Charles Bronson

Charles Bronson; we all know him, we love him. As popular in Europe and Asia as he was in the U.S., he was the one Hollywood tough guy actor that the whole world accepted. Trouble is, you've already seen 'Once Upon a Time in the West' & 'The Great Escape'. Where do you go from there? Well, I want to call your attention to two of Charles Bronson's lesser known films. They aren't high art by any stretch of the imagination, but they're worth seeking out if you dig movies where Charles Bronson does what he does best - speak in a gravely voice and kick butt.



First, check out 'The Mechanic' (also known as 'Killer of Killers'). No, it's not about an automotive specialist who's pushed too the brink. A mechanic is the mob code word for a hit man. And that's what Charles Bronson plays here. But it's a ruthless business, and as he gets older he sees the benefit of taking on a younger partner, in this case the son of a man he bumped off, played by Jan-Michael Vincent (remember him?). But as things heat up, it becomes clear that sooner or later one of them is going to have to go. This film is from the early 70s (1972), so the pacing may be a little slow for the X-Box generation, and while it's no 'Godfather' or 'French Connection', it certainly holds it's own when compared to the lower budget crime films of the day. Catch this original before it's butchered in a remake later this year.



The year before 'First Blood' would launch Stallone's second most popular series (after the 'Rocky' films), Charles Bronson starred in 'Death Hunt' that was either an incredible coincidence, or a movie that was directly ripped off by the makers of that first Rambo film. Instead of a Vietnam vet, here we have Charles Bronson as a Canadian fur trapper, and instead of a Sheriff, we have Lee Marvin and Carl Weathers as Mounties that are sworn to bring him in. The backdrop here is the incredibly scenic Canadian Rockies rather than the Pacific Northwest wilderness of 'First Blood', but otherwise the plot is essentially the same. One man pits his wilderness survival skills against overwhelming numbers.

I'm not saying that either of these films is the cream of the crop when it comes to Bronson's career, but I'm assuming you've already seen 'The Magnificent Seven' and the entire 'Death Wish' series more times than you can count. Why not kick back with a beer and check out some of the other films old 'Il Bruto' made?

The Spirit - is it as bad as the reviews? Well, yes... and no.

First, let's get this out of the way: I'm a comic book fan. But, I was never a fan of 'The Spirit', because despite what you might have heard, The Spirit is NOT a comic book movie.

Despite how it was marketed, The Spirit is not Batman, and is in fact, fairly faithful to it's roots. You see, Will Eisner's The Spirit comes straight out of the Sunday funnies, and as such has more in common with comic strips like 'Popeye' and 'Dick Tracy' than comic books.

So, not surprisingly, the closest big screen comparisons to The Spirit is Robert Altman's Popeye, and Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy - namely, live action cartoons.

Now, viewed as the live action equivalent of the Road Runner, The Spirit doesn't look so bad - certainly not as bad as most of the critic reviews it got. Yes, it's long on style and short on substance, but in some ways is longer on substance than the other two Frank Miller productions to hit the big screen (the overrated The 300 and Sin City). And, yes, it's another movie of actors acting in front of green screens and not particularly strongly directed - but plotwise, it holds up better than some of the other ventures of that ilk (Casshern, Sky Captain and the World of Tommorow, etc.).

But like Popeye and Dick Tracy, it's also of about the same quality of those movies - an interesting diversion, full of eye candy, but not a movie you'd want to see over and over again. Chances are if you like those two films you'll like this one, and if you hated them (like most critics), you'll hate this too.

But, the rapid fire film noir dialog, cartoony look, and the deadpan gags can make it worth a viewing, provided you're in the right frame of mind.

Still Dirty After All These Years

Dirty Harry

I was a little unsure of what I would think of Dirty Harry upon rewatching it. I mean it has been nearly 40 years since this hit the big screen and society has changed so much since then.

But I have to say in a day and age when police procedurals run on TV ad-nauseum, Inspector 71, Harry Callahan, SF Homicide division, holds up pretty well. The films are not nearly as over-the-top as I remember them, and are in fact quite believable, almost understated compared to today's cop movies.

That's not to say that Dirty Harry isn't also a window onto it's time. This first film has Harry going after 'Scorpio' a serial killer who writer John Milius no doubt based on the Zodiac Killer and the Tower Sniper (two then-recent killers who were in the media).

Overall Dirty Harry is an excellent, fast-moving, action piece with a strong protagonist. One of the best of its kind.

Magnum Force

For my money, Magnum Force is the best Dirty Harry film ever made. While the original Dirty Harry had a very direct plot, Magnum Force has a much more complex plot about a secret hit force within the SF Police Department that Harry has to uncover (while confronting his own views on the appropriate use of force). It's a little reminiscent of David Goodis' novel Night Squad.

Maybe it's the distinct lack of Dirty Harry one liners in this film that has made it the least well known of the series. If so, that's a shame, because it deserves to be remembered whenever cop films are discussed.

Military Science Fiction

Terminator: Salvation



The Terminator movies follow a basic formula – robot from the future is sent back to the past (our present) to murder a human to ensure robots will be victorious in the coming robot vs. human war.

This premise was fresh and exciting with the original film, The Terminator. It was as good or even better when it was done with a twist as the big budget sequel, Terminator 2: Judgement Day. But it became completely a retread by the third film, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.

Fortunately Terminator: Salvation does away with the formula. No longer are we in the present, being visited by robots from the future, but we are actually transported to the future, where the war has already begun.

The story concerns Marcus, a man on death row who agrees to donate his body to Skynet’s medical research as a final act of contrition for his crimes. He wakes up years later, after the war with the machines has started, as the sole survivor of a human attack on the Skynet facility where he has been stored.

Marcus eventually meets up with John Connor and the resistance movement, but who is Marcus really working for, does he even know himself?

The film has a great cast, including Christian Bale as the adult John Connor, and Sam Worthington as Marcus, but it also some good supporting cast members like Helena Bonham Carter and Michael Ironside who thrives in these kinds of roles.

Terminator: Salvation is not a thriller like the first Terminator, not an action film like the second two; it’s a war film, plain and simple. A science fiction war film to be precise, but a war film nonetheless, and whether or not you like that genre, will probably determine whether or not you like this film.

But, it’s also more than that. The ‘Salvation’ in the title not only refers to Marcus’ efforts to save humanity, but also his own redemption. The heart (literally and figuratively) at the center of this story is what makes it a cut above the forgettable Terminator 3, and may just be the Salvation of this series.

Soldier




Military SF isn’t done very often. In fact it’s hard to think of many films that have made it to the big screen that can truly be said to fit in this subgenre – Aliens, and the much maligned Starship Troopers are the first (and perhaps only) examples that readily spring to mind. There are probably just as many reasons a serious film fan might want to avoid this genre as there are reasons to seek it out. But, if military SF is your bag, I’d like to draw your attention to a film you might have missed (or like me, deliberately avoided) in the past.

Soldier got very mixed reviews in its initial release, but like so many other Kurt Russell sci-fi films (Escape From New York, The Thing, Stargate, etc.) it slowly grew in popularity on DVD as word of mouth spread that it was a vastly underrated film.

The story concerns Todd 3465, a man trained since birth to be the ultimate soldier, who is eventually discarded when Caine 607 and a new crop of genetically engineered super soldiers are deployed.

Roaming the junkyard planet Arcadia, he befriends some lost colonists, and is thrust into the role as their protector when Arcadia becomes the testing ground of Caine 607’s unit. It’s admittedly a simple, campy plot, but it’s significantly more complex than say, James Cameron’s Avatar.

One of the big complaints critics had with this film was the lack of dialog, especially on the part of the hero (Russell speaks less than 80 lines in the whole film). But, this is actually one of the movie’s strengths. Todd 3465 was supposed to be a tool, not a man, and was raised apart from normal human interaction – the awkward lack of dialog actually reflects this well. Furthermore, laconic dialog is often an advantage with action stars who are rarely known for their acting (e.g. Mad Max, The Terminator, etc.)

Most people may find it typical, or mindless, but genre hounds who actually seek it out will be rewarded with the sci-fi equivalent of Shane.

Feel my pain.

Today's movie review comes by request of Joseph Kirschbaum of Cincinnati who writes, "I would love to hear your take on Casshern."



Casshern

Casshern was a 2004 adaptation of a 1993 direct-to-video anime, Casshan: Robot Hunter. It takes place in the future. But this future is a retro future where many things actually resemble past eras like in Brazil. Unlike Brazil, however, there’s no obvious reason for it, apart from perhaps choosing things that looked cool, and maybe because Steampunk is trendy. O.K., I could live with that… if it was the only thing there was no reason for, but…

In 2004, due to breakthroughs in technology, there were a few films that were long on effects and short on everything else - Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and The Chronicles of Riddick both immediately spring to mind – and Casshern shares a lot of things in common with those films. In fact, the robot army scene is almost an exact replica of the robot army sequence in Sky Captain – although since both films came out the same year, it’s hard to say who ripped off whom.

The plot of Casshern is so convoluted as to defy synopsizing. It’s like the Matrix movies that way (see previous post about The Matrix). Also like the Matrix films, we have an unstoppable superhero protagonist – he’s even made up of “Neo” cells (perhaps a direct Matrix reference), and a villain who is a “Neo-Sapien” who vows to eliminate homo sapiens (ala Magneto in X-Men). The majority of the film involves these two super powered guys with hazy, unspecified godlike powers beating on each other Mighty Morphin Power Ranger style for most of the film, breaking off and resuming their battle at random times (oh yeah, another thing the film is guilty of – in the middle of a fight the fight will just end – no one wins loses or gets knocked out, they just start doing other stuff and forget about the fight).

Worse, again like the Matrix films, it thinks it’s philosophical, and much “deeper” than it really is, with characters spouting cheesy platitudes rather than engaging in any kind of meaningful dialogue. I generally give the dialogue of a foreign film a pass because I never know how much of it can be blamed on the translators, but there’s just too much of it in Casshern to let it slip by without mention. Don't believe me? See for yourself.

I’ve mentioned a lot of other films in this review, and I’m not done yet because Casshern also borrows heavily from Akira, and just about every other SF anime of the past 25 years.

But, cinematically speaking, perhaps the most apt comparison here is to The Crow: City of Angels – a film that is incredibly beautiful to look at, but makes no damn sense. It’s painfully obvious when watching that even if it were a perfect translation of the Japanese (which it probably isn’t) it still wouldn’t make any sense. Like a cut scene from a videogame taken out of context - a two hour long cut scene.

In fact, on that count it’s down there with some of the worst offenders of the genre, and deserves to share a cell with the likes The Crow: City of Angels and Highlander 2: The Quickening.

On the bright side, it is visually a treat (I was not surprised to learn that the first time director who is also the writer & cinematographer, much like with the aforementioned Highlander was primarily a music video director). But, as gorgeous as it is, I had a hard time sitting through the whole thing.

My recommendation - turn the volume down and the METAL up, and enjoy it for the 2 hour music video it is!

The 2000s in Review

Continuing our look back at the movies of the past decade.

Reboots - we'll be talking a lot about this trend.
Let's begin with a look at how to do reboots right - the most successful reboot of a series in the 2000s:



Batman Begins

I grew up on Detective Comics.

It's where DC gets its name.

The company invented the superhero - and has been making quality stories almost twice as long as their biggest competitor (Marvel Comics Group). Today they are owned by one of the world's largest conglomarates - Time Warner AOL - which also owns one of the oldest movie studios (Warner Bros.). Unfortunately, they have had a terrible track record of getting their superheroes faithfully adapted to the large and small screen.

Until now.

I love the work of Tim Burton - he was an interesting choice to helm the Batman project. He certainly put the Goth in Gotham. But his penchant for cartoony weirdness grew thin the second the master criminal was no longer The Joker.

Joel Schumacher grew up loving the 60s TV adaptation of the comic. Which, though campy fun perhaps, was not Batman, the dark knight detective. Using that as the basis for his run on the Batman franchise yielded... well, let's just paraphrase my physics teacher, "garbage in equals garbage out".

I don't mean that to be harsh - Mr. Schumacher is quite a film craftsman, it's just that his point of reference - like that of much of America's is skewed. When I was a kid, comics were dismissed as trivial children's fare, yet they were tackling things far more mature than the downright juvenile prime time TV hits that were adapted from them (Wonder Woman and The Hulk immediately spring to mind).

Mass audiences were totally ignorant of the very cornerstones of the Batman, grim avenger of the night, mythos. They could never imagine a Batman that picked up a gun, They had no idea who Joe Chill or Ras Al Ghul were. They couldn't tell you a thing about Arkham Asylum. But all of those things are cornerstones of the Batman background, and essential to understanding the character.

The creators of Batman Begins remember though. All of those elements come into play in this film. Is it perfect ? No. Does it take liberties with the source material? Yes, but not to the extent of any of the past efforts. Does it defy the laws of physics? At times, yes, but no moreso than comics generally do. You'll find no Batmobiles driving straight up the sides of buildings for example. Comic book physics are at lest preserved.

And that all adds up to the best Batman movie yet. One that is actually true to the spirit of the comics for the first time. And that, is something to be praised. And seen.

The Matrix vs. The X-Men

A look back at the two big sci-fi superhero action series of the past decade.

The Matrix vs. The X-Men

I know I'm a minority on this, but I thought The Matrix was all FX. In fact that is all I can watch it for. The idea of harvesting humans for their body heat is just too ridiculous for words. There's an advanced society.

I also can't stand the way so many people take Fishburn's fortune cookie "wisdom" way too seriously...What was the only good line from Mystery Men?..."You must master your anger..." "Or what? Anger-will-be-my-Master?" That dog came out the same summer, but it was like they were making fun of the Matrix with that line.

But what gets me more than even the bad science and bad philosophy of what is supposed to be a "Philosophical Science Fiction" story, is how it is not even internally consistent. I will forgive a lot, IF you play by the rules YOU set up.

At one point in the film Neo is trying to escape a building. In order to block his escape, the baddies that control reality just throw up a brick wall.

What the Hell?

If they can do that, why not just seal him in by walls. Make a little Neo sardine tin. You wouldn't even have to suffocate him, just keep him imprisoned forever.

Don't get me wrong, I like it for the action and effects. I think it is head and shoulders above most of its ilk in that department. That is what I watch it for. That's why it is still a good movie. But to me its all martial arts and gunfire, if I look past that it annoys me.

It is possible to make an intelligent science fiction/action movie – I thought that X2, for example, had a lot to say about humanity. A friend of mine even saw some parallels to the Iraq War in the movie – now that is a human action movie with a story, to me. When it comes to The Matrix though, overall the story is very black and white. The bad people are bad, the good people are good.

X2, on the other hand, raises a lot of ethical issues. Right now, in the real world, there are governments that require particularly skilled martial artists to be registered the same way a gun is. Assuming people were born with potentially lethal powers, why shouldn't they be registered, or marked so that you could see them (not a concealed weapon). As a matter of fact, if they as a group threatened the world as a whole - regardless of their intent - if their bodies were actual weapons of mass destruction, why shouldn't people be interned or killed? If your people are being oppressed, what is wrong with fighting back by any means necessary?

When I was a kid in the 1970s, before Star Wars, SF movies were not taken seriously by mass audiences because the special effects were so cheesy. But to me, I always just used my imagination - the effects weren't what made the movie. It was the philosophical issues they brought up. I'll take a good SF story with bad effects over a bad story with good effects. For example, I think the original Planet of the Apes is superior to the remake. (And I refused to even see the remake of The Time Machine). I think most people are the other way around. They want the effects, not the story.

With X2, this movie has effects that are not nearly as cool as The Matrix - but that is counterbalanced by a stronger, character driven story. A good strong skeleton on which to hang the effects. This is probably because X2 is basically an adaptation of the excellent graphic novel God Loves, Man Kills.

The Matrix is fun to watch, I enjoy a lot of films that don't stand up to critical thinking, but they rarely stick with me even 5 minutes after the credits roll.