Review: Time Bandits (1981)

“God isn't interested in technology. He cares nothing for the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time, forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!” – Evil Genius (David Warner)

Director: Terry Gilliam

Writers: Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin

Producers: George Harrison, Denis O'Brien, Terry Gilliam and Neville C. Thompson

Studio: HandMade Films

Major Stars: David Rappaport, Sean Connery, Ian Holm, John Cleese, Michael Palin, Katherine Helmond, Shelley Duvall, David Warner, Kenny Baker, Ralph Richardson, Craig Warnock

There are few directors that take more risks than Terry Gilliam. He is uncompromising in what he wants to show and how to show it. His films reward careful viewing and punish the lazy movie-goer. If you only watch Time Bandits with a casual eye, you'll miss out on an unique sci-fi film that is loads of fun to watch.

Gilliam tackles a theme no less than the evils of modernization. From the get-go, we see our protagonist, 10-year old Kevin (Warnock), ignored by his parents because they are obsessed with their television or the latest kitchen gadgets. Kevin is a dreamer, who reads books about ancient Greece and the Middle Ages. After a bizarre dream, he stays awake to see if it was a dream. Instead, a gang of dwarfs fall out of his closet.

They are on the run from the Supreme Being because they stole his map. A map that shows holes in time and space that one can use to travel anywhere. And when the Supreme Being finds them, Kevin joins them as they flee. Gilliam sets all this up in less than 10 minutes, which is how a film should work. It's amazing how many films screw around for 20-30 minutes before they get to the story itself.

The dwarfs are led by Randall (Rappaport). They worked for the Supreme Being until he demoted them, so they stole the map and decided to commit robberies in different times to become rich. Kevin is looking for something else; a father figure that pays attention to him. As they travel through time, they meet various people like Napoleon (Holm), Agamemnon (Connery) and, unfortunately for them, the Evil Genius (Warner). He wants the map to break free from his castle and destroy the Supreme Being, so he tries to lure the group to his castle that is stuck in the Time of Legends.

It's no mistake that Kevin finds the father figure he wants in Agamemnon; it's the time period in the movie most removed from modern technology. Just as it is no mistake that the Evil Genius is obsessed with technology. Gilliam makes the case that technology binds us and denies us our freedom and he hits that theme throughout the movie. Even the ending, as abrupt, shocking and arguably cruel as it is, is about liberating ourselves from technology and embracing the freedom our minds can provide.

There are parts of the film that are genuinely hilarious. Napoleon is obsessed with the height of great military leaders. Warner plays the Evil Genius so well that every scene with him gets a laugh or two. Ralph Richardson, as the Supreme Being, steals the end of the movie with his portrayal of the Almighty as a slightly absent-minded but all-powerful bureaucrat.

Movie Review: On the Beach (1959)

“Who would ever have believed that human beings would be stupid enough to blow themselves off the face of the Earth?” – Julian Osborne (Fred Astaire)

Director: Stanley Kramer

Writers: Nevil Shute (novel), John Paxton (screenplay)

Producer: Stanley Kramer

Studio: United Artists (later bought by MGM)

Major Stars: Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Anthony Perkins, Fred Astaire

When I re-watched On the Beach, I was struck by the similarity in theme with another movie on this list: Children of Men. Both, through different disasters, deal in part with how humanity would face a slow, inevitable end. Children of Men used the concept of global infertility while On the Beach used approaching lethal radiation from a nuclear war. But while Children ended with a guarded up-beat ending, On the Beach gives the viewer no such comfort.

The story, adapted from Nevil Shute’s novel of the same name, is a simple one. Nuclear war has irradiated the Northern Hemisphere and killed everyone there. As the radiation moves south, the only pockets of humanity left are in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the southern extreme of South America. In the film, though, only Australia is mentioned as still having a human population.

An American sub, the USS Sawfish is stationed in Melbourne under the command of Captain Dwight Towers (Peck). When a mysterious Morse code is detected coming from America, Towers is ordered to determine who is sending the signal. That story is the spine of a larger tale; how a society handles its inevitable end.

It’s probably the most civilized “end-of-civilization” movie ever made. With few exceptions, people face their end with dignity, lining up to receive their suicide pills (also a shared idea with Children of Men) rather than face a painful death from radiation. The pills tie into the most poignant tale in the movie, that of Peter Holmes (Perkins). He’s an Australian naval officer with a young daughter and wife. When he leaves with the American crew to determine the source of the signal, he has to teach his wife how to kill the baby and herself if the radiation comes while he is gone. It’s heartbreaking to watch as his wife recoils at the idea. Ever more heartbreaking is near the film’s end when they accept the inevitable.

When you consider that this film was made in 1959, at the height of the Cold War, it took a lot of guts to make a film like On the Beach. It is unflinching in its condemnation of nuclear weapons and the testing of them. That is what society was debating at the time; the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Put into that context the film takes on even more weight.

Movie Review: Highlander (1986)

“I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal.” – Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert)

Director: Russell Mulcahy

Writer: Gregory Widen , Peter Bellwood and Larry Ferguson

Producers: E.C. Monell, William N. Panzer and Peter S. Davis

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Major Stars: Sean Connery, Christopher Lambert, Clancy Brown, Roxanne Hart, Jon Polito

Highlander always struck me as a film that just needs to be remastered to become a very good movie. Better special-effects, clean up the film stock, and get rid of the wrestling intro (the latest version cleaned the film stock nicely). There has to be a better way to get MacLeod and Fasil into that parking garage.

Despite the horrendous sequels that followed it (and a moderately-decent television series), Highlander remains a fun little film about Immortals, the price they pay for eternal life and why they all want to kill each other. We aren’t talking classic here, but it’s not crap either.

You all know the story, yes? So I don’t have to re-hash the anguished tale of Connor MacLeod? Good. Suffice it to say, Christopher Lambert’s almost-lazy, sometimes undecipherable speech works very well in this role. If you were a 400-year old Immortal, wouldn’t life bore you to tears as well?

Clancy Brown is fantastic as Kurgan, one of the best movie villains ever. Completely evil and insane, he steals every scene he is in. I love Brown as an actor. If you want to see him absolutely kick-ass on-screen, check out HBO’s Carnivale on DVD, where he played Justin Crowe. Or, for a more kid-friendly product, he’s also the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob Squarepants. A multi-talented man is Clancy Brown.

Then there is Sean Connery as Ramirez, the Spanish-named Egyptian with a Scottish accent via Japan who’s over 2000 years old. It’s definitely a one-of-a-kind role. Connery hams it up a bit but it works because he has so much fun with the character. And Ramirez is an interesting guy, willingly training a fellow Immortal whom he may have to fight someday in the future.

The sword-fights are fun to watch (if basic), as are the vignettes of Connor’s life. My favorite is the duel where he is repeatedly run through with a sword without effect. And there is the undercurrent of the pain he suffers as an Immortal, watching his wife grow old and die, with no children to their name. And how that has made him a bitter and distant man.

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: Aliens (1986)

“They're coming outta the walls. They're coming outta the goddamn walls!” – Private Hudson (Bill Paxton)

Director: James Cameron

Writers: Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett (Characters), David Giler and Walter Hill (Story), James Cameron (Story and Screenplay)

Producer: Gale Ann Hurd

Studio: 20th Century Fox

Major Stars: Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, Paul Reiser, Bill Paxton

James Cameron can make overblown crap like Titanic and come off like an arrogant jerk, but I’ll always love the guy because he gave us Aliens. It’s one of those films that makes you forgive the foibles and flaws of anything else that director does.

Do I have to go into detail about just why this is one of the best movies ever made, let alone sci-fi movies? Aliens is a perfect blend of suspense, action and horror that locks you in from the start and never gives your attention a chance to wane or your eyes to wander.

For the 14 people who haven’t seen it, Aliens picks up where the original left off, with Ripley (Weaver) floating through space in her lifeboat after destroying the Nostromo and the Alien that had come on board. She is picked up and brought to Gateway Station, orbiting Earth. There she finds out 57 years have passed and her employers (Weyland-Yutani) have lost contact with a colony on the planet LV-426. That is the planet Ripley’s original ship visited 57 years ago and where it picked up the Alien.

From there the film becomes a rescue mission; Ripley is assigned as an adviser to a squad of Marines being sent to LV-426 to find the colonist. Going with them is a Weyland-Yutani rep named Burke (Reiser). They reach the planet and quickly discover everything has gone horribly, horribly wrong. Then things go horribly, horribly wrong for them and the film shifts to a survival story; the rescue group has to get off-planet before the power system for the colony goes critical and kills them all in an explosion.

That’s part of what makes Aliens great; it changes mid-stream into a different story and re-captures your interest. It is just a really satisfying movie. The actions scenes are great. The atmosphere is creepy. The actors do a great job with the story. And it is well-written; with an antagonist like the Alien, it is easy to make them too powerful or to over-compensate and make the heroes too powerful. Cameron did a nice job recognizing that Ripley and the Marines could beat the Aliens, but they’d have to be very resourceful and lucky to do so. It makes the payoff at the end that much more satisfying.

And the tension…One of the smartest things they did in Aliens was use those hand-held movement trackers. There is one scene where they barricade themselves in a room and Private Hudson (Paxton) is tracking the Aliens coming towards their position. He calls the distance as they get closer, but they don’t see or hear the Aliens. Hudson is finally calling a distance that would mean they’re in the room. The tension is absolute at this point; my back still gets tense and I’ve see this film more times than I can count. Everyone looks up at the air vents. Corporal Hicks (Biehn) pokes his head up there to take a peek and...chaos.

Movie Review: The Terminator (1984)

“Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.” – Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn)

Director: James Cameron

Writers: James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd, William Wisher (additional dialogue), Harlan Ellison (The Outer Limits teleplays "Soldier" and "Demon with a Glass Hand")

Producers: John Daly, Derek Gibson and Gale Ann Hurd

Studio: Orion Pictures (later bought by MGM in 1998)

Major Stars: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen

This (along with Aliens) is the movie that forgives Cameron all his subsequent hubris. Filmed on a shoestring budget of just $6.4 million, The Terminator became a sleeper hit and then exploded into the insane mega-franchise we know today. Oh, and it helped that Schwarzenegger fellow really launch his career.

No one saw this film coming. In 1984 the big buzz was about movies like Ghostbusters, Star Trek III and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Then in late October this movie about an unstoppable robot killer from the future hit the screens. And would my parents (i.e. mom) let me see it? No. Apparently killer robots are too intense for a 12-year-old. So I would have to wait until it came out on VHS in 1985 and I could cajole my dad into renting it.

It blew me the Hell away. And the more I watched it in years to come, it still blew me away. It’s this perfect little story but with the action and tension of a much larger film. You’re dealing with the salvation of the human race, but remain focused on just three characters.

It’s hard to picture now, what with two (increasingly larger) sequels, then Terminator: Salvation and now Terminator: Genesis will happen in 2015. But at the time, The Terminator was unlike anything else anyone had seen on a movie screen. Unless you count the Harlan Ellison Outer Limits stories which Cameron unwisely mentioned as inspiring him. Ellison jumped all over him and got a retroactive credit.

For me the iconic scene of The Terminator character isn’t the massacre at the police station, his impromptu eye surgery or even the final scene in the factory. It’s when that child’s toy gets crushed and you see the cyborg begin his methodical killing of everyone named Sarah Connor. It drives home that this relentless machine cares about only one thing and would torch the world if that is what it took for him to complete his assignment.

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: 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: 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: Logan’s Run (1976)

“Life clocks are a lie! Carousel is a lie! THERE IS NO RENEWAL!” – Logan 5 (Michael York)

Director: Michael Anderson

Writers: William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson (novel), David Z. Goodman (screenplay)

Producer: Saul David

Studio: MGM

Major Stars: Michael York, Richard Jordan, Peter Ustinov, Jennifer Agutter

Memory is a cruel thing, sometimes. Especially when something you loved is revealed to be less than what you thought it was. Such is the realization I had while watching Logan’s Run again. I loved this film when I caught it on television during the 80s. But now? It’s not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn’t the tour de force I once considered it, either.

The story is very “70s science-fiction” – a dystopian future where people are living in a domed city underground. Their every whim is provided for, but there is a catch. They wear Lifeclock crystals in the palm of their hand. When it starts blinking Red (10 days before they turn 30), the resident must decide to take part in the ritual of Carousel, which involved dressing in a costume and floating up to the ceiling in a chamber where you are instantly cremated. Of course, this is seen as a great and wondrous day by most of the people because they believe it is possible to survive Carousel and become Renewed.

But if you don’t to go to Carousel and you run, then the Sandmen come for you. That is where we meet the title character, Logan 5 (York) and his partner Francis (Jordan). They are Sandmen. After killing a Runner and discovering an ankh, Logan is summoned before the computer that controls the city (Of course he is. What 70s dystopian sci-fi film doesn’t have a computer calling all the shots?). The computer sets Logan on a mission to find a place called Sanctuary, a hidden location where Runners can live safely from the computer and the Sandmen. And to make it easier for him to do his job, the computer advances his Lifeclock to blinking red.

You see where this is going. As Logan searches for Sanctuary, he not only discovers that Renewal is a scam but becomes sympathetic to the Runners themselves. With the help of a woman named Jessica (Agutter), who helps Runners escape, the two look for Sanctuary while pursued by Francis. They eventually escape the city and make it to the surface, where we find out that…well, let’s just say our civilization is long-gone but people aren’t. And when that is reported to the computer by Logan, it has issues computing the information.

It’s not a bad story by any means. But I wonder if part of my mild disappointment has to do with the subject matter. Over-population was a huge topic in the 70s. Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb was a best-selling book that foretold of massive global upheaval as a result of over-population. Of course, none of what he said came to pass. Hell, I can drive 30 minutes north of my home in coastal Maine and be surrounded by nothing but woods. So over-population, even one driven by post-apocalyptic necessity to live underground, doesn’t carry the same punch by itself anymore.

As for the special effects…heck, it won an Oscar for Special Effects. But the effects are horribly dated when you watch in nowadays and it affects how you enjoy the film. As opposed to, say, Metropolis, which is a silent black-and-white film from the 1920s and is as incredible today as it was the first time I saw it. When the people are consumed by fire at the top of Carousel it looks like some overlaid fake explosion you would see some high-school kid do in his first movie on his mom’s video camera.

The acting is solid, if not spectacular, all the way around. I personally feel that Richard Jordan as Francis steals the screen from Michael York whenever they have a scene together. It’s not necessarily a good thing when your lead actor is upstaged like that. Then again, you are talking about the future Duncan Idaho here so it’s not that surprising.

I feel like I am dumping on Logan’s Run here and I don’t want to do that. It’s not a bad film. It’s still fun to watch and it is better than a lot of the sci-fi crap that gets churned out these days. I’d watch this a hundred times over before I let my eyes even glimpse a frame of AvP: Requiem.

But when you hold it up to even the other sci-fi films of that era (Rollerball, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind among others) it is most decidedly a bottom-third film in the “Top 100” list. That becomes even more obvious when you compare it to something like Children of Men or Alphaville.

But being a runner-up to films of that quality isn’t a bad place to be in the scheme of things. Logan’s Run is a good way to kill a lazy afternoon and should definitely be a part of any sci-fi collection. Just don’t go into it thinking you are going to see a revolutionary film.

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: 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: 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: Bang Rajan (2000)

Those of us left know it's a fight to the death. - Nai Thong-men (Bin Bunluerit)

Director: Tanit Jitnukul

Writers: Tanit Jitnukul, Kongkiat Khomsiri, Patikarn Phejmunee and Buinthin Thuaykaew

Producers: Adirek Wattaleela, Nonzee Nimibutr

Studio: Film Bangkok, Magnolia Pictures (US distribution)

Major Stars: Jaran Ngamdee, Winai Kraibutr, Theerayut Pratyabamrung, Bin Bunluerit, Bongkoj Khongmalai, Chumphorn Thepphithak, Suntharee Maila-or, Phisate Sangsuwan, Theeranit Damrongwinijchai

In 1767, the Kingdom of Burma invaded the Kingdom of Siam (now known as Thailand). The Burmese forces moved to capture the Siamese capital of Ayutthaya. North of the capital was the strategically placed village of Bang Rajan. For five months, the Burmese Army was held back by the villagers of Bang Rajan. It was the only notable resistance in Siam against the Burmese. The film Bang Rajan covers that period of resistance in a story that begins weakly with some scattershot plotting, but ends strong with an emotional and visceral final battle.

It’s understandable why the plotting is so weak early on. Tanit Jitnukul is not only trying to tell us the story of Bang Rajan but is also trying to supply backstory on all the main villagers. So we get a battle and then a flashback. We see a new character, then a flashback and then a battle. Three villagers are sent to the capital to ask for cannons to defend the village and we get a 10 minute backstory flashback. It kills the flow of the film.

Bang Rajan also suffers from some weak dialogue early on. But that may just be a function of the subtitles not getting the full meaning of the Thai dialogue. In more than one film I have seen, the subtitles do not accurately reflect the spoken dialogue. So I am willing to entertain that as a possibility.

But the last third of the film is great. The dialogue tightens up as the stakes in the film are raised. The plotting falls into line and doesn’t deviate. And there is an emotional impact as the inevitable occurs and the village falls to the Burmese forces.

That is thanks, in part, to some good characters. The couple of Nai In (Kraibutr) and E Sa (Khongmalai) are the emotional core of the film and well-acted. The drunken warrior Thong-men (Bunluerit) is a ball of drunken rage, willing to kill any Burmese he finds with a pair of handaxes. And then there is Nai Chan (Ngamdee), who is recruited to lead the village after their original leader is wounded in battle. Chan is a coldly efficient killer, driven by the memory of his dead wife and Ngamdee plays is just right. Mention should also be made of Krit Suwannapaph, who plays Commander Suki. Suki is the ruthless Burmese general who finally brings down Bang Rajan. And he is ruthless; women and children are not sacrosanct to him. There is nothing likable about Suki. Those aren't easy roles for some actors to play, so kudos to Suwannapaph for a good job

Movie Review: Ivan's Childhood (1962)

Scouts are the soul of the front. - Ivan (Nikolai Burlyaev)

Directors: Andrei Tarkovsky

Writers: Vladimir Bogomolov (screenplay and story "Ivan"), Mikhail Papava (writer), Andrei Tarkovsky and Andrei Konchalovsky (uncredited)

Production Manager: G. Kuznetsov

Studio: Mosfilm

Major Stars: Nikolai Burlyayev, Valentin Zubkov, Yevgeni Zharikov, Valentina Malyavina, Stepan Krylov

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.

Ivan's Childhood is one of the most powerful films I have ever watched. It is a war film that shows very little of the war itself but explores the impact war has on people and their lives. That it does so through the eyes of a 12-year old boy just makes it that much better.

Ivan's Childhood was Andrei Tarkovsky's first major film, one he came upon by accident. The original director, Eduard Abalov, was fired from the project. Tarkovsky was told about the film by his cinematographer, Vadim Yusov. Tarkovsky applied for, and was granted, the project. The result is a film that is akin to visual poetry.

Ivan (Nikolai Burlyayev) is a 12-year old boy whose family has been killed by the Nazis. He had joined a band of partisans who flew him to safety when they were surrounded by the Germans. He fled the school and fell in with an Army unit as a scout. His age and size allows him to go places others cannot.

But the soldiers want to get him away from the war as well and they want to send him to a military academy. Instead, he resists the plan and demands to remain as a scout, as that is the only way he can have revenge on the Germans. They give in and allow him to go on another mission behind enemy lines, one that he never returns from.

That brief description does no justice to this movie. Tarkovsky explored war and its cost in Ivan's Childhood in a way that earlier directors could not. This film was made during Khrushchev's "de-Stalinization" period between Stalin's death and the rise of Brezhnev. This was the period when other great Russian films like The Cranes are Flying and Ballad of a Soldier were made. Like these movies, Ivan's Childhood was a break from the old Russian style of war movies, where dying for Mother Russia was a great honor.

For example, you have young Lieutenant Galtsev (Yevgeni Zharikov), a good-looking, healthy soldier in the movie. In a Stalin-era film, he would be exhorting his men to sacrifice themselves for the country and telling them how lucky they were to fight. But in Ivan's Childhood he says that war is no place for a child. He tries repeatedly to get Ivan away from the war. He is bored more than anything and definitely not overjoyed to be in a war. And at film's end we see him in Berlin in 1945, his face scarred and his eyes cold and haunted. There is no joy for him in Russia's triumph.

Movie Review: Invincible Armor (1977)

If I only had four words to sum up this film, they'd be "Invincible Armor kicks ass." Since it's my site, I can use as many as I want.

So a while back I picked up The Martial Arts Essentials: The Films of Yuen Wo Ping...and then somehow forgot about it. Recently I noticed it and decided to pop a film in. The first film I watched was Invincible Armor. I can only hope the rest are as good as this one.

The plot is remarkably solid and complex for a kung-fu flick. General Chow Lu Fung (John Li) is framed for the murder of the Ming Minister of Security by an assassin who was sent by the Minister of State, Cheng (Jang Lee Hwang). Cheng wants to kill the Emperor and take over, and the Minister of Security was in the way. Chow evades arrest to try and find the assassin. Cheng sends another lawman after Chow to have him arrested and/or executed so the truth isn't revealed. Along the way we find out that Cheng is a master of the Eagle Claw and Invincible Armor technique, Chow takes refuge with a family that knows how to defeat the Invincible Armor, and there's a whole lot of great fighting in between. The plot points slowly unfold (not that it's hard to guess where it is going) so it doesn't feel like the fighting is simply tacked on.

Here's a couple of other ways you know this film kicks ass. There are plenty of weapons; batons with blades that shoot out, spears with ejectable heads, the ever-present staff and those cool hook blades. There's also a high ratio of white-haired guys.

That's always been a way to know that a kung-fu film will rock. White-haired masters=great kung-fu. Just look at films like Snake in the Eagle's Shadow (also played by Hwang), Executioners from Shaolin or Clan of the White Lotus. White-haired guys kicking ass. And Invincible Armor has two of them. Actually, it has three. But the Minister of Security gets killed off so fast he can't really count.

I can't say enough about how awesome Jang Lee Hwang is in this film. Imagine if Samuel L. Jackson was a white-haired Chinese minister (Hwang is actually Korean, but that's beside the point here) who could kill you with one strike to the forehead. That's Hwang's Minister Cheng; a bad-ass motherfucker who isn't scared of anything. Hell, when General Chow finally confronts him in the final battle, Cheng admits everything and doesn't sweat it. (Note: I should add that I reference Jackson here specifically because Hwang kind of looks like Jackson...if Jackson were Chinese. I shit you not.)