

This battle is as visceral and jarring as any scene in Saving Private Ryan. More so in some ways, as this is a blood feud in every sense of the phrase. Soldiers are beaten to death with fists and rifle butts. The filming is done with the shaking camera style Spielberg used for Omaha Beach and it works. You are dragged along and feel the desperation of the RoK soldiers who are fighting for their lives.

There are urban combat scenes that look like they were ripped out of documentary reels. The moment when 600,000 Chinese counterattack across the border is a stunning visual to behold. The work of Hong Kyung-Pyo as cinematographer on this film is absolutely fantastic. Not only in the moments of war but in the moments of peace at the beginning of the film.

What also makes Tae Guk Gi a great film is that it doesn’t pull punches with atrocities committed on both sides. We see the crimes of the North Koreans, with villagers slaughtered and people forced to fight for them. We already know about these. What we see and may be unfamiliar with are the South Korean atrocities. North Korean POWs are forced to fight to the death for RoK soldiers. In Seoul the Anti-Communist Federation executes suspected Communists without evidence as the Chinese approach to take the city for the North once again. This latter atrocity affects the Lee brothers in a personal way and drives the climax of the film. Hats off to Kang Je-Gyu for not holding back in his depiction of the war.

If there is anything negative to say about the film, it would be problems that are common to these types of films. Secondary characters tend to be caricatures to some degree. The plot gets rushed at points as Kang tries to cover an extensive period of time. But that does not detract in a major way from the overall success of this film.

I really cannot say enough good things about Tae Guk Gi. And it earns a really high spot on the current list. I’m placing it a hair behind Letters From Iwo Jima. I think Eastwood’s film was better, but not by much. And yes, I am telling you this movie is better than Braveheart or Where Eagles Dare. It's the simple truth. And this should prove that a great war film doesn't need big names or big bucks. Tae Guk Gi was made for $12.8 million. It looks like it cost 10 times that much.

You must have this film in your collection. I promise you that you will not be disappointed. One word of advice; watch it in Korean with the English subtitles. The DVD has an English-dubbed option and it just looks wrong. Besides, films should be listened to in the language they were shot in...with the exception of kung-fu films from the 1970s and 80s.

Movie Review: Outland (1981)

“ They sent me here to this pile of shit because they think I belong here. I've got to find out if they're right. There's a whole machine that works because everybody does what they're supposed to. I found out I was supposed to be something I didn't like. That's what's in the program. That's my rotten little part in the rotten machine. Well, I don't like it. So I'm going to find out if they're right.” – Marshal O’Neil (Sean Connery)

Director: Peter Hyams

Writer: Peter Hyams

Producers: Stanley O’Toole, Charles Orme, Richard A. Roth

Studio: Warner Brothers

Major Stars: Sean Connery, Peter Boyle, Frances Sternhagen, James Sikking, John Ratzenberger

I saw this movie first on HBO when I was 11 or so. My dad didn’t mind because Connery was in it. He felt a little guilty about that after the naked prostitute almost gets butchered. But I just thought the idea of Connery taking on all comers in space was so bad-ass I didn’t even notice it.

If you’re not familiar with Outland, think High Noon in Space and you get the basic idea. Connery is Federal Marshal Wiiliam O'Niel, assigned (banished) to a backwater mining outpost on Jupiter’s moon of Io. There he discovers miners have been dying gruesome deaths because of the widespread use of “polydichloric euthimal”, a drug that increases productivity. O’Neil traces the source of the shipments back to the corporate head running the place. And trouble ensues from there.

It’s a better movie than some give it credit for. While the motifs are undeniably cribbed from High Noon, there is an unmistakable anti-corporate message in the film. To wit, here is a quote from Station Manager Sheppard, played with a nicely wicked bent by Peter Boyle:

Let me tell you what you're dealing with here. I run a franchise. The company hired me to dig as much ore out of this hellhole as possible. My hookers are clean, some of them are good looking. My booze isn't watered. The workers are happy. When the workers are happy, they dig more ore. They get paid more bonus money. When they dig more ore, the company's happy. When the company's happy, I'm happy.

In other words, sure the drug kills them, but they’re happy while they take it. So everyone is “happy” in one sense or another. Even though the workers are replaceable cogs, nothing more.

It also has a pretty pessimistic view of humanity. Here we are, able to travel in space and colonize other planets and moons. And we still treat each other like shit. I happen to think Hyams is on the mark here, but we’ll never know for sure until we actually can get out there.

Connery is good in this film, playing a harried Marshal trying to make a last go of it as his family life falls apart. He’s the classic “good man in a bad situation,” trying to clean up a cesspool that no one in particular wants cleaned up. Frances Sternhagen is a great sidekick as Dr. Lazarus, the only person on the station willing to help O’Niel when two contract killers come to silence him.

The action is good, as are the special effects. When Connery is spacewalking outside the station, it looks like he is spacewalking outside the station. And even though you don’t explode when your suit de-pressurizes…it's a nice effect.

So where does it rest on the list? As much as I like this movie, even I know this is not a top-tier classic. It is a good sci-fi western, but better than Serenity? No. But it’s still a lot better than Logan’s Run.

You should definitely check out Outland when you get the chance. Last I checked you can buy a copy at the Turner Classic Movies website for about four bucks.

Movie Review: Independence Day (1996)

“I saw... its thoughts. I saw what they're planning to do. They're like locusts. They're moving from planet to planet... their whole civilization. After they've consumed every natural resource they move on... and we're next. Nuke 'em. Let's nuke the bastards.” – President Thomas Whitmore (Bill Pullman)

Director: Roland Emmerich

Writers: Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin

Producers: Roland Emmerich, Ute Emmerich, William Fay, Dean Devlin and Peter Winther

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Major Stars: Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Robert Loggia, Jeff Goldblum, Judd Hirsch, Mary McDonnell, Randy Quaid, Vivica A. Fox, Adam Baldwin, Brent Spiner

Admittedly a masterpiece of special-effects, Independence Day relies on them to cover up a cavalcade of errors and mis-steps in the script. And while the sheer scale of the film and the action it displays does earn it a place on this list (for now), it will be hard-pressed to hold on once 100 films are reviewed and each subsequent review could knock a film off the list.

I don’t think I need to cover the plot, do I? Ever since its release in 1996 Independence Day has seemed to be playing somewhere on television every single day. At least one movie channel seems to have it in perpetual rotation on the weekends.

Besides, we all loved it when it first came out, right? Be honest; you likely fell for the hype. I know I did. I saw the damn film three times at the old Cheri in Boston. The spectacle on the screen was amazing. The special effects really pushed the envelope for the time though they weren’t revolutionary in the way Star Wars was in the 70s. The large-scale destruction was impressive to behold. Independence Day was loud and brash and cleaned up that summer.

It was only later as the buzz on the film wound down that the flaws in the film became more and more apparent. The one-dimensional characters. The “by-the-numbers” plotting. And the logic holes!!

How could a computer on Earth talk to, let alone infect, an alien system? How can a rolling wave of fire destroy all in its path yet not enter an open door in a tunnel to fry a major character? Why does the rest of the world sit around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for the Americans to think of something? How does the First Lady internally bleed to death in Area 51 after surviving over a day in the ruins of Los Angeles? Feel free to add your own.

That is where the film falters. Special effects alone cannot carry a sci-fi movie through repeated viewings. It eventually becomes old-hat. The story underneath the glitz has to be solid enough to support the film on its own. Films like Aliens or The Terminator have that kind of story. Independence Day does not.

So…we have a film with stunning effects and a mediocre script with logic holes galore that become more noticeable upon repeated viewings. Where does this go on this list? To me, it’s a simple question of whether it goes above or below Logan’s Run. These are what I consider “foundation films.” They build the base of the list and set the minimum standard for consideration but can easily be bumped off in the future.

The effects are obviously superior on Independence Day. But the script for Logan’s Run, even with the out-dated “overpopulation” motif, is more coherent and solid. And I don’t do ties. I give Independence Day the edge, but not with any kind of enthusiasm.

It’s worth watching for free on television if you haven’t seen it in a while and nothing else is on. To be fair, the whole “destruction of the world” sequence does still get my attention. But I wouldn’t spend a dime to add Independence Day to my collection.

Movie Review: Serenity (2005)

”So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?” – Captain Malcom Reynolds (Nathan Fillion)

Director: Joss Whedon

Writers: Joss Whedon

Producer: Barry Mendel

Studio: Universal

Major Stars: Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Adam Baldwin, Gina Torres, Summer Glau

I liked Serenity. A lot. Which I know can be controversial with fans of the show it's based upon (Firefly) because of some storyline choices. But I think you need to take it on its own. That is how the film was designed - to be accessible to newcomers.

It's an action-packed sci-fi flick with a Western flavor that never drags, is coherent in its story and entertains the whole way.

In the 26th Century, humanity has colonized the stars. There is a core of strong, advanced worlds called the Alliance. The worlds on the fringe are called Independents. When the Alliance decides to "enlighten" the Independents, there is a war that the Alliance wins.

One of the heroes of the losing side, Captain Malcom "Mal" Reynolds, now captains a ship called the Serenity. He runs jobs with his crew on both sides of the law, doing what it takes to maintain his independence in a galaxy the Alliance is trying to make perfect by any means necessary.

He takes onto his ship a brother and sister, Simon and River Tam. Simon is a doctor. River is something altogether different; an experiment of the Alliance. A living weapon who knows a secret the Alliance doesn't want anyone else to hear. And when Simon and River escape on the Serenity, the Alliance sends an Operative (think uber bad-ass ninja/assassin/warrior-philosopher) to find River no matter the cost.

And that is the basic plot of the film. Mal discovers what the secret is and wants the rest of the galaxy to hear it. The Operative does anything and everything he can to stop him. It's a strong spine that allows the story to be told simply and entertainingly.

It's a strong cast. Nathan Fillion as Mal convincingly plays a man who wants to be amoral but can't help doing the right thing when it counts. Alan Tudyk and Gina Torres are the husband/wife team of Wash and Zoe. Wash is the pilot and Zoe is a former member of Mal's squad during the war. Adam Baldwin plays Jayne, a mercenary hired by the crew. Jewel Staite plays Kaylee, the engineer of the Serenity and someone who seems way too sweet to be in such a dangerous universe. Sean Maher and Summer Glau play Simon and River Tam. They are the center of the film, River in particular.

Following them is Chiwetel Ejiofor as The Operative. He plays it great, a true believer in the system who knows he is a monster doing bad things for "the greater good."

The universe Serenity takes place in is as much a character as the cast. Joss Whedon did a fantastic job bringing it to life. Cities can be shiny and clean or grimy and dangerous. There are no hand-held lasers or photon beams; people use guns and, in the case of The Operative, a sword. The language is a mix of English and Chinese, which is a nice touch and completely logical considering the size and growth of China.

Movie Review: Dark of the Sun (1968)

"The gun's Chinese, Ruffo ... paid for by Russian rubles. The steel probably came from a West German factory built by French francs. Then it was flown out here on a South African airline probably subsidized by The United States. I don't think he got very far." - Captain Curry (Rod Taylor)

Director:Jack Cardiff

Writers: Ranald MacDougall and Adrian Spies (screenplay), Wilbur Smith (novel)

Producer: George Englund

Studio: MGM

Major Stars: Rod Taylor, Yvette Mimieux, Peter Carsten, Jim Brown

Note: In keeping with my policy about movies 25 years old or more, I feel no compunctions about revealing the ending of the film. With that in mind, there are SPOILERS below. If you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to avoid this review.

I will admit right up front that I have a soft spot for Dark of the Sun and that likely colors my perception of it. I remember watching it as a kid for the first time on TV when I was 10 or so (this would be the early 80s) and being stunned by the violence that (for the time and my age) was pretty intense for television. But I loved war films and mercenary films, so having both together was like getting a present. I was also a military history fanatic even at that age, so it gave me something else to look up at the local library.*

The film is set during the Simba Rebellion in the Congo around 1964. The Congo had just recently gone through a brutal period of gaining independence from Belgium that devolved into secession of provinces, UN troops fighting to restore the government and mercenaries fighting for the regional leaders. Almost immediately as that settled down, the Simba Rebellion kicked off. They claimed to be fighting against government corruption. But they were basically murdering any Congolese citizens who they felt were "Westernized" as well as terrorizing Europeans who had remained in the Congo. The government of the Congo used mercenaries to lead and train the Congolese military to put down the rebellion.

That is where Dark of the Sun begins. Captain Curry (Rod Taylor) and his right-hand man Sergeant Ruffo (Jim Brown) are brought in by the government to lead a mission to retrieve European settlers from a remote town. Supposedly. That is secondary to their primary mission: to recover $50M in uncut diamonds, diamonds the government needs to stay afloat and pay the mercenaries putting down the Simbas. They give him 72 hours to return with the diamonds. If he does, he gets $50K.

That is the spine of the tale and, like most successful films, it is a simple one. The complexity should come from the characters and their interactions. And they do...as much as a film like this can have complexity.

Curry and Ruffo take command of 40 men from Stryker Blue, a crack native Congolese outfit. They also bring along an alcoholic doctor and an ex-Nazi soldier named Heinlein (Peter Carsten)**. This is done out of necessity, as Curry makes it clear early on that he doesn't like him at all. They are given a steam train to move upcountry. The rest of the film is about their trip and what they run into.

Along the way it becomes clear that Heinlein knows about the diamonds.They find a burned out house along the way with the only survivor being Claire (Yvette Mimieux) whom they bring along. Now, this is the only note in the film that rung totally false for me. Claire really doesn't do anything in the film except look gorgeous. And while one can appreciate that, it wasn't really necessary for the film. She does serve as a flashpoint for Heinlein and Curry, but they were already headed that way.

They reach the town only to find out that the diamonds are in a time-locked vault which won't open for three hours. This allows the Simbas to reach the town just as the vault opens and makes for the most memorable scene in the film.

Movie Review: Children of Men (2006)

As the sound of the playgrounds faded, the despair set in. Very odd, what happens in a world without children's voices. - Miriam (Pam Ferris)

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Writers: Alfonso Cuarón, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby

Producer: Marc Abraham

Studio: Universal

Major Stars: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Peter Mullan

What would the world be like with no children? What would happen to us as people if we lost the ability to reproduce and watched the slow, inevitable march towards our destruction? Would we soldier on or give up? Would chaos break out? Could we keep our hope, our faith? Or would we just tune out and cease to care?

These are some of the questions addressed in Children of Men, a remarkable film that I am pleased will kick off the "Top 100 Sci-Fi Films" list. Directed by Alfonso Cuarón and an adaptation of the novel by P.D. James, it brings us into the horrifying world of 2027. Humanity has gone sterile. The last baby, Baby Diego who was born in 2009, has been killed by an overzealous fan. Society has collapsed everywhere around the world except in Britain, where order is maintained by a totalitarian government and refugees are ruthlessly captured and shipped to Bexhill, a resort town turned gulag/deportation center/death camp. Against this dystopian backdrop we are introduced to Theo Faron (Clive Owen), a burnt-out shell of a man, going through the motions in a decaying society. He openly puts booze in his coffee and cynically uses the death of Baby Diego to get out of work. His only moments of happiness are spent with his aging hippie friend Jasper (played wonderfully by Michael Caine) at his country home. He has, for the most part, ceased to care.

Then his life is thrown off-kilter. His ex-wife, Julian Taylor (Julianne Moore), now the leader of a pro-refugee terrorist group known as the Fishes, comes to him for help. She needs a very special girl, Kee, to get out of Britain and to a scientific group known as the Human Project. Julian knows Theo can get transit papers that will allow the girl to pass through security points and reach a boat sent by the Human Project. Will she help him? It is his decision and what flows from that point that make up the bulk of the film.

Art Imitates Life: When the refugee bus reaches Bexhill, a man being tortured outside is posed in the exact same way as the iconic "hooded man" torture image from Abu Ghraib.

Odds are that most people know the plot of the film and why Kee is so special. Hell, you probably know just from what I'm writing. But since Children of Men isn't that old, and is so good if you go into it cold, I'm doing by best to avoid spoilers. So bear with me if I am a little vague.

Cuarón does a wonderful job of examining the issues of hope and faith through what is, essentially, a road film. Theo has to get Kee to the boat; that's the spine of the story. What Cuarón builds around that spine both visually and thematically is amazing.

The Britain of 2027 is dystopian and gray. Garbage goes uncollected and grime stains the buildings. Heavily-armed soldiers man every corner, along with signs asking citizens to root out refugees and report them. Captured refugees are held in cages until they can be transported to the hell that is Bexhill. Roving bands of bandits infest the countryside. It's the slow death of humanity, and Cuarón does a wonderful job (along with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki) of capturing it.

Movie Review: Gravity (2013)

Photo: © 2013 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

In the beginning of Alfonso Cuarón's masterful Gravity, we are greeted with the words "Life in space is impossible". For the rest of the film, Cuarón goes about disproving that statement. Not through the introduction of alien life or some fanciful terraforming of the moon. Instead, we watch someone regain the desire to live their life.

From the trailer, you know the basics of Gravity. A space mission is compromised when Russia takes down one of their satellites with a missile strike*. This causes a chain reaction and destroys hundreds of satellites, creating a debris field orbiting the Earth at mind-boggling speeds. This field impacts anything in it's path, including the only way home for Mission Commander Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Mission Specialist Ryan Mason (Sandra Bullock). The film focuses on their efforts to get back to Earth, on their own, and running low on oxygen.

This is a movie that plays many different ways. It is a thriller (can they make it home in time?), an action film (the scenes of the debris strikes and the chaos they cause are epic and dizzying), a simple visual treat (the views of Earth from space are remarkable. But at it's core, it is an intimate character piece. Kowalski and Ryan are, apart from the opening minutes, the only people we ever see in the movie. And for long periods of time, Ryan is the only actor on the screen. It is a bold decision by Cuarón to commit so much time to only one actor, in a film that cost $80 million to make. But it works. Cuarón is a remarkable director and Gravity shows him in full command of his craft. Some of the beats may be slightly formulaic, but it never feels cheap. It never feels like he cheats to get us somewhere.

The journey of the characters and the plotting of the film are so tightly intertwined that it is near impossible to say much about Gravity without giving too much away. And the best way to approach this movie is without knowing anything. But special note must be given to Sandra Bullock for her performance. She carries this movie and does it very, very well. Her emotional journey is heartfelt and you feel it along with her. If she isn't on the short list for the Best Actress Oscar this year then something has gone very, very wrong.

Credit must also be given to the cinematography of Emmanuel Lubezki, who has worked with Cuarón on Children of Men and Y Tu Mamá También. This film is mostly CGI but it is shot in a way that feels very, very real. The chaos of the debris strike sends Ryan spinning in space and you spin with her. You feel the disorientation. Other moments, when you see the Aurora Borealis over Earth, you simply gaze in wonder. Lubezki should also be up for an Oscar.

And so should Cuarón. Gravity is another wonderful film from one of the best directors working today. It is a mesmerizing, white-knuckle, emotional journey. It is the best film I have seen this year.

----------------

* This isn't a Hollywood creation to drive the plot. It actually happens. China did it in 2007 and the US did it in 2008.

Movie Review: Play Dirty (1968)

You want me to inform against my own men, sir? - Colonel Masters (Nigel Green)

Director: Andre De Toth

Writers: Melvyn Bragg and Lotte Colin (screenplay), George Marton (story)

Producer: Harry Saltzman

Studio: United Artists

Major Stars: Michael Caine, Nigel Green, Nigel Davenport, Patrick Jordan, Harry Andrews

Note: In keeping with my policy about movies 25 years old or more, I feel no compunctions about revealing the ending of the film. With that in mind, there are SPOILERS below. If you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to avoid this review.

I am almost 100% sure I have never seen a more cynical war film than Play Dirty. A “men on a mission” film, it is overshadowed by The Dirty Dozen, which came out a year earlier. But where that film involved the redemption of the commander and his charges, there is no redemption in Play Dirty, at any point. And that unyielding viewpoint allows it to overcome a mediocre script to be a good war film, but not one of lasting impact.

Using the exploits of the real-life Long Range Desert Group in WW2 as inspiration, Play Dirty involves a gang of criminals and cut-throats used by Colonel Masters (Nigel Green) as an irregular unit to probe hundreds of miles behind German lines in North Africa. On the verge of having his unit disbanded and his project shut down, he presents his superior (Brigadier Blore – played by Harry Andrews) with photos of a German fuel depot. He gets one more chance to prove his unit’s worth with a 400-mile ramble behind German lines to blow the depot.

It's here we get the first taste of the cynicism of Play Dirty. The brigadier calls in his subordinate and presents Masters’ plan as his own, using the irregular unit as a decoy for the real unit made up of British regulars. As these plans are made, Masters has Captain Douglas (Caine), a BP executive overseeing fuel deliveries, attached to his unit for his expertise. He is led to believe he is leading the attack when it is in actuality Captain Leech (Davenport), a mercenary-minded soldier who only cares about keeping Douglas alive because Masters is paying him a £2500 bonus.

The unit is made up mostly of the most despicable men you have ever seen in a film. There is no one here like Charles Bronson’s Wladislaw in The Dirty Dozen. Even Caine’s Captain Douglas, ostensibly the hero through the early part of the film, is revealed to be a cynic and cold at heart. And Captain Leech…it’s a great role that Davenport has and I wish that De Toth had given him a larger role. Davenport plays Leech straight; there are no efforts to make him likable. He’d sell you to the Germans for a nickel and you’d be a fool to trust him. Let me put it this way; the most sympathetic character in the entire film is a German nurse and she's a Nazi. That is how cynical and dark this film is; the Nazi is who you feel for.

Movie Review: Letters From Iwo Jima (2006)

If our children can live safely for one more day it would be worth the one more day that we defend this island. - General Tadamichi Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe)

Director: Clint Eastwood

Writers: Tadamichi Kuribayashi and Tsuyoko Yoshido (book), Iris Yamashita and Paul Haggis (story), Iris Yamashita (screenplay)

Producer: Paul Haggis, Clint Eastwood, Tim Moore, Robert Lorenz, Steven Spielberg

Studio: Paramount (US theatrical), Warner Bros. (all other US media)

Major Stars: Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya, Tsuyoshi Ihara, Ryo Kase, Shido Nakamura

Letters From Iwo Jima is a remarkable film. The counterpart to Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, it shows us the Battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of the Japanese. In doing so, it also shows us that the biggest difference in the soldiers who fight is the color of their uniform and not who they are or the color of their skin.

I think this is a very important movie in that respect. If you visit history sites or message boards, you will come across many people arguing that the Germans of WW2 shouldn't be universally vilified because many of the soldiers were just defending their home. But you will almost never see a similar argument made for the men of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). When, truth be told, the "defending their home" argument would apply more for the Japanese than the Germans, who almost universally (at the time) bought into Hitler's program. After all, Iwo Jima was considered part of the Japanese homeland by the Japanese people. The reasons for this dichotomy are rather self-apparent.

We see the saga of Iwo Jima through the eyes of Saigo, played by Kazunari Ninomiya. He is a simple baker who was unwillingly drafted to fight in the IJA. All he wants to do is to make it home alive and see his wife and daughter. He doesn't want to be on Iwo, preparing for a battle he somehow knows is futile. How similar are these feelings to ones an American soldier would feel, far away from his family? That theme of commonality amongst all the soldiers is touched upon again and again by Eastwood.

The commanding officer of the Japanese forces was General Tadamichi Kuribayashi. Ken Watanabe plays the role and he deserved another Oscar nod for it. Kuribayashi was a general who believed in defending his country. He also knew that it would be ultimately futile; he had visited the United States from 1928-30 as as military attache and saw first-hand the might of American industry. These two sides come across easily through the use of flashbacks and Watanabe's portrayal. Kuribayashi breaks time and time again with standard Army protocol. He doesn't want to throw away his soldier's lives on the beach. He refuses to let them engage in banzai charges because they are wasteful and useless. He wants his men to retreat to other locations rather than commit suicide (a gruesome example of this is portrayed in the film). And while all of this is sound military planning that will exact more casualties from the U.S. forces, Kuribayashi also does it because he doesn't want to simply waste their lives, even in a hopeless situation. He fights not to fulfill a warrior's code, but to keep the people of Japan safe for one more day, one more hour, from the American bombers that he knows will inevitably arrive.

The other intriguing character, both in the film and in real life, is Baron Nishi. Nishi was an Olympic gold medalist, winning the individual show-jumping event in Los Angeles in 1932. He moved amongst the social circles in the United States during that time. Played by Tsuyoshi Ihara in the film, we see him as someone who is willing to fight although it pains him to do so. More than anyone, including Kuribayashi, he understands that there is little that actually separates the common soldiers on either side of the war. The film does take a liberty in showing Kuribayashi and Nishi as friends; in reality they did not get along particularly well. And that may have led to a complaint from some reviewers that I will get to in a moment.

We are not spared the sight of true believers, however. There are many soldiers and officers that believe in suicide charges and killing oneself when all hope is lost. And the way they browbeat the conscripts into following them is heart-breaking. You try to understand why they did it, and can't. It was decades of relentless indoctrination, something we have no experience with.

Movie Review: Zulu (1964)

If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle. - Lieutenant John Chard (Stanley Baker)

Director: Cy Endfield

Writers: John Prebble and Cy Endfield (screenplay)

Producer: Joseph E. Levine (executive producer), Stanley Baker and Cy Endfield

Studio: Paramount British Pictures

Major Stars: Stanley Baker, Michael Caine, Nigel Green, Jack Hawkins, James Booth, Ulla Jacobsson

Note: In keeping with my policy about movies 25 years old or more, I feel no compunctions about revealing the ending of the film. With that in mind, there are SPOILERS below. If you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to avoid this review.

Zulu brings you back to the old days of the epic war film. It was mostly shot on location in South Africa, uses thousands of extras and has those wonderful large-scale war scenes. Held back only by a tendency to play loose with history, Zulu is one of the better war films ever made.

The battle in question is the defense of Rorke’s Drift in 1879 in Natal, South Africa. At the time, a war had just broken out between the British Empire and the Zulus. 1500 British soldiers and native levies moved out to attack the Zulu, leaving behind just under 140 soldiers to garrison the mission at Rorke’s Drift. The rest of the British soldiers were slaughtered at the Battle of Isandlwana to a man. That result left the soldiers at Rorke’s Drift facing over 4,000 Zulu warriors.

The commanding officer of the soldiers, Lieutenant John Chard, is played by Stanley Baker. Chard belongs to the Royal Engineers and isn’t a line officer, and Baker plays him right. Chard is rough around the edges, not hung up on the little formalities than permeated the British military in that time.

Michael Caine plays that kind of officer in his first role of note. His Lieutenant Bromhead is all upper-crust British, with the affectations and perfectly tailored uniform. Watching him develop into a battle-tested officer is one of the numerous character-growth threads that tie together the major story.

Another key figure is Color Sergeant Bourne, played by Nigel Green*. He is the classic sergeant that holds his men together and is utterly stoic in the face of danger. James Booth plays Henry Hook, a soldier who lingers in the infirmary to get out of duty but becomes a hero. These are the major players in the movie.

And mention must be made of Otto Witt, the missionary played by Jack Hawkins. He doesn’t want the British and Zulu to fight. He scares the native levies at Rorke’s Drift into deserting. He tries to scare the soldiers into fleeing. And he exits the movie as a broken and drunken man. It’s a great role to play, if an unsympathetic one, and Hawkins is excellent in it**.

But what drives this film are the battle scenes. The battle at Rorke’s Drift is the epic defense in British military history. 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded to soldiers for their actions that day. They fought off a Zulu army that outnumbered them almost 29-1. And Zulu does a great job of showing how desperate the British defense was against the Zulus.

The native warriors come in waves with their spears and shield as the thin British line engages in volley fire and then use their bayonets. Each soldier has to deal with four or five Zulus. It always looks like they’ll be swallowed whole by the Zulu wave. And yet the Brits survive and keep fighting.

The last engagement is the best one as the power of technology is used against the Zulus. The soldiers form a three-row firing line and set up a rolling fire. Volley after volley crashes into the Zulus as Chard and Bromhead yell out the command to fire with desperation in their voices. It’s a tense scene as the roar and thunder of each volley fills your ears.

The scenery is as authentic as it comes; the film was shot in Natal. It is beautiful and adds even more realism to the film.

Movie Review: M*A*S*H (1970)

Now, fair's fair Henry. If I nail Hotlips and hit Hawkeye can I go home too? - Capt. Augustus 'Duke' Forrest (Tom Skerritt)

Director: Robert Altman

Writer: Richard Hooker (novel), Ring Lardner, Jr. (screenplay)

Producer: Ingo Preminger, Leon Ericksen

Studio: 20th Century Fox (US)

Major Stars: Donald Sutherland, Tom Skerritt, Elliot Gould, Robert Duvall, Sally Kellerman, Rene Auberjonois, Roger Bowen, Gary Burghoff

Note: In keeping with my policy about movies 25 years old or more, I feel no compunctions about revealing what happens in the film. With that in mind, there may be SPOILERS below. If you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to avoid this review.

Without a doubt, M*A*S*H is the funniest war film you will ever see in your life. And while it hardly has anything you would normally associate with a war movie, it touches on many aspects of wartime in a very subtle manner.

The film is set in the Korean War and focuses on the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, and in particular two doctors; Captain "Hawkeye" Pierce (Sutherland) and Captain "Trapper" John McIntyre (Gould). Through the movie you pretty much laugh non-stop at their antics, which including baiting and teasing the two uptight officers in the unit; Major Frank Burns (Duvall) and Major Margaret Houlihan (Kellerman). The film comes to a peak at the end during a football game between the 4077th and the 325th Evac Hospital, which is absolutely gut-busting hilarious.

So it all sounds like a great comedy with just the trappings of a war movie, right? But there’s a lot more to it.

• One of the scenes has Pierce operating on a wounded soldier. He makes jokes and has the nurse scratch his nose all over the sound of a bone saw amputating the soldier’s leg.
• Pierce and Hawkeye are rushed to Japan to operate on a soldier in a top-flight military hospital. The soldier happens to be the son of a Congressman. Would a regular GI get that treatment?
• There is a Korean teenager named Ho-Jon who works at the camp. When he is drafted, Hawkeye tries to get him out of service by slipping him drugs to raise his heart-rate.

And that leads to a moment that you almost miss. The original script had Ho-Jon getting wounded, returning to the 4077th and dying on the operating table. The film edited most of that out. But you do see him in the operating room. And then after that, at a poker game with the doctors, you see a jeep drive off and the doctors stop playing for a moment. The jeep holds Ho-Jon’s corpse.

It’s a moment like that, that encapsulates the suffering war causes and how the survivors deal with it, that pushes M*A*S*H beyond being “just” a comedy. The plain fact is that Hawkeye and Trapper John act like maniacs because otherwise they’d go mad from all the suffering and death they are confronted with. The whole movie is one long look at how these soldiers cope with the war. And that is what makes Altman’s film not only a good comedy, but a good war film as well.

See, war films don’t always have to show the war to be effective. You have obvious films in that category, like Casablanca, and others you may not know about ( The Best Years of Our Lives - the damn film won seven Academy Awards but you barely ever see it on television or mentioned anywhere). That is the kind of war film M*A*S*H is; it focuses not on the battles, but on how those battles affect the soldiers who fight them and the people associated with them.

So where does a film like this rank? My method is simple (have I talked about this yet?); I start at the bottom of the list. If I think the film is better than the one listed, I go up a peg. That continues until I can’t go any higher. Which is how I find myself slotting it (at this time) between Where Eagles Dare and Braveheart. And I didn’t see that coming.

Not that M*A*S*H isn’t deserving of that kind of ranking. It’s a great movie that makes you laugh and think at the same time. But I thought going into this list that it would likely be in the middle tiers. I was wrong, which is only more of a testament to the actors and director.

Without a doubt, see M*A*S*H if you haven’t done so yet. It should also be a permanent part of your movie collection.

Movie Review: Der Untergang (Downfall) (2004)

We didn't force the German people. They gave us a mandate, and now their little throats are being cut! - Joseph Goebbels (Ulrich Matthes)

Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel

Writers: Joachim Fest, Traudl Junge and Melissa Müller (books), Bernd Eichinger (screenplay)

Producer: Christine Rothe, Bernd Eichinger, Wolf-Dietrich Brücker, Doris J. Heinze and Jörn Klamroth

Studio: Constantin Film Produktion (Germany), Newmarket Films (US Distribution)

Major Stars: Bruno Ganz, Ulrich Matthes, Thomas Kretschmann, Alexandra Maria Lara, Heino Ferch, Juliane Köhler, Christian Berkel

Downfall is a remarkable film. Chronicling the final days of Adolph Hitler as the Russians surrounded Berlin, it shows us not only his final collapse, but how it affected those around him in the Reichsbunker and the citizenry of Berlin. It almost, almost makes you feel moments of pity for Hitler, which only testifies to Oliver Hirschbiegel's skill as a director and Bruno Ganz's skill as an actor.

The material for the film came from numerous books, but a majority of it was provided by Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge. She died two years before Downfall was released, but we watch this film primarily from her perspective. Clips from an interview she gave shortly before her death bookend the film and provide a very sobering analysis of her role in history.

In the film itself, she is portrayed by Alexandra Maria Lara. Lara does a very nice job of having Junge sway between hysteria and competence, which is what it must have been like in that bunker, having to take dictation on the last testaments from murderous men and then talking to them as if they were just your average person.

There is not enough that can be said about the entire cast. Not only were the characters well-acted, but they all looked like their historical counterparts. I went online and compared photos of the actual people and the actors/actresses who portrayed them. It is remarkable how much they look alike. And that just enhanced their performances. Ulrich Noethen played Himmler amazingly well, getting exactly right his facile loyalty to Hitler and his ultimate loyalty to himself. Ulrich Matthes as Goebbels was pitch-perfect as the man who most believed in Hitler's vision but was constantly overlooked by Hitler. And Juliane Köhler as Eva Braun...it was like watching an archival tape. She was fantastic.

But the performance of the film, and one of the greatest I have ever seen, was Bruno Ganz as Hitler. I cannot imagine what it is like to have to portray a man like Hitler day in and day out. And Ganz did it so thoroughly; from the voice to the walk to the look, Ganz was Hitler.

Ganz gives a performance that will make many people uncomfortable, because it shows Hitler as human. You see the things you expect to see; Hitler ranting about the Jews, making insane commands to divisions that don't exist and condemning the German people to their fate because they are "weak."

But then you see Hitler being gentle to his secretary during her first interview. You see him crushed when he has to put his dog down. In what I thought was the most remarkable scene of the film, you see him shed a single tear when he finds out Albert Speer, who in many ways was Hitler's closest friend, has not carried out his order to burn Germany to the ground before the Allied advance but still swears his personal loyalty. And it throws you off because you almost feel for Hitler...and then you remember he is Hitler. Ganz's performance is just stellar.

Movie Review: The Machine Girl (2008)

How to explain a movie like The Machine Girl? You start here: a Japanese revenge flick with some martial arts and as much gore as you would find in any splatter film. Maybe more.

But that doesn't do it justice. A young schoolgirl named Ami Hyūga is seeking revenge against the son of a Yakuza boss because the boy killed her brother. She loses her left arm to the Yakuza boss after she invades his compound. She is sheltered by the family of her brother's friend, who was also killed by the son of the Yakuza boss. Ami has her arm replaced with a Gatling gun. And then she and the mother seek revenge.

And did I mention the gore?

The Machine Girl is a pulp film in all the right ways. Lots of action and over-the-top violence. Then you add in the ridiculous carnage and you get a really good cult film.

How ridiculous is the carnage? There is one scene where the Yakuza track Ami to the family that is sheltering her. They send three ninjas after them. After an extensive fight, Ami uses the gun to blow a hole through a ninja's chest. Then she shoves the gun through the hole to blow away the other ninja. And that is one of the tamer scenes in the film.

Minase Yashiro, who plays Ami, does a good job in what appears to be her first role on film. Ami comes off as a nice girl forced to be hard as nails, which makes it easy to be sympathetic to her even as she hammers 20 nails into someone's face. And I enjoyed Kentaro Shimazu as the insane head of the yakuza family. At his core he is a father defending his son, even if he is homicidal in how he goes about it.

Even with all these compliments, it should be understood that they are made within the context of what is a pulp film. The actual dialogue is often ridiculous and a lot of the acting could be generously described as "wooden." Part of the reason for that could be the background of most of the people involved. Director Noboru Iguchi seems to have got his start in both softcore and hardcore films. Many of the actresses in this film have an adult background in film or photography. You're not exactly getting the elite in acting from that arena.

But at it's core, this is a fun little revenge flick with the gore dial cranked up to "11" the whole time. If I did number scores, I'd call it between a six and seven. For what it is, it's pretty good. It was a direct-to-video release originally in 2008. Amazon is selling it anywhere between $13-$18 right now, which is a decent price if you like these kind of films.