Rango (2011)

Starring: Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, Ned Beatty, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina, Bill Nighy, Harry Dean Stanton, Ray Winstone, Timothy Olyphant

Director: Gore Verbinski

Running Time: 107 minutes

The Lowdown: A chameleon named Rango (Johnny Depp) stumbles into small desert town named Dirt where he somewhat unwittingly becomes sheriff. Shortly thereafter he becomes entangled in the mystery of the town's water shortage and becomes suspicious of the town's mysterious mayor (Ned Beatty)

My Take: Good films that get a wide release so that I can actually see them at the theater are exceedingly rare these days, especially in the early months of the year. Even rarer are good animated films, simply because so few are made to begin with and even fewer are actually worth seeing. Typically in a given year one can count on Pixar putting out one of its masterpiece and one can also count on the majority of wide release animated films being crap. Luckily, "Rango" manages to defy the odds and become one of those very few good animated films being made by companies not named Pixar.

I was surprised when I found out that this was Industrial Light and Magic's (ILM) first animated endeavor. For years ILM has always been the go to company for visual effects so CG animation seems like a natural fit for the company. As such the animation is incredibly detailed and brings a strong realistic touch to the film's anthropomorphic animal cast and its desert terrain. There all also a number of breathtaking, sweeping visuals that remind one of the epic feeling the animators brought to 2009's "Up". No doubt, the film's visuals benefited from having cinematography god Roger Deakins on board as a visual consultant, a position Deakins also filled for Up, WALL-E and How To Train Your Dragon. You can  just see in every scene the care that ILM has put into this film that put its miles ahead of the half baked garbage that a lot of animation studios (i.e.Dreamworks) usually put out. If future endeavors work out as well in a decade or so ILM might be a leader in the industry alongside Pixar.

Similarly, much care was put into crafting a solid screenplay that puts "Rango" in a league with "Up" and other animated flicks that are enjoyed by children and adults alike. The screenplay is filled to the brim will playful parodies of everything from "A Fistful of Dollars" and "High Noon" to "Chinatown" and "Raising Arizona". Perhaps, the more classic films that you've seen the more you will enjoy "Rango".

However, the film isn't content to rest on parodying other films and manages to have enough heart to stand on its own. Unlike most non-Pixar animated flicks the characters are for the most part fully developed enough to keep adults engrossed in the story (which itself is surprisingly a bit dark when compared to the marketing campaign that aims it so squarely at children). Similarly, the cast is an all star cast full of strong voice work from greats like Ned Beatty, Bill Nighy and Alfred Molina who all put enough effort into their roles that these performances easily could have held up a live action film. However, the flick belongs not surprisingly to Johnny Depp who brings his usual trademark weirdness to the title role but adds a bit of Don Knotts-esque cowardice to the role so as to make the character miles away from Jack Sparrow and other braver Depp characters.

Best Moment: A toss up: either the film's epic battle that homages "Apocalypse Now" and countless war films or the scene early in the film where Rango lands on the windshield of none other than Hunter S. Thompson as pictured here:

     

In Short: "Rango" is a promising animated debut from ILM that benefits from a witty script, terrific voice acting and memorable visuals that reveal a project that has just as much care and love put into it as anything Pixar has put out in the past few years.

9 out of 10

Make Way for Tomorrow (1937)

Starring: Victor Moore, Beulah Bondi, Thomas Mitchell, Fay Bainter, Elizabeth Risdon, Porter Hall

Director: Leo McCarey

The Lowdown: After their home is foreclosed on an elderly couple is forced to temporarily seperate when none of their five children have room to take them both in.

My Take: Seeing as "Make Way for Tomorrow" was made and takes place during the Great Depression and its storyline is so deeply rooted in that era's economic turmoil and poverty its not hard to understand why people didn't flock to theater to see it. That said, its unfortunate that such a beautiful film up until recently was only known of by a very few aficionados of classic film.

However, "Make Way for Tommorow" merely uses the trappings of the Great Depression as a springboard for its real plot: an examination of two elderly people who find themselves lost and isolated from eachother in rapidly changing modern times that they don't understand.

When Bark (Victor Moore) and Lucy (Beulah Bondi) loose their house to foreclosure, the 5 children do their best but are so caught up in their own lives, the lives of their own children and numerous financial troubles all of which make it hard to be fully attentive to the needs of their parents. Any other film would have villainized the children and while as audience sympathy inevitably lies mostly with Bark and Lucy, the somewhat neglectful actions of their children are made understandable, if not sympathetic, thanks to a terrific script and some strong acting from the supporting players.

Similarly, Bark and Lucy are made sympathetic and the precise opposite of the curmudgeon stock characters that populate many Hollywood films thanks to the remarkable performances of the actors. Victor Moore makes Bark's stubborn pride a thoroughly believable and an occasionally endearing, Beulah Bondi makes us love this elderly woman who is able to handle many of the hard decisions that she must make over the course of the film with such grace. It is perhaps because she so capably portrays this woman's love for her children, no matter how neglectful  they may occasionally seem that we are able to forgive them to some extent for the decisions they make near the film's end.

Furthermore, despite what little time the two spend together on screen, Moore and Bondi are so thoroughly convincing in the portrayal of the loneliness and heartbreak of these two characters that when they reunite in the final act it we're overjoyed to see them reunited. As they spend time together, fully aware of how close to the end they both are, we feel a deep sadness as though we have known these characters for all 50 years of their marriage and forget that we are only seeing actors.

During this final arc we also see that this couple, despite being in their 70s (which was much older in 1937 than it is now) is truly young at heart and if only they had the time they would gladly live a whole other life time together. It is because of this youthfulness the actors bring to the characters that we can relate to these two, no matter how much older they are, It is ultimately that intense empathy that causes the film's conclusion to be one of the few that has ever moved me to tears. This is made all the more remarkable by Leo McCarey's terrific direction that never allows the proceedings to sink into melodrama and is instead intensley real, making "Make Way for Tomorrow" a deeply moving picture that is hard to forget.

Best Moment: The film's final emotional scene which Orson Welles' famously said "could make a stone cry."  I feel inclined to agree.

In Short: "Make Way for Tomorrow" is a shockingly underrated and mostly forgotten film that deserves a second look by today's audiences as more realistic, understated and infinitely more moving film that is in stark contrast with the more manipulative and less convincing tearjerker dramas churned out by Hollywood today. A beautiful film that any true fan of classic cinema should make an effort to see and one that has become a favorite of mine.

10 out of 10

Intolerable Cruelty (2003)

Starring: George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Geoffery Rush, Billy Bob Thornton, Edward Herrmann, Richard Jenkins

Director: Joel & Ethan Coen

The Lowdown: A serial gold digger (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and a charming divorce lawyer (George Clooney) become entangled in this romantic comedy.

My Take: Every great artist has misstep and most even have a brief period of failed efforts. For instance Woody Allen had a terrific artistic period in the 70s and 80s only to later struggle with his latter career mostly being a rollercoaster as far as quality is concerned. Its to be expected that an artist will hit a rough spot and make a film lesser than their other films or even a film that's just plain terrible. Whether its because the artist has run out of creative juices or simply doesn't have their heart in a particular project that they're only participating in so they can buy a new house or fun a better project doesn't matter. It happens to even the greatest artists. However, just because its expected doesn't make those low points any less painful for fans.

That brings us to "Intolerable Cruelty", far and away the Coen Brothers' weakest film to date. "Intolerable Cruelty" is the first and to date only film the Coens have made based off of somebody elses idea. The brothers signed on to direct the project after another more personal project fell through. In other words, its not really a project that comes from the heart, and the Coen's lack of personal interest in the material shows throughout.

The credits insist that the brothers did some sort of revision to the script but as far as I can tell all they did was add a couple hints at their normal creative and darkly comic style to plant hope in the hearts of their fans that the film may eventually get on track. They were also probably instrumental in attracting the talents of George Clooney, Geoffery Rush, Billy Bob Thornton and others to assist in giving the audience even more hope that the film's clumsy beginnings will eventually give way to a film that's actually funny. However, this never occurs and we are instead left with an unfunny mess that reeks of laziness throughout.

The two lead performances from George Clooney and Catherine Zeta-Jones feel half hearted at best. Clooney does bring some charm to his role but it feels phony and its a pathetic performance in comparison to his similar role as a cynical but vulenerable character in 2009's "Up in the Air". Catherine Zeta-Jones has similarly seen better days and that this was her first role after her Oscar winning turn in Chicago makes her absolute lack effort all the more confounding.

The supporting cast is similarly frustrating. Geoffery Rush is woefully underused and miscast as a character that appears in no more than three scenes (but somehow still receives third billing). After his character's first appearance Rush's character is so inconsequential that if one didn't know the actor they might assume it was three different characters. Billy Bob Thornton, who was spectacular as the lead in the Coens' then most recent film "The Man Who Wasn't There", is well cast but gives a lifeless performance that makes one feel that the actor didn't even want to be there. The most confounding bit of casting however is Cedric the Entertainer as a PI that works for Clooney's character periodically. The so called Entertainer takes what should have been a forgetable bit part and makes it the most annoying performance of the whole picture. Most frustrating is that all three characters more or less exist to help facilitate the film's worthless and eye roll inducing final scene.

There are also a number of odd but ultimately forgettable supporting characters that serve to more or less provide the audience with tantalizing possibilities that they may turn this into another Coen masterpiece. Unfortuanately, all hope of this happening is squashed just before the third act when Clooney's divorce lawyer character gives a speech about the importance of love and rejects his divorce lawyer profession at a national convention for divorce lawyers. The speech itself is not as cheesy as the fact that the ENTIRE AUDIENCE at the convention erupts with applause and cheering. Its this scene that is the point of no return and erases all hope that the film will ever become worthwhile. This is a scene that in another Coens' film may have been a dream sequence written so as to lampoon such a ludicrous scene.

Scenes like this abound with only a few feeling as though the Coens had any hand in them. However, even when there are scenes that feel Coenesque they are so mild, lazy and in one case down right implausible that it is impossible for me to derive any pleasure from them. Similarly, the cinematography by the usually great Roger Deakins is so mild and the score by their usual compose Carter Burwell is so grating that it seems both men felt as much indifference (or is it contempt?) for the material as the Coens themselves.

In Short: Due to the talent involved it should be so much more and because it remains the only bad Coen brothers' film one can only feel that this is a cruel prank the Coens decided to play on their fans. If they did indeed make revisions to the script they had to be small and are not readily apparent in a final product that reeks of an apathy and laziness that is similar to watching Mozart drunkenly and lazily compose elevator music. In other words, the result is disheartening and though we've been proven wrong and the brothers have created great films since I don't blame anybody that thought twice about seeing any of their new movies after watching this one.

3 out of 10

The Sunset Limited (2011)

Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Samuel L. Jackson

Director: Tommy Lee Jones

The Lowdown: In this HBO TV movie adapted from the Cormac McCarthy play, two nameless characters, only called Black (Jackson) and White (Jones), have a lengthy discussion about the existence of God, the meaning of human suffering and everything in between after the devoutly religious Black stops the depressed and atheistic White from killing himself on the tracks of a train called The Sunset Limited.

My Take: Cormac McCarthy is widely believed by many, me included, to be one of the best authors of the past half century. His western novel Blood Meridian was amongst Time's 100 best novels published since the magazine's fist issue and his post apocalyptic tale The Road won the Pulitzer prize a few years ago. Both those works represent McCarthy's nihilistic and grim worldview and filter them through certain genres to make them the backbone of compelling stories.

The Sunset Limited, however, lacks these filters and strips down drama to its bare essentials. We have two men. One black. One white. One a man of great religious conviction and limited education. The other a suicidal professor on the brink of oblivion who shares McCarthy's bleak world view only cranked up to eleven and devoid of any hope whatsoever. What follows is basically a 90 minute chess match between two men dead set in their ways.

Its often difficult for a dialogue driven film with so little narrative incident to actually get made. "My Dinner with Andre" is a great example that comes to mind and I was certainly reminded of it as these two characters shared a battle of words around a kitchen table. However, this isn't two friends bantering along, rather this is "My Dinner with Andre" meets Ingmar Bergman's "Winter Light" for the working class. While I would gladly travel to a theater for this, its hard to imagine many people flocking to the multiplex to watch two old codgers wax philosophical about some of the grimmest philosophical questions. As such, its probably best this was produced by HBO as this way more people will see it than in what I'm sure would be a very limited theatrical release.

While a theatrical release would have been nice, the lack of one is what allows "The Sunset Limited" to come to life uninhibited. Were it produced by a big film studio chances are the producers would have asked for the film to be opened up and contain more scenes outside the kitchen would distract from the film's singular focus.

As for the acting, I cannot praise the two leads enough. Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as Black and brings a terrific fire and brimstone quality to the religious debate. However, Jackson never lets Black become a caricature and thanks to McCarthy we are able to sympathize with his view and he never makes the character a bland stereotype even if some in the audience, McCarthy included, may not agree with his views.

Likewise, Tommy Lee Jones, who also produced and directed, is entirely convincing as the professor who has lost his faith in just about everything. Jones has a sadness in his face and carries himself as a world weary man who has given up all hope and has given into total nihilism. While the character's views are grim the script makes it easy for us to sympathize and understand how he's come to this point in his life.

These two performances compliment each other perfectly and these two actors bring so much believability to each line of dialogue that you can't help but be fascinated and hang onto every word of it no matter how grim. As expected, there are no easy answers given and it's up to the audience to make conclusions but the film should make for interesting conversation.

Best Moment: Samuel L. Jackson recounting complete with hand motions and in graphic detail a prison fight that led to his conversion as a befuddled Tommy Lee Jones sits dumbstruck.

In Short: "The Sunset Limited" is not for everyone but those who are interested will be fascinated by its two lead performances and its frank look at philosophy, something that is not often discussed in films today.

10 out of 10

Gates of Heaven (1978)

Director: Errol Morris

The Lowdown: A documentary chronicling the stories of two different pet cemeteries and those whose lives are affected by them.

My Take:
There are occasionally films that cause one to be a bit befuddled. "Gates of Heaven" is just such a film.  It's an odd documentary that is simultaneously a quirky story about a bizarre profession and a thoughtful, effective drama about how we deal with death.

However, to describe the film as being purely about the pet cemetery business would be misleading. Pet burials are merely a common point of interest that all the film's characters share, and is more than anything a jumping off point for a series of intriguingly quirky but always respectful character studies. For instance, we meet one man who works at one of the pet cemeteries but his real passion is music, he goes on and on about his love of it, his new amp system and we even see him play guitar. Yet while it seems tangential it's still fascinating stuff.

Scenes like this populate the film, but director Errol Morris never allows their weirdness to overtake the film and take it off the central idea: an examination of how these very different people react to the death of a loved one, in this case a pet.  Morris allows the film to tell its own story, simply showing interviews without narration or music to manipulate the material and draw fake emotions from the audience making "Gates of Heaven" an exceptionally authentic experience.

In all, it's hard to sum the film up without giving away everything that makes it such a unique experience. I will, however, say that "Gates of Heaven" is one of the most unique films, documentary or otherwise you will ever see. Its central subject is a bit odd but is also what makes the film accessible, despite touching on the very real and dark topic of losing a beloved family member.

Best Moment: An old woman who recently lost her pet proceeds to go on a tangent for several minutes about her son who never repays the money she owes her, never comes to see her, etc. This is shown uncut, in its entirety and is sad yet surprisingly hilarious because of its excessive length and how extraneous it is to the rest of the film.

In Short: "Gates of Heaven" is a bizarre film that is at once very funny in some strange ways, but also an uncompromising, engaging and sometimes strangely moving look at how human beings react to death.

9 out of 10

The Ladykillers (2004)

Starring: Tom Hanks, Irma P. Hall, J.K. Simmons, Tzi Ma, Ryan Hurst, Marlon Wayans, Stephen Root

Director: Joel and Ethan Coen

The Lowdown: An eccentric professor (Tom Hanks) rents a room from an elderly widow under false pretenses so that he and his equally eccentric crew (J.K. Simmons, Tzi Ma, Ryan Hurst, Marlon Wayans) can proceed to carry out a well planned heist at a nearby riverboat casino. When the widow is suspicious of the crew it is decided she must die. Hi-jinks ensue.

My Take:Anybody who knows me is well aware that I love The Coen Brothers and consider them to be the very best writing/directing team around and await eagerly for each new Coen film to released. Their masterpieces "Fargo", "No Country for Old Men", "The Big Lebowski" and "Miller's Crossing" are amongst my favorite films. Additionally, I consider most of their other films to be on the same level as those greats. Unfortunately, "The Ladykillers" does not make that list and is very much a second tier Coen film.

Perhaps the film's biggest stumbling block is its pacing, the first act, a string of short clips establishing each of the main characters, moves at an incredibly slow pace and is not effective at introducing most of the players. Similarly, their are a number of scenes that could have been trimmed to make the film tighter and arrive to the execution of the heist more quickly. There's also the occasional joke that falls a bit flat, a rarity for the Coens.

That said, a second rate Coen Brothers film is better than the first rate films of many directors and "The Ladykillers" still has a lot to offer fans of the Coen's previous work. First of all, the cinematography from Roger Deakins, the Coen's go to DP, is terrific in its sense of lighting and adds a touch of beauty that blends in surprisingly well with the film's darker sense of humor.

The ensemble cast is also at the top of their game. J.K. Simmons and Tzi Ma are both perfectly cast and make for memorable characters. Even Marlon Wayans salvages a somewhat memorable and, shockingly, not annoying performance. It is also refreshing to see Tom Hanks in his first comedic role in years, and in a villainous role at that. Hanks appears to be having fun and gives the eccentric professor qualities that are simultaneously devilish and buffoonish. Special mention should also go to Irma P. Hall who more than holds her own against Hanks and the others in a terrific turn as the elderly widow.

Best Moment: What ultimately rescues the film is its third act which bumps the flick up to being a minor masterpiece of dark comedy, as the crew's plan goes painfully and hilariously wrong in a climax that nobody can pull off as well as the Coen Brothers.

In Short: While its ultimately a lesser entry in Coen compendium "The Ladykillers" manages to still a be a memorable and often hilarious comedy with a delightfully dark climax, and one of Tom Hank's funniest roles in ages.

7 out of 10

It Came from the Trash Heap: The Wild World of Batwoman (1966)

Note: This is the start of a new feature here focusing specifically on the worst films that I have ever seen, films that despite their best efforts inspire nothing but absolute befuddlement at the idea that anybody thought making them was a good idea. These are all movies that under normal evaluation would receive somewhere between a 1 and 3 out of 10 rating. Enjoy.

Yes this drugged out hooker talking on the phone is the movie's hero. We're in trouble.

Starring: Katherine Victor, George Andre, Steve Brodie, Richard Banks and a cast of dozens of women playing an army of indistinguishable "Batgirls".

Director: Jerry Warren

The Characters:

-Batwoman (Katherine Victor, pictured above):
Basically a lazy attempt at ripping off Batman that ends up looking more like a prostitute whose costume was designed by a designer that was half asleep or just did not care. Batwoman is the leader of some sort Charlie's Angel's type outfit made up of Batgirls who frankly don't really do anything.

-Rat Fink (Richard Banks):
Batwoman's arch nemesis whose costume looks like some sort of luchador/Zorro/businessman combo.

-Professor G. Octavious Neon (George Andre):
An incompetent mad scientist who is incidentally the film's most entertaining character. Dr. Neon is surrounded by various incompetent cronies that seem to push the film's feminist belief that all men are stupid or evil. Oddly, said feminist idealism is undermined by having female characters that dress like hookers and are just as stupid as the male characters.

The "Story":
A female superhero (suspiciously similar to Batman) and her army of airhead Batgirls face off against a mysterious masked villain who wishes to steal a super sonic hearing aid (yes, you heard that right). The rest of the plot as it were is nearly incomprehensible. Supporting character's include an idiotic mad scientist, his Igor wannabe henchman, a man villain that looks like a luchador and one of the more racist portrayals of an Oriental person this side of Audrey Hepburn's neighbor in "Breakfast at Tiffany's".

Why did God let a movie so terrible happen?

With the popularity of the campy 60's "Batman" TV series with Adam West reaching its peak in popularity, many studios were obviously interested in cashing in on its success. The obvious way to do this would be to buy the rights to another superhero or make your own original superhero. Not content with taking the path of least resistance (or the path of common sense) director Jerry Warren decided to simply create an obvious rip off. Warren then wrote a story that is full of padding even in a film that runs a stunningly short 70 minutes.

Saving grace:
Hard to say, after a while even seeing scantily clad women dancing becomes most annoying due to how often the story pauses for these scenes and that the so-called "dancing" causes laughter more than anything else. However, Professor Neon is frequently amusing and the character that's easiest to describe as being memorable, but even he becomes tiresome. So in other words, nothing.

Particularly Awful Scenes:
-The cold open which features two Batgirls swearing in a third and discussing some sort of backstory involving synthetic vampires. Cut to opening credits. The stuff about vampires whet your appetite? Too bad, it's never mentioned again, and we never see these particular Batgirls again..

-After the credits two entirely different Batgirls going about minding their own business witness a robbery that turns into a murder. The film in all its utter "brilliance" decides to leave the rest up to our imagination as this storyline is never mentioned again! This sort of "brilliant" and "unconventional" storytelling flows from the "Wild Wild World of Batwoman" as if it were a fountain of rich storytelling awesomeness.

-This is followed by the first of many, many, many long dance scenes. Rather than keeping these scenes short Warren is content to take his time with this scene  and let you take in this wonderful word so you can truly understand these characters' "hopes and dreams". This all takes the place of more traditional character development techniques like dialogue and acting. Fuckin' brilliant.

-At one point Batwoman and several others hold a seance to summon the spirit of a dead Chinese man. Instead of having said character simply speak English or hiring an actual Chinese speaker Warren again forgoes traditional outdated movie making techniques and simply has the spirit speak in a random combination of "Chings" and "Chongs" and other stereotypically Asian sounding grunts. This is all NEVER mentioned again.

-Similarly, the film's hero Batwoman is never actually seen really doing anything heroic, we're simply supposed to just *believe* that she's awesome.

- At one point two characters stumble into some sort of bizarre villain lair/ lost city matte painting and are attacked by stock footage of mole men from another film. By this point in the film this all seems normal and expected. Oh and surprise this is NEVER MENTIONED AGAIN!

-A huge explosion occurs in a small room killing no one and apparently healing the unfortunate chap that was left holding the bomb of his mentally challenged state.

Most mind numbingly stupid moment:
The climax wherein supervillain Rat Fink is revealed to be none other than.... the scientist who invented the supersonic hearing aid. Why did he decide he needed to steal his own invention? So he could listen to all the phone calls in the world.

No it doesn't make sense. Don't waste your time thinking about it.

Perhaps more shocking than the stupidity of this scene is that I haven't even covered half of the stupid, awful, pointless scenes in this awful mess of a movie.

In Short: "The Wild World of Batwoman" is a remarkably ill conceived B-movie that seems to be a never ending string of scenes with any semblance of story connecting them left on the cutting room floor. Whether or not this was the worst film ever watched by the Mystery Science Theater crew is definitely up to debate but its certainly in the top 5 worst and any MST3K real fan should definitely seek this episode out.