7/10 - A classic 1980s teen coming of age comedy, Risky Business is certainly a unique film. The story of a young man, Joel (Tom Cruise), whose parents leave town and give him the house for the weekend, the film certainly goes in a direction that it is unexpected. This is all kicked off when one of his friends jokingly calls a prostitute and, after a black ***** shows up and recommends somebody more Joel's speed, he is introduced to young prostitute Lana (Rebecca De Mornay). What ensues is a week of debauchery, chaos, college interviews, and studying. A neo-noir esque coming of age tale of materialism and capitalism, Risky Business earns its classic status with solid performances from its cast and an infectious feeling of fun and audacity that permeates the whole film.

As may be clear, one of the biggest issues for Risky Business is its plot. While it works as a comment on the state of society for high schoolers and the trepidation one feels when heading to college, its plot is a bit far fetched. A high school guy strikes up a constant companionship with a prostitute over the course of a week and opens a brothel? That is a little too crazy and can somewhat hurt the film as a relatable story of teen angst. While Tom Cruise finds his spots to bring it back to its roots as a coming of age story, the story often brings the film into a completely new genre with a variety of different thematic explorations that feel out of place in a coming of age film. Fortunately, this is not your run-of-the-mill coming of age film and, while the plot is a bit much, it does help set up the greatest strength of the film.

That strength is its visual style. Films such as Michael Mann's Collateral or Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive feel like later successors to the way in which director Paul Brickman catches suburban Chicago at night time. With neon covered landscapes and Joel even having a neon sign in his room, Risky Business is one of the first films of the neon revolution and feels oddly digitalized for a film that obviously was not. Adding to the equation is a neo-noir take on the coming of age film with Rebecca De Mornay portraying the seductive and sensual femme fatale, Lana. Always convincing Joel to make bad decisions, she is the very definition of a dangerous woman and is one who lets the plot unfold through this guidance. Constantly finding himself between a rock and a hard place because he cannot escape the clutches of her beauty, Joel succumbs to her every whim. Adding this to the aesthetic of the film, it feels like Risky Business is often a unique take on adding neo-noir style and some of its story conventions to the coming of age story, which honestly, works because of capable direction and lustfully great turn from Rebecca De Mornay who defines sex in the film. At one point, she wears a fedora-esque hat with a jacket and skirt and somehow even that looks brilliant on her, so it is not hard to see Joel following her around like a puppy dog.

Akin to Drive again, Risky Business also features a vintage 1980s synth score courtesy of Tangerine Dream that certainly adds to that neo-noir feeling of the film for me. That said, the score pales in comparison to the scene in which Joel has sex with Lana on a train as we hear "In the Air Tonight" by Phil Collins. It is impossible to deny that the song itself is a masterpiece, so adding it to a sex scene on a train only serves to make that one of the most iconic sex scenes off all-time. Of course, where the film finds success is also in its destruction of innocence. This scene goes a long way to doing that as Joel is a charming, smart, and thoroughly innocent young man who has only dreamed of doing something with a woman. Thus, the situation he finds himself in with Lana is beyond foreign and almost surreal. Cruise pulls this off with an always charming and charismatic turn that may not always stick the landing, but it does hint at his potential to become a top-notch actor.

Yet, the film finds some great success in its exploration of themes such as materialism. Constantly trying to replace stolen and valuable possessions of his parents, Joel still draws ire from his parents when a glass egg has a miniscule crack inside of it. This really drives home just how important these material goods are to his parents and also all of Joel's friends who come from a similar silver spoon lifestyle and are the very definition of preppy. All of them really define materialism and the final results of the American dream for kids whose parents have made it big, as they are all entitled, spoiled, and convinced the world owes them something for just being themselves.

With capable performances, Risky Business highlights yet another good 1980s teen comedy actress whose filmography unfortunately turned into a who's who of movies nobody has seen in 20 years. That said, De Mornay makes the most of her premier role, as does the future superstar Tom Cruise. Together, they turn a crazy crime film into an oddly charming and entertaining coming of age tale that really stands the test of time.



8/10 - Paul Verhoeven knows sex and violence and Black Book finds him utilizing both in a film about a Dutch Jew who joins the resistance in WWII and infiltrates the Nazi headquarters in Holland. Identified as the best Dutch film of all-time by the Dutch themselves, it is not hard to see why Verhoeven's film has become so praised. With his trademark sexual exploitation and neck spurting violence, Black Book is a thrilling and suspenseful WWII thriller that constantly defies expectations with its portrayal of betrayal and the improbable allies and enemies made by our hero. Set in the final day of Nazi occupation of Holland, the film is neither damning nor sympathetic to either side and Verhoeven finds a balance in the war, opting instead to tell the story of one incredible woman.

With Carice van Houten starring as Rachel Stein/Ellis de Vries, Black Book is already off to a good start as Van Houten turns in a characteristically terrific performance. Subdued, sensual, and manipulative, Van Houten is a perfect fit for the sexuality demanded by Verhoeven's lead characters. She also handles herself in the dramatic scenes incredibly well, being both emotionally available while never crying. You can see what she has seen and had happen to her has a deep emotional impact, but on the outside, she is a rock and ready to take on all comers. This power and strength is a positive trait of the character and one that Van Houten exemplifies at all times. Though the men in the film are obsessed with her breasts and she is constantly having them exposed, an act that would theoretically establish her as subservient to the men leering at her nude body, she retains power and control of the situations she finds herself in. Of course, men do rescue her in the film, but at all times, she is ten steps ahead of the men in the film and always capable of fighting back.

Interestingly, the film finds ethical people on both sides. Sent to become the girl of Captain Muntze (Sebastian Koch), Rachel/Ellis quickly discovers that he is a decent man who, in spite of his crimes he has committed, wants to see an end to the bloodshed. Though he should pay for his crimes, he is not as evil as other Nazi leaders and wants the war to end as soon as possible. He also truly loves Ellis and refuses to give her up, even upon finding out that she is a Jew. On the flip side, she becomes enemies with people on the resistance side who are actually collaborators with the Nazis and have betrayed the resistance consistently in order to become rich. It is this ethical relativism that makes Black Book stand out from the crowd in WWII films. Though films such as Stephen Daldry's The Reader have tried to paint a Nazi guard as sympathetic, it did so through the guise of having her engage in a pedophilic relationship with a young man. Black Book, fortunately, does not take this approach. Instead, it humanizes him through his love and stances taken in favor of Ellis, much to his detriment with the Nazis. He is a simple man who loves collecting stamps and is not the monster the Dutch perceive him to be. By the time the film ends, his death is one that is greatly mourned by Ellis and the audience alike.

The action sequences and moments of suspense are equally well handled by Verhoeven. We know he knows how to make a great action set piece through his work on RoboCop or Starship Troopers and Black Book is no exception. Brilliantly filmed, choreographed, and exuberant action scenes both thrill and instill great awe throughout the film as the men weave through the Nazi headquarters and the streets of Holland.

Of course, one of the great flaws in many war or pseudo war films is its characters. Here, this is true as many characters blend together or are underdeveloped, such as staunch Christian Theo (Johnny de Mol). Now, the counter argument is that this is Rachel/Ellie's film and her story, which is fair. That said, the sprinkles of characterization we receive for everybody else is often not sufficient. Fortunately, the film does enough to highlight key motivations and traits of important players that foreshadow and drops hints for the audience to pick up on that play key roles later on.

A thrilling, unpredictable, and greatly dramatic WWII thriller, Black Book finds that director Paul Verhoeven still knows sex, violence, and thrills, and can find ways to make these feel unique and thoroughly engaging. At every turn, Black Book is a great exercise in ethical relativism and a terrific look at the Nazis reign of terror in Holland the betrayal that ensued across the country and across Europe in the wake of occupation.



8/10 - The fact that this is a debut is astounding, as is the fact that I used to not like Steven Soderbergh. Honestly, for sure a talented guy, he is often somebody I forget about, even if I enjoy his films. Years ago, my first introduction was The Informant, which I actually walked out of in theaters. That may have been a mistake, but I still need to rewatch (or fully watch) it to find out for sure. Afterwards, I watched Contagion and hated it, becoming fully convinced that he was a hack. Of course, as my recent rewatch showed, my opinion on Contagion has changed a lot. Since seeing these two long ago, I have seen and loved many of his works including Traffic, Solaris, Side Effects, Out of Sight, and I am even an apologist for his throwback 2006 bomb The Good German. Tobey Maguire may be a miss in the movie, but it is still a great take on 1940s noir, dammit! Now, this introductory paragraph exists largely because this is his first feature. Often times, watching a debut from a director whose work you enjoy proves disappointing. Sex, Lies, and Videotape, however, is not your typical work. An exploration into human sexuality with a raw, unhinged, and delightfully odd script, the film may lack the polish of his later works, but there is terrific wealth in that lack of polish.

Sex, Lies, and Videotape is about the arrival of a mysterious man, Graham (James Spader), who used to be friends in college with John (Peter Gallagher). Previously incredibly promiscuous, Graham is now impotent and only able to perform alone. As such, he videotapes women talking about sex and their history of having sex. This sometimes can get a little sensual, but Graham never actually does anything with a subject and is strict with nobody else seeing a tape. One of the women he tapes, Cynthia (Laura San Giacomo) has heard about Graham from her sister Ann (Andie MacDowell). Repulsed by his tapes, Ann tries to stop her sexually liberal sister from seeing him, but Cynthia cannot be stopped. Of course, the awkward part is that Ann is very reserved and is married to Graham's old friend John, who is now a successful lawyer. John, meanwhile, is sleeping with Cynthia who sleeps with him to get back at her older sister.

As may be clear, this creates some issues, but it really creates some odd healing. This confrontation of their approach to sex and their pasts allows the characters to really confront why they are the way that they are. For Ann, she is able to find herself and figure out why she does not enjoy sex. For Cynthia, it allows her to confront why she hates Ann and work on a worthwhile way of healing that. In the process, of course, it does show a lot about their characters. The sisters fight because they are inherently different and the other cannot accept that difference. It is also clear that Cynthia does a lot of what she does for attention, hinting at the popularity of Ann in school among the boys and, likely, her parents. Thus, it gives her a rush to know she is sleeping with Ann's husband and is better at sex than her. Via the videotapes, however, the women are able to figure this out and identify these issues. At the end, when we see Ann give Cynthia her work number and a gift, it becomes clear that the olive branch is there. Though they talked and had a relationship, they only spoke of each negatively and had terrible conversations on the phone. It is clear that the relationship is fractured and confronting what has made them who they are and driven them apart (sex), allows them to heal and work on the relationship.

This development is incredibly written by Soderbergh who creates a nuanced plot with nuanced characters that really grow throughout the film. For a debut, this is quite the accomplishment, especially with the mature way in which he handles sex. Instead of exploiting it or turning it into simple titillation, he turns it into an act worthy of psycho-therapeutic study. Of course, the strong characters and dialogue are bolstered by good performances in all roles, particularly by James Spader. As the unusual and very open Graham, Spader oozes weird yet comforting. His oddities may be a turn off to those who do not know him, but for that those do, he is an welcome part of their lives.

Incredibly written, directed, and acted, this one is a shockingly assured debut. While imperfect, the film is one that leaves you sitting there and contemplating your life in a weird way, just as the characters here are forced to assess who they are and where they are. In this film, it is an incredibly impactful film that shows Soderbergh's talent in transcending genre and creating intimate and compelling stories no matter the topic.



8/10 - Adapted from a play, Carnage is set in a single room and is a dramatic and uproariously comical black comedy-drama from director Roman Polanski. Bringing together two couples who have to discuss an incident between their respective sons, the civilized encounter quickly turns nasty and shows the carnage of the situation between their sons. Opening wounds regarding their marriages, lives, and characters, the encounter soon descends into chaos with in-fighting and larger revelations about the world around us with the carnage extending far beyond expectations. Set in just the living room of one of the couple's homes with some scenes in the bathroom and hallway, the film is easily identified as a play, but is one hell of a play translated to film. One of the greatest accomplishments of the film, however, is how it characterizes each person. While the acting is exemplary, the characters are feasts for the eyes and have a lot of meat on their bones. This is largely examined when each is put on the hot seat and attacked by the other three people in the room, with the person on the hot seat constantly changing. What is crucial, however, is how fake each person is, which becomes apparent quite quickly.

The person who wants the meeting the most is undeniably Penelope Longstreet (Jodie Foster). Married to Michael (John C. Reilly), her self-righteous, savior of the world persona becomes readily apparent in her interactions with Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz). Constantly dramatizing his words and editorializing them, the attack on her child by the Cowan's boy is clearly seen as a personal affront because she sees the world in a particular way. As she describes, she is a believer in a civilized world with a set rule of law where violence has no place. Everybody else, however, has there point of difference on this stance and Penelope's superiority complex is constantly derided. Foster does a great job capturing both the defensiveness and perplexed nature of the character. Clearly an educated white liberal (I am independent, so this is not an attack on politics), Penelope seems to have operated in an echo chamber all her life with a husband who just gives up rather than fight her. As such, she is shocked to see anybody dare to trivialize the turmoil in Africa - which she has never seen first hand - in favor of issues that impact their immediate lives instead. She is prim, proper, and to the point, unafraid to express her opinion. The way in which the character is written feels incredibly authentic. The script by Yasmina Reza and Polanski really highlight what is important to this character when Nancy Cowan (Kate Winslet) pukes on her coffee table. Though she later apologized, Penelope freaks out that Nancy puked on her one-of-a-kind art magazine or something. Valuing culture above all else - family included - Penelope pretends to be conscientious of the world around her, but is just as materialistic and vapid as the rest of us.

As for her husband Michael, he is a shockingly cruel man. Killing his daughter's pet hamster Nibbles because he does not like rodents, Michael casually criticizes those who have kids and describes newlyweds as "poor fuckers" who will wake up to the truth soon enough. Clearly unhappy in his marriage, nihilistic, and cynical about the world around him, Michael is a man whose values may be less clear than the others. Buying tulips to keep up appearances in front of the Cowans even though he does not want to meet with them, he is a guy who values money and displays of wealth. The tulips are a small part of this, but his emphasis on illegal acquired and expensive cigars, the 18-year old malt liquor, and his belief that kids are a drain on the lives of the parents, it is clear he values material wealth. While his wife is more concerned with what the money buys and the culture she lives in, Michael just likes to buy items that show off how much money he has acquired in his life. Of course, these items also show his lack of caring for his kids, as one of his kids is asthmatic. As Penelope tells him, the smoking of cigars in the house will bother their kid's asthma, but he does it anyways. This is really against type for Reilly as instead of a goofy and likable character, he is largely repugnant in the film. He does a lot with the role and plays both the lovable guy and the guy who is brash and outspoken incredibly well in this film. Ironically, at one point, the dialogue has Michael chastise pharmaceutical companies for being after nothing but profit. Yet, his obsession with displays of wealth and his wife's clear obsession with culture and expensive art shows that he too is after nothing but cold hard cash.

On the other side of the table are the Cowans. Alan, a successful lawyer in the midst of a legal issue with a pharmaceutical company's unsuccessful drug, is clearly distracted. Constantly on the phone, he is like Michael in that he does not want to be there. He does not value his children and could care less about his son. As the ending shows, his son apologized on his own to the child he hurt. Yet, he casually casts him aside a maniac incapable of emotion and sympathy. He, according to his wife Nancy, delegates all matters of the kids and the home to his wife as that is his role. In this way, he is incredibly paternalistic. The man works and the woman raises the kids. He cannot process other methods of doing things, hence his need to constantly work in order to feel busy and accomplished. Since he barely has the wife and the kids are long gone from him, Alan focuses in on the only element he is good at: providing. As such, he is constantly on the phone and is obsessed with the thing. When his wife dumps it in the flower pot, he panics and exclaims that his "entire life was in there". For Alan, this means a lot more than appears on the surface. To him, it most certainly is the entirety of his life or, at least, what he is capable of offering. Afterwards, the women laugh at him and he sulks on the ground, lost as to how to proceed. While he may not be affectionate to Nancy, he still calls her "doodle" at every chance he gets. As such, it is clear some part of him does love her and his defeated reaction to losing the phone shows just how lost he is with how he could possibly provide for her. A calculating man, Alan really does show his true nature when Michael puts him on the phone with Michael's mother. Dealing with criticism of a drug for a company he is the lawyer for, he has spent the whole day telling everybody to deny anything and to keep the drug out there. Yet, when talking to Michael's mother, he tells her it will not kill her, but she should definitely stop taking the drug. As such, while it shows he is quite fake, there is a good person somewhere in there who is not just all about money.

Finally, we have Nancy. One of the faker characters in the film, as identified by Penelope, Nancy pretends she wants to be there and to care about her son, but she has given up long ago. She has fleeting moments of joy, such as when she damages Alan's phone, but she otherwise feels nothing in her daily life. She is greatly unfulfilled and throws up twice in the film. This is partly nerves and partly stress, but a lot of it is derived from how uncomfortable she is with the situation and the cobbler the Longstreets gave her. As she has a clearly hands off approach to her child, even she can barely handle her own nonsense that she expresses in the film. Instead of being interested in anything else, she is incredibly selfish and shallow. When Penelope throws Nancy's purse in the air, Nancy's first reaction is to freak out about how she broke her perfume and make-up. Just as the destruction of important items reveals a lot for the other characters, this shows just how self-obsessed Nancy is in her daily life. While Alan is hands-off with the kids and open about it, Nancy pretends to be hands-on, but is too narcissistic and concerned with herself to actually care about her children. By the time she is blind drunk, she expresses this to everybody else and reveals just how little she cares about what happened between the two boys.

A thoroughly comical film, Carnage reveals the absurdity of its story with the finale of the boys making up on their own and Nibbles the hamster just chilling in the park. If anything, Carnage is about four people descending into madness and our inability to relate to one another and the world. At the end of the day, it is a cynical world view offered by Polanski in which we all grow up to be in it for our self-interest. As children, we are clearly optimists who can look past the ills committed against us. As adults, however, we hold grudges, internalize them, and these then drive us away from those near us.



6/10 - Scanners is a David Cronenberg film, through and through. Though not strictly defined as a body horror film, Scanners still offers some elements of Cronenberg's beloved subgenre with blood vein effects and exploding heads. Nothing makes this man happier than to make his audience's skin crawl as we watch a body do something that it should not be doing. Scanners is no exception to this constant rule. Telling the story of a select group of people capable of scanning, a sort of telepathy, and the attempts to control them by a company called ConSec, leading to a underground group of Scanners, the film finds Cronenberg operating in similar thematic territory. Though he later refined this theme in films such as Videodrome or eXistenZ, his distrust of business and the horrid picture he paints of the underground is never not intensely scary. Yet, while the film has a lot going for it, the ending is far too much and almost shows Cronenberg lacking a way to actually end the film.

Now, of course, many of the scenes in Scanners are phenomenal. The classic head explosion being one of them, but the scene towards of the beginning when Cameron Vale (Stephen Lack) is first brought and the film shows him tied to a hospital bed, is the best by far. Scanning allows the person to hear the thoughts of everybody around them and, if they focus it on something, gain the thoughts of the person they link to. In this hospital scene, Cameron knows nothing about his unique trait and simply hears the voice. Complementing the rising intensity of the voices with a creepy score in the background, Cronenberg creates a scene laced with claustrophobia and the harder Cameron fights to get out, the more the audience can feel their skin crawling. This scene stands as a real highlight of the film and paints the scanners as a sympathetic group who have a great skill, but also a great curse.

Cronenberg also finds success in the characterization of everybody, particularly his villain, who is hard to identify. Both people within ConSec and the underground are evil and seek nothing but world domination. By having ConSec know that a drug made a company gives fetuses this horrible disease and with Darryl Revok (Michael Ironside), leader of the underground, killing scanners who do not join him, it makes it hard to know who to root for. On one hand, we have an evil business that dabbles in morally unethical and illegal practices. On the other, we have a ruthless man who will stop at nothing to topple that company. Does the end justify the means? Probably not. Cronenberg never asks you to root for either side in the conflict, however, as he shows both sides to be negative forces. Those who control and those who commit violent acts are not to be rooted for and though this is a topic he will come back to later on his works, it is one he somewhat toys with in Scanners.

Always inventive, Scanners reminds me a lot of Carrie by Brian De Palma with the scanners capable of incredible actions using nothing but their minds. People are burned, buildings set on fire, and people are thrown like rag dolls. Seems a lot like Carrie, minus the gratuitous shower shots in favor of good old micro effects to create the tension and horror. That said, Cronenberg does a lot with the plot and constantly keeps things moving. Good pacing and a mostly inventive plot allow the audience to constantly be engaging with the film and trying to get a grasp on this weird world of Cronenberg. That said, it is hard to define the film. Given the horrific acting, it is hard to say whether it is intentional or not. Cronenberg may have wanted to have wooden acting to highlight how emotionless and alien the scanners are, but everybody acts that way.

Yet, one of the worst elements here is the finale. While the build up is great and always engaging, the finale is far too much. The whole film is over-the-top, but the finale takes it another step and goes right over the ledge. Perhaps I was too tired or something, but it struck me as Cronenberg simply running out of ideas and going for some mental gymnastics of a conclusion. Unfortunately, its mystery and inconclusive nature - while intriguing - do not help make up for Cameron and Darryl's epic scan off that causes their faces to melt and eyes to blow up.

A thoroughly weird film, Scanners is the definition of a David Cronenberg film. With bad acting and a poor conclusion, however, classic Cronenberg goodness runs out of speed towards the end. Fortunately, the proceeding 80 minutes are terrific, filled with tension, and a great build up.



7/10 - Championed by director Quentin Tarantino and noted film critic Matt Zoller Seitz as a prime candidate for re-evaluation, I must say that I agree. With an knack for being over-the-top, The Lone Ranger may drag in spots, but is a tremendous time with audacious action set pieces at every turn. The soon-to-be-famed train sequence at the end and the opening sequence on a different train are phenomenal. While the middle could be a bit better and the film does go on for far too long, The Lone Ranger is a fun film that feels like a throwback to the bombastic days of 1970s and 1980s blockbusters. Channeling childish energy and a sense of childlike wonder for the mystery of the film's hero, director Gore Verbinski creates a blockbuster movie that is out of place in year 2013.

Since the days of Steven Spielberg revolutionizing the blockbuster movie in the 1970s and 1980s with fun adventure films that more than satisfied adults and became nostalgia for kids of then and now, the blockbuster movie has changed. Now, the films are shot like television shows, have quips at every turn that distract from the action, and are easily digestable. They lack intrigue, a sense of adventure, and feel manufactured. Now, of course, a lot of this comes from the resurgence of the studio's power in the filmmaking and the death of the big budget auteur. Yet, director Gore Verbinski has shown an ability to operate with a big budget and still come out on top with his 2003 film Pirates of the Caribbean. Though its sequels have slacked and been overly manufactured, the original is a fun, bombastic, action-packed, and guilt-free excursion across the oceans with Jack Sparrow. Taking that same energy and sense of adventure and applying it to The Lone Ranger, Verbinski's film was met with incredible levels of ridicule in the United States. As mentioned, some of his peers and noted critics such as Seitz or those in Britain found great value in the film. This is no mistake as the film seems to have escaped those entrusted to critique it. Accustomed to the new age blockbusters, critics could not stomach this throwback to old school blockbusters. While recognizing its action set pieces, its flaws and plotholes became the focus and, as such, were easily derided. The sooner folks realize that every film is flawed and has plot holes, the happier we will all become and all those plot holes do is distract from the fun that the film conjures up. There is no going through the motions or checking off boxes here. Rather, Verbinski sets up John Reid (Armie Hammer) and Tonto (Johnny Depp) to have an audacious adventure in order to stop Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) and Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson), while saving Rebecca (Ruth Wilson). An old school premise and execution, The Lone Ranger is pure energy.

This energy really is infectious to watch. As said, the middle part of the film takes a bit too long to get through. This likely where the film loses people as the plotting is a bit much at times and can seem a bit convenient. Of course, the film never loses its sense of fun with Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp having incredible chemistry with one another. Occasionally making light of their situations, the jokes always land, as does the Native American mysticism delivered by Tonto. Really setting the scene and marking the film as one about avenging the death of the Comanche tribe that Tonto was apart of, The Lone Ranger is essentially a lesson in the horrors committed against the Natives in the name of "progress". However, adding in mythology regarding the Natives that Tonto has made up as a coping mechanism, the film often becomes quite sad when you learn how Tonto wound up where he did. Yet, he is not as crazy as he seems as many of his "made up elements to explain the world" actually do explain things and allow the film as a whole to make a lot more sense. Though hardly realistic and decidedly over-the-top, the film is told as a story from Tonto to a young boy in 1933. As such, elements are likely exaggerated and exist solely to extend the legend of The Lone Ranger. Plus, the banter that it creates between Tonto and the Lone Ranger is always rich and rewarding with some great humor to it, as a result of their chemistry together and comic delivery.

The film also adds in some solid supporting characters in the form of characters such as Red (Helena Bonham Carter). Though underutilized, Red is a madame in a brothel with an ivory leg that she hides a gun in. A little bit crazy and unafraid to use her leg as a weapon, Red has some great comedy to her, largely thanks to Carter's performance. As the villains, Tom Wilkinson and William Fichtner are terrific. Wilkinson, portraying a cruel businessman after wealth, is calculating, smart, and unfeeling. As the brother of the businessman, Fichtner plays an outlaw wanted by the law. Brutal, cannibalistic, and truly evil, Fichtner plays a terrifically menacing bad guy that instills great fear in our hearts. All of these supporting characters are solidly written and really add great depth to the plot. As opposed to the characters in other blockbusters nowadays that are terrible villains, the ones in The Lone Ranger are worthy adversaries that Verbinski develops and explains thoroughly how Tonto and the Lone Ranger have come to fight them.

This solid character exposition continues for its heroes with Tonto, a former Comanche who is now without a tribe, constantly trying to avenge the loss of his tribe to the evil brothers. Seeking somebody to assist him in this journey, the spirit horse (who Tonto tries to figure out whether it is "stupid or just pretending to be stupid") leads him to John Reid. Portrayed as a serious man by Hammer, Reid is coming to Texas to be a district attorney and is more concerned with the law than anything else. In the beginning, he turns down a woman's offer to pray with them in order read a book about government by John Locke. Committed to law and order, Reid is a serious man who has little time for anything else, even Rebecca. However, when Butch Cavendish (Fichtner) kills his brother, Reid puts on the mask and becomes a new man. Calculating and determined to succeed, he is unknowingly helping Tonto and learning from Tonto. Through Tonto, he not only learns an appreciation for the Natives, but learns how to become less serious. Though he is committed to justice, he realizes that justice is not always found via the law and that people must sometimes take justice into their own hands when the law lets them down. For John, that time is now and he is there to assist Tonto in bringing down the men that tricked Tonto in giving up his people all those years ago.

As may be clear, this film is a little bit crazy. Fortunately, so were films such as Indiana Jones. Hardly based in reality and always on the look out for bombastic moments of action, The Lone Ranger is a film with terrific action and a knack for capturing it. Via the lens of Bojan Bazelli, the action in the film is exquisitely captured and whoever choreographed and blocked the action deserves an award because it is tremendous. Unrelentingly adventurous and action-packed, these bursts of thrills and colors are well thought out, explained, and executed. Though the film itself may have some plot hole issues, the action lacks any such issues with each element playing in perfectly to the conclusion of the film and the sequence itself. The brilliance of the action extends to the cinematography as a whole that is really terrific. There is one shot in the beginning of men riding into town where the men are completely silhouetted that is brilliant. There is another during one action set piece in which Tonto rescues John Reid from the railroad men that is equally well shot in which a train, billowing smoke, backs up at night. With the light from the train shining on everybody and the train itself, the scene is gorgeously captured. Heavily utilizing smoke effects at every turn, The Lone Ranger uses that smoke with great mystique and captures it brilliantly, but Verbinski also uses it to his advantage to keep some action mysterious and unpredictable, while adding to the legend of his heroes with them being adorned in smoke on more than a few occasions. Gorgeously captured and making the most of its desert setting, The Lone Ranger is a beautiful film.

Beautiful, well-acted, well directed, and action-packed, The Lone Ranger instills infectious fun wherever it goes. Undeserving of its poor critical reception, the film is a bombastic throwback to the days when blockbusters had heart and soul and still reflected the vision of the director. While Verbinski may not strictly be an auteur, this film is a product of himself and shows off his love of old westerns, the original series, and old school blockbusters. The latter really shines through with the film being relentlessly nostalgic in its plotting, characters, and dialogue, with fresh jokes and gags that complement the action and character arcs without distracting from them. Through this, Verbinski is able to craft a film that is enjoyable, adventurous, and that possesses a sense of childlike wonder that has long ago left the big studio blockbuster.



4/10 - From the very beginning of the film, The People vs. Larry Flynt spirals out of control. While featuring great performances and a compelling subject, the film feels abbreviated. Directed by Milos Forman, the film won him the Golden Globe for Best Director and he got a nomination at the Academy Awards in the same category. Though a legend in the director's chair, it is hard to imagine why Forman would receive these honors. For a film this ambitious and trying to cover such a large stretch of time, the film is done in a blink because scenes smash together, things progress quickly, and events are skimmed over to just give you a taste and then it takes them away. All told though, the film is just a middling biopic that does not really analyze its characters as much as it champions as a patriot for the little man who wants to call Jerry Falwell a moron (a valiant enterprise, admittedly).

Starring Woody Harrelson as the infamous smut peddler, Harrelson is brilliant. Both bombastic, reserved, and solemn, Harrelson gives a real bite and edge to Larry Flynt, but makes him entirely sympathetic. Every time he acts like a moron in court, you feel sympathy and compassion for a man who is throwing his life away. Harrelson's brilliance is highlighted in a scene with the Americans for a Free Press rally. In it, the great dialogue in the scene hands Harrelson an impassioned speech about the morals of America and how out of wack they are. While soldiers and war are celebrated, sexuality is taboo and not to be discussed. The speech really spoke to his character and Harrelson nails this fiery speech. Alongside is his Edward Norton, appearing as his lawyer Alan Isaacman. A bit awkward and young, Isaacman is unassuming and really should not have volunteered to be Flynt's lawyer. Yet, Isaacman is along for the ride all the way and is excellently captured by Norton. The scene in front of the Supreme Court is a really highlight with the young, but smart Isaacman holding his own under direct questioning as to his client's intents with the publication of an anti-Falwell article and advertisement. Though he seems awkward and cracks a few jokes, he is composed and knowledgeable at every turn. This is a real credit to Norton who captures both the bulldog and the shih tzu of Isaacman.

On the flip side, however, is Courtney Love. Portraying Althea Leasure, the wife of Larry Flynt, Love is a junkie. Fortunately, this makes her perfect for the role. Maybe that is harsh, but Love injects Larry with heroin and then injects herself and it just really felt like a home video instead of a film. As may be clear, Love is grating in the role. She is so bad, melodramatic, and is a real blight on this film. Had the editing and storytelling not be so inept as well, Love would stand as the worst part of this film. Just because is the exact same person as Althea was does not mean she is good casting. She simply cannot act and just goes through the motions and plays herself.

As for the editing, it is horrible. With scenes ending too early and smashing into one another throughout, the best scenes are the ones that Forman actually lets play out. However, these are few and in between as he insists of flying through this film. With a runtime just over two hours and covering 35 years (more like 25) of Flynt's life, the film just has too much material for a two hour film. Forman knows this and, as such, abbreviates key moments into a highlight reel. This is largely ineffective and would not provide a good portrait of who Flynt is as a person. Thus, he must resort to having on-the-nose dialogue where Flynt just spews exposition as to what he stands for as a person. This is not ideal, but a man has to do what a man has to do when the story does not tell itself. Without these monologues, the film would just be a loose collection of scenes that, when put together, do not really add up to much. Though I dislike Jerry Falwell as much as the next guy and Flynt's contributions by bringing him down a peg (as if Falwell and his disciples are not massively self-righteous) are valuable, the film does a poor job introducing Falwell and has to have Norton's character explain at the end why Flynt hates Falwell. He is a religious leader, yes, but other than a brief mention by Althera, he does not factor in until the end. The mention from Althera also comes off as an after thought by Forman when her realized nobody mentions Falwell until the court case.

A meandering, poorly edited, and poorly told film from a great director, The People vs Larry Flynt is nearly saved by a workmanlike performance from Woody Harrelson and a typically great turn from Edward Norton is one of his first roles. However, they are dragged back down by Courtney Love. A misfire, the film simply does not work as a biopic or really any other genre, satire or otherwise.