Shakespeare may or may not have been a fraud....but this movie's marketing sure is

Anonymous (2011)
Starring: Rhys Ifans, Sebastian Armesto, Edward Hogg, Vanessa Redgrave, David Thewlis, Jamie Campbell Bower, Joely Richardson, Xavier Samuel, Sam Reid, Paolo De Vita, Trystan Gravelle, Rafe Spall, and Derek Jacobi
Director: Roland Emmerich
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Edward, the Earl of Oxford (Ifans), is a brilliant and obsessive writer and poet, who is forced to keep his art secret due to circumstances of birth and the machinations of power-broker William Cecil (Thewlis). But his love of theater becomes overwhelming, and he seeks out a talented but struggling playwright, Ben Johnson (Armesto) to serve as his "beard." The play goes awry when Johnson hesitates and hack actor and all-around low-life Will Shakespeare (Spall) steps in and steals the credit. As Oxford turns from play-writing to politics in order to support his friends and proteges, the Earls of Essex and Southhampton (Reid and Samuel), playwrights and nobles alike are swept up in deadly and hidden machinations over who will take the throne of England after the death of Queen Elizabeth I (Redgrave).

The film's tagline and ad campaign drew me in. "Was Shakespeare a Fraud?" is an intriguing question for one such as myself who has enjoyed many different stagings of his plays over the years, and who loves the running gag in "Houseboat on the River Styx" about Shakespeare not being the author of his plays. However, this is ultimately a very small part of the film, which is primarily concerned with a chain of events that leads to the events known as the Essex Rebellion and behind-the-scenes machinations of the Cecils, a wealthy family of commoners. And, of course, the brilliance of Oxford as a writer.

The film, in fact, makes such a big deal out of how brilliant Oxford is that is ends up undermining its own conspiracy theory about Shakespeare taking credit for his work. According to the story, a number of plays attributed to Shakespeare were written by Oxford when he was just a boy and performed at Queen Elizabeth's court. In fact, the plays were seen by so many people that it strains credibility that when they start showing up in theaters and later performed at Elizabeth's court again that no-one remembers them from years before. In other words, within the universe of the film, Oxford's secret identity as a playwright is one of the worst kept secrets in all of England.

The credibility of the film is further undermined by glaring historical inaccuracies, ones that even non-history buffs or non-Shakespeare scholars will pick up on, with the most glaring of these being "Macbeth" presented as written and performed during the reign of Queen Elizabeth when it was wasn't written until King James was on the throne.

Now, the screenwriter has stated in interviews that he made those errors intentionally as a homage to Shakespeare... and they can further be excused by the fact that the film is presented within a Shakespeare-like framework with a presenter taking to the stage before and after the main events of the film, thus clearly framing it as a work of fiction where shadows may or may not offend. Nonetheless, if you're going to write a movie presenting the thesis that the greatest creative force to ever work in the English language wasn't who history records him to be--no matter how tangential that ultimately ends up being to the thrust of your story--it behooves you to actually present a little historical accuracy as far as his works go. Especially when in the case of Macbeth, there's no reason for the discordant note to be struck.

Aside from the glaring historical inaccuracies, this is an accomplished film. It is well-acted, beautifully shot, and expertly paced. The story structure is unnecessarily convoluted--as it's got a framing sequence within the framing sequence of the narrator on stage in a theater, and then adds frequent flashbacks within the main story just to add a possibility of confusing the audience--but the film is long enough that viewers get acclimated to the jumps back and forth after the first couple of times, so it turns out to be less or a drawback than it seems at first. The way character traits were conveyed through props and costuming was also impressive, with the fact that Earl of Oxfords fingers were always stained with ink while Shakespeare's were always perfectly clean was a particularly nice touch.

This is not a film for everyone; some will find it way too talky, and I suspect it might be painful to sit through if you've put any real time and effort into Shakespeare scholarship (given the inaccuracies a yahoo like me could spot without even trying), but if you're a regular viewer of "Masterpiece Theater," I suspect it might be right up your ally.

I'm still going to stick with the Shakespeare authorship theories put forth by John Kendrick Bangs, however.

'The Bloody Judge': Jess Franco's Best?

The Bloody Judge (aka "Throne of Blood", "Throne of the Blood Monster", "The Witch's Trial" and "Witch-killer of Broadmoor) (1970)
Starring: Christopher Lee, Leo Genn, Maria Rohm, Margaret Lee, Hans Hass, and Milo Quesada
Director: Jess Franco
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A hypocritical judge (Lee) illustrates why a little rebellion among the peasantry can be a good thing every now and then.

Loosely based on the final months of notorious and controversial historical 17th century British hanging judge George Jeffries, this film is probably the best work I've seen from Spanish director Jess Franco. The plot is coherent and engaging, the camerawork and sets are fairly decent, and there's actually a few well-staged action scenes. To top it off, the characters are even interesting... as repulsive as Jeffries comes across, he is emerges as a fascinating character... and Maria Rohm's pure-hearted peasant girl (who is forced to have sex with the vile Jeffries in exchange for her sister's life) is a character that the viewer can feel real pity for.

Unfortunately, the film also has all the hallmarks of some of other Franco's pictures, such as unnecessary torture scenes and nudity and just general crap thrown in to guarantee an R-rating at the very least. (Franco must have been the role-model for the fools who were in charge of "Snakes on a Plane" as far as that approach goes.)

Interestingly, this film would have been stronger if a scene that apparently was only included in the German-language version of the movie had been in all the edits. Although repulsive for some of its sexual/torture content, it does make some later part of the film seem a little less unmotivated plot-development wise.

This "lost" scene and other bonus material included on the "Blue Underground" DVD release of the picture actually makes up a very worthwhile package for fans and scholars of "exploitation cinema" and other B-movies. It's material that gives excellent insight into rare insight into the production and marketing processes that went into these multi-national European productions of the 1960s and 1970s. (Yeah, the liner notes are a little ridiculous--the reviewer who wrote them seems to hold Franco's body of work in much higher regard that a sane person should--and the interview with Christopher Lee makes him seem like a pompous ass, but it's all very interesting.)




For more reviews of movies with Christopher Lee, visit Movies You Should (Die Before You) See, Terror Titans, and Watching the Detectives.

'Dan Candy's Law' is a different western

Dan Candy's Law (aka "Alien Thunder") (1973)
Starring: Donald Sutherland, Kevin McCarthy, Jean Duceppe, John Boylan, Chief Dan George, Gordon Tootoosis, and Francine Racette
Director: Claude Fournier
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A Canadian Mountie's obsession with hunting down and bringing to trail a Cree Indian (Tootosis) who killed his friend and colleague (McCarthy) ends up triggering a confrontation between rebellious Native Americans and the Canadian army. Will Dan Candy (Sutherland) get his man, and at what cost?

"Dan Candy's Law" is a quiet, almost gentile movie--despite the cussing, gunplay and ultimately cannon fire--that is through-and-through Canadian western. Instead of the scorching heat of a desert southwest, we have the chilly windswept northwestern plains of Canada. Instead of a shoot-from-the-hip renegade vigilante sheriff, we have a tall-tale-telling Mountie who, even while disobeying orders from his superior, is trying to uphold the law and to bring a fugitive murderer to justice before a court.

Based on a true story of a NWMP officer Dan Candy who spent a year tracking a Cree Indian who stole government cattle and killed a police officer while escaping custody, the film is sympathetic to both the police officers and white settlers and the Native Americans who have been displaced. It's a film that's probably a lot closer to reality than most westerns that are made, even to the point of the way it unfolds slowly and quietly, except for moments of chaos and violence.

Donald Sutherland is particularly excellent in the film, and his character is a fascinating one, particularly for a western. More often than not, movies center on vigilantes who are out for revenge more than anything else, but the anger of his friend's murder subsides, Candy returns to being a true professional who stands for law and order on the frontier. Up to the very end, he is dedicated to bringing in his suspect alive, if possible.

If you enjoy the western genre, "Dan Candy's Law" might be a nice change of pace for you.

'He Was a Quiet Man' is a well-done drama

He Was A Quiet Man (2006)
Starring: Christian Slater, Elisha Cuthbert, and William H. Macy
Director: Frank A Cappello
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A deranged office worker (Slater) is going to act on fantasies of murdering his co-workers, he becomes a hero when he shoots another man who was "going postal" at the office. Finally noticed by his boss (Macy), he gets promoted, he becomes the most important person in the life of a pretty co-worker who never noticed him before (Cuthbert)... a violent tragedy has turned his nightmare life into a dream. But is it a dream that can last?


"He Was a Quiet Man" is a film featuring some excellent performances by all its principles--Christian Slater plays another quirky, unbalanced character but he does it in far more restrained a manner than ever before, and he's probably better than he ever has been before--and features a "too good to be true" fantasy story that is made successful and put into perspective by a one of those rarest of things: A twist ending that actually works.

The script is mostly well-written, with an unsual romance story at its core that fits well with the overall quirky nature of the film. However, there are times when it gets redundant and goes overboard with driving home story elements, as if the filmmakers either doubted their own abilities to communicate, or the audience's intelligence and ability to comprehend.





Read more reviews of films with Christian Slater at the Watching the Detectives and Terror Titans blogs.

'The Shooting': An overlooked Western gem

The Shooting (1967)
Starring: Warren Oates, Millie Perkins, Will Hutchinson, and Jack Nicholson
Director: Monte Hellman
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A retired bountyhunter and tracker (Oates) is hired to escort a mysterious, and dangerously insane, woman (Perkins) through desert badlands. During the trip, they meet up with a hired killer (Nicholson) and the bountyhunter realizes that he is guiding the woman to an execution.


"The Shooting" is a quirky western the oozes atmosphere, mystery, and strangeness from every frame. Many questions come up about the characters and the situations they're in, but virtually none of them are answered. The ending, although in perfect keeping with everything that's led up to it--and not terribly surprising if you've been paying careful attention as they film unfolds--only heightens the questions and mystery. That sort of approach is one that bothers me in most cases, but in this film, it works.

Well-acted, well-filmed (even the day-for-night campfire scenes are tolerably well done), and unfolding with the steady, deliberate pace of a well-told suspense tale, "The Shooting" is an overlooked classic of the western genre. If you liked "Pale Rider" or "High Plains Drifter", I suspect you'll appreciate this movie as well.

Stallone goes over the top!

This review is a spin-off from the week-long celebration of The Expendables at Watching the Detectives.

Over the Top (aka "Meet Me Half Way" (1987))
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, David Mendenhall, and Robert Loggia
Director: Menehen Golan
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Lincoln Hawk (Stallone), a long haul trucker and semi-pro competitive arm wrestler struggles to reconnect with his son (Mendenhall) after the death of his wife.

Yes... I wrote "semi-pro competitive arm wrestler." There are parts of this movie that play like "Balls of Fury", with its extreme ping-pong matches, yet it's all meant to be taken seriously. And apparently there are enough folks out there who take arm wrestling seriously enough that there are leagues and championships, just like we see in this movie. I wouldn't have thought it possible, but this website is proof that truth is often nearly as strange as fiction.

But why anyone would think that a movie centered on a semi-pro arm wrestler could be profitable with a budget of $25 million is a complete mystery. Perhaps they thought anything vaguely sports related starring Sylvester Stallone would be an instant hit, what with the first three "Rocky" movies having been huge successeses. They were of course wrong, and "Over the Top" lost some $9 million during its theatrical run.

I don't know if this movie bombing is a good thing or a tragedy, because if it had turned a quick profit, I'm sure we would have been treated to Stallone as a semi-pro caber tosser in "Death Logs" and as a semi-pro curling player, squaring off against a team of villains led by Dolph Lundgren in "Clean Sweep."

I do wish I had remembered this movie existed while working on my forthcoming book, 150 Movies You Should (Die Before You) See. It would have been ideal for the chapter titled "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time." But, featuring it for The Expendables Week is a good second best.


While I remain baffled any executive at Cannon Group, Warner Bros. or Golan-Globus would have thought an idea this lame could earn back a $25 million investment, I can see why this film might have appealed to Sylvester Stallone.

Stallone is an actor, who enjoys acting, and the character he portrays here is different than any other he had played at this time (or since, as far as I know). Lincoln Hawk comes across like a gentle, soft-spoken man for whom confrontation is something he tries to avoid until back into a corner, and for whom violence is usually not even an option to be considered. There is a lot about the Lincoln Hawk character that feels very real, and I think Stallone does a good job at portraying him. I also think this character looked better on paper, because he's the only thing that feels even close to real in this film, as the goofy arm wrestling "action" is laughable, and Hawk's Snidely Whiplash-like millionaire father-in-law (played by Robert Loggia) is so over the top in every way that one might think the title refers to him instead of an arm wrestling move. Hawk's relationship with his son also feels artificial, both because of some weak writing... and because child actor David Mendenhall is an average child actor. And that means that you can tell he is ACTING whenever he is in a scene.

Aside from fans of Sylvester Stallone being able to enjoy him doing something a little different, there really isn't anything particularly exceptional about "Over the Top". All the technical aspects of the film are executed with the level of competence you'd expect for a movie someone spent $25 million on, but there is no making up for the fact that the film's main hook is goofy in the extreme (even if there is a real-world counterpart to it).

Join Jack Nicholson for a 'Ride in the Whirlwind'

Ride in the Whirlwind (1965)
Starring: Cameron Mitchell and Jack Nicholson
Director: Monte Hellman
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When three drifters cross paths with a band of desperadoes, vigilantes mistake them for members of the gang. The innocent riders are forced to become the criminals they are mistaken for in order to survive.


"Ride in the Whirlwind" is a surprisingly engaging western. I say "surprisingly", because when it comes right down to it, an awful lot of the movie is spent with characters having fairly mundane and repetitious conversations, and is populated with characters who are as unknown to the viewers when the movie ends as they were when it started. Usually, such elements are signs of a cheap movie that is choking on the padding added to stretch it to a decent run-time. In this film, however, the elements merge with the random way three possibly shady--but certainly not the bad guys they are mistaken for--men are forced down a path of violence and brutality. I suppose this movie is an illustration of how a talented director and cast can create a find movie where hacks would merely produce a pile of crap out of the same material.

I recommend this movie if you are a fan of westerns. "Ride in the Whirlwind" occupies a sort of middle ground between the "traditional" American western and the European western (best recognized through Sergio Leone's movies starring Clint Eastwood) that was transforming the genre when this film was released.

(Trivia: "Ride in the Whirlwind" was shot back-to-back with "The Shooting", another low-budget western directed by Hellman that featured much of the same cast and used the same crew and locations.)

'Knightriders' is a surprising Romero movie

Knightriders (1981)
Starring: Ed Harris, Gary Lahti, Tom Savini, Amy Ingersoll, Warner Shook, Patricia Tallman, Christine Forrest, Brother Blue, and Cynthia Adler
Director: George Romero
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Like so many movies I watch and review, I came to this one not knowing what to expect, but attracted to it by the DVD cover image of a mace-wielding knight in full armor on a motorcycle. It turned out that "Knightriders" is quite a different sort of film than what we usually expect to see when the name "George A. Romero" is in the credits.

There are no zombies or psycho killers in this film. Instead, what we have is the story of a traveling roadshow consisting of stunt motorbikers who travel the country putting on a renaissance fair that is set apart from the usual such shows by elaborate jousting matches on motorcycles. Even more unusual, these carnies have created their own utopian society where the model set by King Arthur's Camelot is what they aspire to and where ancient virtues and knightly honor are the order of the day. However, just like the real Camelot, corruption and greed soon threatens to destroy what they have created....


"Knightriders" is a film that deserves more attention that it's gotten over the years. It's supremely well acted--Ed Harris' performance as the "king" who struggles to keep his community together brings a fantastic emotional purity to the film, while Tom Savini's enigmatic Morgan (and chief challenger to the king's throne) brings a nice touch of counterbalancing darkness--features great music, and some really great cinematography. The bike stunts are also fantastic and one wonders how no one got killed on the shoot!

Although the film runs a little too much past what should have been its climax, it presents an engaging, subtle retelling of the classic Arthurian tale that, like its model, has a timeless quality that makes this film just as vibrant now as it was in 1981. It's worth checking out by lovers of Ren Fairs, Camelot-style romantic stories, and well-made, intelligent cinema.

Superior adaptation of classic romance

Jane Austin's Persuasion (2007)
Starring: Sally Hawkins and Rupert Penry-Jones
Director: Adrian Shergold
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

As a young woman, Anne Elliot (Hawkins) rejects a marriage proposal from Wentworth, a penniless Army officer (Penry-Jones), but as time passes she discovers that he is her true love. When he re-enters her life nearly a decade later, will she be able to correct the biggest mistake of her life and find happiness?


"Jane Austin's Persuasion" is a fabulous adaptation of one of the great romantic tales of the English language. Featuring a great cast (led by unconventional beauty Sally Hawkins) each is talented enough to make the 18th century dialogue sound perfectly natural and commonplace. Hawkins is particularly excellent, able to convey complex and shifting emotions through nothing but facial expressions.

This is another excellent British television production that in addition to the excellent cast features great costumes, excellent camerawork and lighting, and a perfect musical score. The story moves swiftly and always carries a sense of immediacy and passion... and high romance. It's a film that touched the heart of even a hardened cynic like me.

'The Message' is epic tale of Islam's founding

The Message (aka "Mohammed, Messenger of God") (1976)
Starring: Anthony Quinn, Michael Ansara, Michael Forest and Irene Papas
Director: Moustapha Akkad
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

This is the tale of the Prophet Mohammed and his early followers. from his first visions, to his persecution by the pagan merchant lords of Arabia, through the founding of the first Mosque in Medina, and his eventual triumphant return to Mecca at the head of an army of believers.


"The Message" is an interesting film that provides a window for non-believers into how Muslims view Mohammed, the founder of their religion. It's a little like "The Ten Commandments" crossed with "Ben Hur", but it is an interesting excersize in filmmaking aside from being a sweeping epic with the scenery, costuming and battle scenes the audience expects from films like this.

Due to the obsession modern-day Muslims have with portrayals of the Prophet Mohammed, director Akkad had to make his movie without showing Mohammed on screen or even allowing his voice to be heard. This leads to some very odd moments where characters react to seeing Mohammed or to things he says that we either don't hear or are repeated by other characters. In general, though, the film is an interesting tale of a conflict between a struggling new religion

Interestingly, the Islam presented in this film is very different than the one that seems to be practiced by the Muslims of nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan... any other Muslim-dominated nation where women are mistreated, brutality and oppression is the order of the day, and non-Muslims are mistreated at every turn. The Islam portrayed in this film is indeed the "religion of peace" that only applied violence when confronted with violence and that indeed did not oppress nor threaten or kill innocent people.

Mostapha Akkad has explained in interviews, in a making-of documentary, and in his very informative SAP commentary on the DVD that he hoped this movie would help inform Americans and others in the Western world about the truth of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. Certainly, if Muslims are as moved emotionally by the tale of Mohammed as you will be by watching this movie--even with the quirky absence of its focal character--one can understand why they insist that he was a man of peace and why they claim the follow a religion of peace.

Many Muslims could probably benefit from watching this film and taking the messages it ascribes to Mohammed to heart. Unfortunately, from the very beginning, violent and crazed extremists were more interested in strangling free speech and even silencing the message of their own Prophet. American Muslims took hostages in Washington, D.C. when this film was released in 1977 to "protest" the film, murdering a journalist in the process. (This despite the fact that Akkad sought the blessings and permission to make his movie from leading Islamic religious scholars in Egypt and Syria.)

Heck, the violence over "The Message" can be equated to the idiocy that RevolutionMuslim recently engaged in over the "South Park" episode. Neither featured ANY portrayals of Mohammed... although this film did show his camel and the blade of his sword.

An even greater irony is that so many Muslims have either forgotten or choose to ignore their own religion's prohibitions against killing innocent civilians and women that Mostapha Akkad himself was murdered by a Muslim suicide bomber while attending his daughter's wedding in Jordan in 2005. Click here for the tragic details.

Regardless, if you enjoy epics like "The Ten Commandments" (or just "Hercules and the Captive Women"), you'll find a lot to like in "The Message." You might even find a little insight into why so many people idolize the figure of Mohammed. The large-scale battles sequences are especialy well done. Heck, you can even watch the film in Arabic if you want a "pure" version of it; the current release contains both versions that Akkad shot--two different films using the same sets and locations but with different actors.

Cinematic Black History Milestone:First Blacksploitation Flick

Febuary is Black History Month in the United States. I'm celebrating it by calling the world's attention to cinematic milestones in Black History across all my various review blogs. Look for the "Black History Month" tag and join in the celebration by checking out the movies reviews!


Ten Minutes to Live (aka "Ten Minutes to Kill") (1932)
Starring: Lawrence Chenault, Mabel Garrett, A.B. Comathiere, and Willor Lee Guilford
Director: Oscar Micheaux
Rating: Three of Ten (but see note at the end)

"Ten Minutes to Live" is a brief anthology film--perhaps the first American-made anthology film--that highlights the sort of B-list movies that were being made as films with sound oblitarated silent movies and the careers most of the actors that performed in them. In both tales in the film, it's clear that one of things director and screenwriter Micheaux is doing is simply showing off the presense of sound. Both tales also very clearly show evidence of silent movie techniques, with the second half being obviously a silent movie that has been hastily and rather badly converted a talkie.


The first tale, "The Faker" is mostly a collection of Harlem nightclub routines (several performances by a troup of dancing girls, a couple of songs--with one being performed by the very sexy and talented Mabel Garrett, and a lame comedy act that shows that even black comedians were made up in something akin to black face when doing stand-up Back in the Day) with a paper-thin and badly acted plot featuring a con-man and abuser of women (Chenault) finally getting what's coming to him as he zeroes in on two new victims, including nightclub performer Ida Morton (Garrett).

The second tale, "The Killer", starts with a woman receiving a note from a pair of thugs as she sits with her date at a table in the night club. The note announces she has ten minutes to live. A flashback then follows, relating to us how she came to be in her present, perilous situation... and what follows is a standard silent movie melodramatic crime drama that's been retooled to show off sound. For example, car sounds have been added to a street sequence, and the sound of crowds in a train station. The sound effects aren't all that well done, the looping is painfully obvious, and the silent movie is still very much a slient movie. (I did appreciate the scene with Willor Lee Guilford changing from her dress into a skimpy nightgown and robe, even if I could have done without the strip-tease music that kicked at that time.)

In 1932, I'm sure the mostly rural black audiences for whom this film was made were awed by the sounds it feeatures. In 2007, however, "Ten Minutes to Live" is of interest only to fillm historians and historians of black nightclub acts the early 1930s.

In "The Faker", the interludes with actors thrown in between nightclub acts are really just an excuse to show us the nightclub acts, The filmmaker was plainly first and foremost interested in bringing music and dancing and singing (and the sounds of all these) to the patrons of movie-houses, some of whom might never make it to the glamorous Harlem nightclubs, but who could now enjoy all the sights and sounds of being there. The best portion of it is Mabel Garrett's song and dance act... but she never should have opened her mouth in an attempt to act. With the sound down, her scene with Chenault as he convinces her he's a famous movie producer is decent enough, but she can't deliver a line if her life depended on it. Chenault isn't much better, and they demonstrate why so many silent movie actors lost their careers with the advent of sound. (I hope Garrett did well as a singer, though. She was beautiful and sexy enough, and she had a great voice.) For movie lovers, "The Faker is a complete bust, but if you want to see what routines would appear at Harlem nightclubs in the 1920s and early 1930s, it;s worth seeing.

With "The Killer", we get a muddled storyline that's decently enough performed and filmed as far as silent movies go, but it's undermined by a hackneyed attempt to add sound to it. The badly acted sequences of Guilford in the nightclub with her date aren't terribly destructive... it's the flatly delivered, badly written lines that are delivered by characters off-screen as a mad stalker lurks atop a staircase, and the obvious looping of traffic sounds and badly staged crowd "chatter" that's going to bug viewers. The upshot is that what could have been the better half of this film is dragged down by a "gee-whiz" factor that has been left behind by history. If you want to see a well-done conversion of a silent movie to a talkie, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail."

"Ten Minutes to Live" is not a film for the average viewer anymore. Film students should check it out, because it was the product of a pioneer in the filmmaking biz--Oscar Micheaux was the first black director to make a feature length film, a dedicated fighter for independent filmmakers, and a champion for portraying blacks on film as they really were--and because this is also one of the very earliest anthology films, but the rest of us can safely skip it.

Note: The copy I viewed was severely degraded, and I suspect that there aren't any out there in much better shape. One of the benefits of the DVD and digital storage in general is that films like this one get preserved. It may be a movie that time has left behind, but I think it's a valuable historical artifact, both for its documentation of the nightclub acts, and for its place in the evolution of America's race relations and the art of filmmaking. As a historical artifact, this film gets an Eight of Ten rating, but as a movie to entertain modern audiences, it gets a Three of Ten rating.)

'Dead Aim' is worth setting sights on

Dead Aim (1975)
Starrng: James Westerfield, Glen Lee, Venetia Vianello, Virgil Frye and Evaristo Marquez
Director: Jose Bolanos
Steve's Rating: Six of Ten Stars

The lives of three very different groups of people--a government employed undertaker (Westerfield) and his adopted son (Lee), a former prostitute (Vianello) and her sociopathic lover (Frye) and an unlucky Army deserter (Marquez) intersect in a barren desert at the height of the American Civil War.


"Dead Aim" is a bleak western that features gorgeous cinematography, interesting performances by all the principles, and a storyline comprised of two different plots that criss-cross as the movie unfolds but that are mostly so disconnected that the film borders on an anthology. However, the tales are linked thematically and by the fact that the two most decent characters in the film--the undertaker's son and the Army deserter--both fall in love with the only beautiful thing in the movie, the former prostitute.

This is an interesting film that is permeated with a unique atmosphere and style. In fact, it presents a world that seems to operate on its own rules, so viewers might have to suspend their disbelief and just go with the flow at times. However, it's also a film that will hold your attention, because, while there isn't a whole lot of action, you will want to see what strange turn the movie takes next, and you will be interested in knowing where it's all heading.

"Dead Aim" is an undeservedly obscure Mexican-produced western, and its presence in the "Mean Guns" set adds great value to an already low-priced DVD 20-movie pack.

Hi-tech vs superior numbers: Who wins?

Zulu (1964)
Starring: Patrick Magee, Jack Hawkins, Michael Caine, and Stanley Baker
Director: Cy Endfield
Steve's Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

In 1879, the British thought the Zulu Nation was no match for the modern weaponry of the greatest military force on Earth. When a massive Zulu army descended upon the lonely, lightly defended outpost at Roark's Drift, that theory will be put to the test.


"Zulu" has been touted as one of the greatest war movies ever made, and it lives up to that reputatation. From the early, tense scenes--as the British soldiers stationed at Roark's Drift start to recognize that the Zulu forces are massing--through the harrowing battle scenes that make up the bulk of the film, "Zulu" is perfectly paced and crafted. It features great acting, particularly from Michael Caine who gives one of his earliest and still his best screen performance, excellent camerawork, and a well-deployed musical score. The film is particularly impressive in the way it shows the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of this real-life, history-making battle.

The movie is so well made that eventhough I knew the historical events the movie portrayed, I became so engrossed in it that I soon forgot I already knew the ending. "Zulu" is one of those rare and truly excellent movies that draws the viewer completely in.

'The Kingdom' is surprisngly good

The Kingdom (2007)
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Ashraf Barhom, Chris Cooper, Jason Bateman, Jennifer Garner, and Ali Suliman
Director: Peter Berg
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Four FBI agents (Foxx, Cooper, Bateman, and Garner) travel to Saudi Arabia where they team with two Saudi police officers (Barhom and Suliman) to stop a deadly terrorist and his followers.


I went to see "The Kingdom" fully expecting to hate it. The Hollywood establishment seems obsessed with justifying or even excusing terrorists, and I expected this film to be a reflection of that. However, I was pleasently surprised. This movie shows terrorists exactly for the evil, psychopathic cowardly scum that that they are. It has none of the "one man's terrorist is another man's hero" crap that so many American "intellectuals" are so fond peddling.

The film also shows that the 75 years of Saudi Arabian and American governments have allowed the conditions that gave rise to the likes of the movie's "Abu Hamza" and the real-world Osama bin Ladens through their inaction and unwillingness to behave in anything but fashions that are self-serving and self-aggrandizing. In fact, the film has the rather accurate message that the American and Saudi governments are their own worst enemies--the American government being fawning toadies to the Saudis, and the Saudi government behaving like barbaric bullies.

My very favorite aspect of the film was the way the FBI agents and the Saudi state poilice officers ended up working together once politics and distrust was set aside, showing that good cop are good cop, no matter where in the world they are.

Almost every aspect of the film was very enjoyable, playing like a cross between "CSI: Riyadh" and an action flick, except for the very last minute or so, where we had to have some of the standard issue Hollywood moral equivilency dished out. Fortunately, the dose was not big enough to ruin the film, and it was so ludicrous that no intelligent person could do anything but snicker at it.

'Find Me Guilty' is okay, but not great

Find Me Guilty (2006)
Starring: Vin Diesel, Peter Dinklage, Ron Silver, and Alex Rocco
Director: Sidney Lumet
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When life-long gangster Jackie Dinorsio (Diesel) is offered a chance to escape a 30-year prison sentence by turning state's evidence against his former Lucchesi Crime Family associates, he refuses to turn on those he considers his friends. Instead, he turns the biggest organized crime trial in American history into a vehicle to express his view of family values within the Family.


I like lawyer/court room movies. I like Vin Diesel, and I really liked him in "The Pacifier". I walked into "Find Me Guilty" really wanting to like the movie alot. Unfortunately, I found it a little lacking.

Some critics have complained that the movie turns morality upside down--the mobsters are basically the good guys here (with one exception--mob boss Nick Calabrese, played by Alex Rocco), while the federal prosecutor is a complete rat bastard--but I really didn't mind this aspect of the film, because the character of Jackie Dinorsio is the point of view from which the story is told, and he is truly convinced that all his criminal associates truly are "good fellas." The weakest point in the movie to my mind was the lead prosecutor was portrayed as so over-the-top that he brought down the rest of the movie. (Why did he have prison guards harass and beat up Dinorsio on the night before the Big Final Trial Witness was to appear in court?) Every other lawyer portrayed seemed believable, but the prosecutor did not. (Being that "Find Me Guilty" is based on the real-life 21-month RICO trial of a dozen or so New Jersey mobsters, perhaps the real-life prosecutor really was such a over-dramatic jerk... but he should have been toned down, because he was out of step with the rest of the performances in the film.)

"Find Me Guilty" is definitely Vin Diesel's show, and he manages to truly get the audience to feel sympathy for the wise-cracking Dinorsio, who, in the face of all the facts around him, continue to cling to his notion that there truly is love and respect shared between mobsters. To the very end, Dinorsio hangs onto this idea and continues to espouse it as he mounts a defense of himself and his buddies as his own attorney. In fact, the only friends that Dinorsio seems to have is the lead mob attorney (expertly played by Peter Dinklage) and the presiding judge (Ron Silver) who seems to develop some affection for Dinorsio as the trail unfolds; but Dinorsio never notices. If he does, he doesn't let it show.

There are plenty of chuckles in "Find Me Guilty", but I would have liked for more belly-laughs in the film. I recommend it if you enjoy mob movies or court-room dramas. I don't think it's a great movie, but I think my time watching it was well-spent.

Dirty cops must silence witness in '16 Blocks'

16 Blocks (2006)
Starring: Bruce Willis, Mos Def, and David Morse
Director: Richard Donner
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Broken-down, burned-out NYPD detective Jack Mosely (Willis) is given a simple assignment: Escort a prisoner, Eddie Bunker (Def), sixteen blocks from the police station holding-tank to the courthouse so he testify before a Grand Jury. The prisoner has to be there by 10am, because if he isn't, the Grand Jury is dismissed and the prosecutor's case will fall apart. But even in New York traffic, two hours to cover sixteen blocks should be easy, right? Well, not if the witness's testimony is going to expose police corruption reaching from the streets to highest pinnacle of power within the NYPD.


"16 Blocks" is, basically, a lesser version of the story told in the classic movie "The Gauntlet". Here, like in that film, a cop who is just marking time until retirement manages to summon up whatever spark first inspired him to join the police and do the right thing against ever-increasing odds; a major difference between the Eastwood character in "The Gauntlet" and Mosely is that he is aware that other cops are trying to kill his charge from the outset, and that this is what sparks his desire to overcome in the first place. Another difference is that while the witness in "The Gauntlet" was annoying, Sandra Locke's character at least had some likable qualities to her. There is nothing particularly likable about the character played by Mos Def in "16 Blocks"--not even his oft-stated dream to leave crime behind and become a baker, because it never once rings true--and his nonstop babbling and truly obnoxious voice becomes nerve-grating more than once. Finally, there is a difference in intensity... in "The Gauntlet", here's a sense of ever-increasing danger and pressure. That never occurs here... the film reaches a level a few minutes in and stays there, despite the many shoot-outs and close calls between Mosely and his pursuers.

Bruce Willis gives a great performance as a man who is way past his prime and in over his head; there are several times where his facial expressions say more than any lines of dialogue could. Unfortunately, his co-star, Def, is so annoying that I found myself wishing someone would shoot his character now. Willis also has the problem that he's in a movie that doesn't seem to go anywhere. There's a great build-up to the moment when assassins take a shot at Bunker, and it feels like the film will get even tenser when Mosely realizes that his old partner (Morse) and other detectives that seem to come to his aid are actually part of the plot to silence the witness... but instead the momentum seems to stall. The film coasts through the roughly one-and-three-quarter hours of real-time as Mosely struggles to deliver Bunker to the courthouse alive, eventually coming to a sputtering halt at its ending.

"16 Blocks" had a lot of potential, but it never really lives up to its promise; like its hero, it seems to be coasting, but unlike the hero, it never finds its "spark" or redemption. It is a film that any big time Bruce Willis fan should check out--he is quite good in it. The rest of us are probably better off picking up a copy of "The Gauntlet" if we haven't seen it yet.

Flying the unfriendly skies...

Red Eye (2005)
Starring: Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy
Director: Wes Craven
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

Early in 2005, I raved about Wes Craven's "Cursed." Now, he's provided another great flick, but one where he's abandoned what has become his signature toungue-in-cheek horror efforts. With "Red Eye", Craven instead provides us with a thriller that stands up to comparison with some of Alfred Hitchcock's best efforts.


The majority of the film tales place in the cramped confines of a red-eye flight from Texas to Florida, as hotel manager Lisa (McAdams) is heading back home. She ends up seated to a charming young named Jackson (Murphy). It turns out that the meeting was anything but chance--Jackson has been watching Lisa for weeks, and he is about to force her to make a cell-call to make her assistant switch the room of a US government official staying at her hotel so assassins can kill him. Lisa is given a choice: Cooperate or have her own father be the murder victim.

"Red Eye" doesn't break any new ground, but it does what it does extremely well. The tension never lets up from the moment Jackson's true nature is first revealed, and the excellent performances by McAdams and Murphy are so engaging that the viewer's attention is never allowed to wander for a second.

If you love thrillers of the Hitchcockian variety, "Red Eye" is a must-see. It also proves that Wes Craven can still direct films aside from goofy, self-referential horror flicks.

'Bright Angel' is a trip not worth taking

Bright Angel (1990)
Starring: Dermot Mulroney, Lily Taylor, Bill Pullman and Sam Shepard
Director: Michael Fields
Rating: Three of Ten Stars

Set among the working-class and sub-criminal people who live in the desolate expanses of Montana and Oklahoma, "Bright Angel" is a kinda-sorta coming of age story where characters wander through the plot without any particular purpose and things just seem to happen without any particular reason.


That's great in real life--people do tend to wander aimlessly in and out of each other's lives and things do just sort of happen without any discernable pattern--but it makes for a bad movie. The only real drama of the film happens about 3/4ths of the way through it... and it's way too brief.

Lili Taylor and Bill Pullman give nice performances (which is why the flick gets Three Stars instead of Two), but there's not much else worthwhile here. Pass on this one unless you're the world's greatest Lili Taylor fan.