The Way of the Gun (2000)

*** ½ our of ****

This is one of “those” movies. Not everyone loves it, and not everything in it is great. But when I watched it for the first time some 14 years ago it swept me away like few other movies can. No question that it is not for all tastes and is definitely a “guy movie”, but offers characters that really get to you and one performance that will blow your doors completely off.

The films two protagonists are Parker and Longbaugh (Ryan Phillippe and Benicio Del Toro) and they are the very definition of anti-heroes. Lifelong criminals that have both done serious time, they know that if they are ever busted again for anything significant they will spend the rest of their lives in jail. So they live lean, take no chances and always keep their ear to the ground, always looking for that one really big score that will be worth taking the risk for. Phillippe is a little young for the part, but gives the only performance of career that I don't hate. Del Toro is Del Toro – really good at playing characters that live outside the lines.

Then one day, jackpot. They learn of a rich businessman that is paying a local woman $1,000,000 to be a surrogate mother for he and his wife. They figure that if he is willing to pay her a million dollars, then the woman and baby must be worth at least that much in ransom. They plan to kidnap her at her doctor's office and ransom her to the businessman. Couldn't be more simple, and has the big payoff they're looking for.

But a couple of contingencies come along. First, she has a team of bodyguards that are cold blooded and much more concerned with not losing her than for her own safety. Second, the “businessman” is a powerful organized crime figure. Nothing is going to plan and they realize that this simple kidnapping is now a struggle to simply escape with their lives.  But if they stick with it, there will now be a lot more money involved. The bodyguards and mafia figure mistake them for small time yahoos, not realizing they are skilled and lifelong crooks.  Virtually every plan laid on both sides fails to go as expected. It is really mesmerizing.

But the real greatness of “The Way of the Gun” is the character of Joe Sarno, played to perfection by James Caan. Sarno is the mafia figure's “adjudicator”. When asked what this means he explains, “I make unpleasant decisions for him of which he cannot and never will know.” Sarno is the secret hero of the film, as he is not only the primary bagman for the mob, he is also the surrogate mother/kidnapping victim's father. He recognizes Parker and Longbaugh for what they are and makes every attempt to bring the kidnapping to a conclusion where nobody is hurt more than necessary and his daughter and the baby are saved.   Some might find Sarno a bit too unbelievable - he has lines that are so incredibly good that it would seem no real person would ever really say them (for example, "I can promise you a day of reckoning that you will not live long enough to never forget.").  But he is the backbone that the movie eventually rides on.

The wild conspiracies and subterfuge on both sides lead to a grand final conflict that I still enjoy on the edge of my seat after at least a dozen viewings. A great, great movie.

The slight miscasting of Phillippe, the relatively slow initial 10 minutes and the clearly shoestring budget that this film was made on are the only things that keep this from being a 4 star film in my book. If you've never seen it and you like really intriguing “guy movies” make sure you check it out. It is a can't miss.

Calvary (2014)

** ½ out of ****

Expectations, expectations..... avoid them at all costs. Whenever I expect a movie to be great it invariably lets me down. “Calvary” is a decent movie, but nothing special. After reading that it was a dark comedy with Brendan Gleason playing a Catholic priest who is threatened with death in the confessional, I expected it to be great. How could it miss?

Well, it doesn't miss, but it doesn't really hit the mark either.

Gleason is Father James, a parish priest in Ireland that we first meet in the confessional of his church. One of his parish (we don't see who) enters the confessional and explains that for five years as a boy he had been sexually abused by a priest, and he has decided to do something about it. He can't seek revenge on his abuser as he has long since passed away, but he is going to kill Father James. His goal is to hurt the church and killing a bad priest would only improve the church, so he is going to kill a good priest. He then gives Father James a week to get his house in order.

The Father knows who it was that made the threat, but due to the secrecy of the confessional he cannot tell anyone about it. He looks into buying a gun to protect himself, but beyond that he carries on with business as usual for a small town priest in Ireland. His activities in this capacity are the most compelling thing about the movie.

Father James wasn't always a priest – his calling came late. He has an adult daughter who has come to visit, and she is the survivor of a recent suicide attempt. A decrepitly old American author lives in the town and is good friends with Father James, and he asks the priest to obtain a gun for him so that he can kill himself when the suffering becomes too great. A couple in his parish get his attention as it appears that he is beating her for her infidelities, and a local wealthy businessman with nothing to live for is trying to buy his place in eternity with insanely large contributions to the church. A young parishoner is considering the army, which Father James thinks would be a horrible mistake. For a small town, there is a lot for Father James to do.  Following him through conversations with these characters and others give you empathy for the priest, but probably not enough to really care about any character in the film other than him.

The best thing in “Calvary” is Brendan Gleason. This is no surprise, as he is generally the best thing in any film he appears in. His depiction of Father James is lovely in its simplicity. James is not a tormented man, or having any crisis of faith. He is simply a priest that tries to do the best he can for everyone under his watchful eye, even if it means risking his own life and future to follow the rules of his office. My only real criticism of the film is its often ham-handed handling of the town's “non-believers” and their cruelty to the Priest. Granted I don't live in Ireland and am not familiar with how deep and cruel cynicism is there, but I found this greatly unconvincing.

Gleason's performance alone is worth the price of the ticket. But don't expect to laugh (you won't), to cry (you won't) or be moved (you won't be). Not a bad film, but much below expectations.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

***½ out of ****

When Hollywood decided to reboot the “Planet of the Apes” franchise a few years ago, I thought it was kind of irrelevant. Other than the 1968 “Planet of the Apes” I thought the entire series of films in the 70s was unnecessary and dull. So I was pleasantly surprised when 2011's “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was not only enjoyable, but actually good.

Strangely though, I still expected very little from the new-on-DVD “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”, despite the fact that the critics have been very kind to it. But in watching it I was swept away by a story replete with Shakespearean intrigue, racism and biblical undertones.

Some ten years has passed since the events of the “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”. Those apes that had escaped the lab and made their way to the woods have prospered and multiplied, leading an intelligent and organized society led by Caesar, the primary ape from the original. Humanity though has not been faring so well. The very gas that made the apes intelligent has led to a species threatening disease in humans, wiping virtually all of them out. Small pockets of naturally immune survivors remain, taking refuge in the cities and living undetected by the apes.

But in San Francisco things are getting desperate as their power reserves are almost at an end. Their leader Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) sends a duo to investigate the possibility of harnessing the power from an old dam, and while in the woods they encounter the apes, shooting one in fear. Caesar sends them back unharmed hoping that this will be the end of the encounter but Koba, another survivor of the first film with a deep hatred of humans due to his life in the lab, wants to attack while humanity is weak. To appease Koba and ensure ongoing peace the ape army rides on San Francisco and Caesar confronts the human colony, insisting that they stay out of the woods and that the apes would stay out of the city. This will prevent all out war.

The “Shakespearean” intrigue basically begins there as the two clear sides begin to have separate factions – those that want to cooperate and live harmoniously with each other, and those that hate the opposite side and want war. Plotting and attempts to usurp power come along, and in a very “Cain-and-Abel” moment an attempt is made on Caesar's life to remove him as an obstacle to war. This is all spun together beautifully as the story and the characters steal you into the story.

The battles are well done and the CGI content is utterly fantastic, blending seamlessly with live action throughout. Though the “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was a good movie, "Dawn" might almost be considered great. It's scope is so much larger, the story so much more interesting and the plotline considerably more intriguing. Even the characters that cross over from the first film have developed into far more compelling creatures.

Now I have to admit that I am doing something I rarely do: I am looking forward to the sequel. I avoid this whenever possible because virtually every time you walk into a sequel with expectations you are badly let down. Sequels generally suck. But the first two entries into the “Planet of the Apes” reboot have been good, with the second being considerably better than the first and setting up for a pretty epic third. Here's hoping they continue the good work – the next one looks like it could be something really special.

If I Stay (2014)

** ½ out of ****

This is a film that I had a really mixed reaction to – part of me really, really liked it and part of me did not. I think that the part of me that did is the part that recognizes that Chloe Grace Moretz is, at 17 years old, a superstar in the making with almost limitless potential as an actress. And I think the part that didn't is my recognition that this film tries to be a bonafide tear-jerker, but fails.

Moretz is Mia Hall, a high school student with an amazing talent and an almost equally amazing set of parents. Her father had been a pretty big local star on the punk music scene, and Mia and her brother grew up listening to the Ramones, the Sex Pistols and Sonic Youth. But where her mother and little brother love punk, Mia somehow found her way to classical music, and at a young age all she wanted to do was play scales on the cello. Her dad, seeing what she could become, quit his band and sold his guitar to be able to buy her a cello of her own.

Told mostly in flashbacks, we see that Mia thinks of herself as a nerd and she is stunned when the lead singer of a local band (played by Jamie Blackley) appears to take a romantic interest in her. Her life has the typical ups and downs of a high schooler.... love, arguments, angst about what she should do with her life. But her talent for the cello, which leads her to apply for Julliard, and the talent of her boyfriend (becoming a bigger and bigger rock star) tears her in two directions and causes her the most conflict. And when she and her family are involved in a car crash, the movie earns its title.

Her parents are killed immediately in the accident. Her little brother dies shortly after. Mia is in a coma..... but is also awake and witness to everything, walking around the hospital like a teenage apparition. The supernatural flavour of the film is that she sees what has happened to her and she is basically given the choice to live or die. Life is hard, she's a teen (when it always seems way harder than it actually is), and her family is gone. It seems like to die will take her to heaven (we see the white light and everything), and much of the movie is spent with her decision over what to do.

Moretz is terrific in “If I Stay” - I think this kid is going to win several Oscars in her life, and it won't be long before the first one comes.  She's that good. The supporting actors are serviceable, if not excellent, with one exception: Stacy Keach as her grandfather. I have never been a fan of Keach, but he does a couple of incredible things in this movie, particularly a scene where he sits at his granddaughter's bedside and talks to her comatose body. I was actually shaking my head a this scene – Keach is so friggin' good in it that I was astounded and deeply moved.

But the movie, for what it is obviously trying to be, fails. Some movies have the ability to make you cry whether you want to or not. “Life is Beautiful”, “Marley and Me”, even more recent films like “The Fault in Our Stars” and “About Time”.... they knew how to manipulate your emotions and turn you into a blubbering idiot, even if the movies themselves weren't always great. “If I Stay” tries very hard to twist you up this same way, but other than Keach's fine performance at Mia's bedside, it just doesn't have any real emotional punch. It knows what it wants to be, but falls short.

That's the reason for the mixed review. I enjoyed the movie and loved Chloe Grace Moretz in it, and it has some moments that are really great (not the least of which is Mia's audition for Julliard – wow!). But since it wants to be a tear-jerker and fails, it leaves you feeling like it was an underachievement.

Agnes of God (1985)

*** out of ****

Norman Jewison has made of lot of movies that were considered great, but only a couple that I have thought of as enjoyable films. The best of them were “In the Heat of the Night” and “A Soldier's Story” but my actual favorite is “Agnes of God”, adapted from the stage play of the same name.

In an extremely devout convent near Montreal, the film opens with a pretty sordid scene. One of the young nuns (Agnes, played wonderfully by Meg Tilly) is found bloody and incoherent in her room, and a dead baby with the umbilical cord wrapped around its neck stuffed into a wastepaper basket. Agnes claims that none of it actually happened and a court-appointed psychiatrist, Dr. Livingstone (Jane Fonda), is sent to establish her sanity.

Agnes is what we might call a real “child of God”. She was raised by an abusive and maniacally God-fearing mother who kept her sheltered to the degree that Agnes has no idea about life in the world. She believes all things stem from the will of God, and even has no idea how she had become pregnant (and no idea how babies are even conceived). She is seen to suffer stigmata. The Mother Superior of the convent (Anne Bancroft, in what I felt was her finest performance) is desperate to keep Agnes sheltered from the world at large, and resents the court and Dr. Livingstone's intrusion into their sectarian lives.  She is also terrified that Agnes will be taken from her and institutionalized, where she will lose her innocence and connection to God.

But not all is as it seems. Bancroft's character appears to be hiding something, and Dr. Livingstone comes to believe there is much more to this crime than meets the eye. The nuns all claim to have had no idea that Agnes had been pregnant (being able to hide it beneath the loose nun's habit), but it begins to seem more and more apparent that someone else was present in that room the night the baby arrived. Further, everyone suggests that Agnes had no access to any man over the time she would have been impregnated, other than feeble and kindly old Father Martineau. We rule him out as a potential father to the baby almost immediately.

Where the movie gets really interesting is the point that we learn that Mother Superior truly believes that Agnes has been touched by God, and that hers was possibly another Virgin Birth. The implications of this idea would be pretty mind boggling – was the baby perhaps the prophesized second coming? And why did the baby die? I can't suggest that the film explores the deeper meaning of these questions, but that they explore it at all made for very compelling viewing.

“Agnes of God” is not for all tastes. It is a slow moving story with very little action or intrigue and perhaps a big too grand in ideas for the depth of the exploration it provides. But outstanding performances (Bancroft and Tilly are both absolutely convincing in their roles) and a very nicely simplistic approach to the cinematography made this a very enjoyable movie experience. Fonda is the biggest hindrance here, as I found her very shrill and much harder to empathize with.  But overall the performances are what makes this so interesting.

If you have no interest in religious ideology, skip this film. But if it interests you at all, this film does travel to places that I have never seen any others go. Well worth your time.

Dumb and Dumber To (2014)

**(*) out of ****

I like to think of myself as a fairly intelligent guy. I have a university degree, my problem solving skills are excellent and my recreational reading includes everything from Anne Rice and Stephen King to evolutionary biology and quantum physics. I also like to watch and review movies in my spare time, and I know what “real” critics would think of the Jim Carrey/Jeff Daniels sequel “Dumb and Dumber To”. So I generously gave it 2 stars out of four.

….but added another (in parentheses) because I also have to admit that nothing can make me laugh harder than pure, unadulterated idiot behavior. I didn't think the original was a good movie but it made me laugh, and hard. Ditto the “Jackass” franchise (and anything with Johnny Knoxville, to be honest), “Beavis and Butthead” and Zach Galifinakis. And though this sequel is anything but a good movie, there are enough laugh-out-loud moments in it that I know I will be adding it to my home video collection.

It doesn't start out that way. The initial gag of the film (that for a prank Lloyd has been faking mental health issues for 20 years, living in a catatonic state in an institution) has been well played in the marketing, so that nobody was laughing about it in the theatre seemed no big deal. But the laughs didn't "stop" there – I don't think I heard anyone laugh for at least another 10 minutes, despite rapid fire jokes spilling out all over the screen. But I want to emphatically state here though that is isn't because the jokes aren't funny......

I have never been a fan of the Farrelly Brothers' direction. They have done several movies (the original “Dumb and Dumber”, “There's Something About Mary”, “Me Myself and Irene”, “Kingpin”) that had everything to be truly incredible comedies, but weren't. The brothers seem to know how to take something very funny and shoot it in a manner most certain to make the joke fall flat. Remove any punch from the punchline, set the timing all wrong, they can make almost anything unfunny. I felt that was exactly what was happening through the first reel of “Dumb and Dumber To”. The comedy was funny, but it wasn't playing funny. I was laughing under my breath a lot because I didn't want anyone to think I was brain damaged, but I was indeed laughing.

After that initial reel, when we get into the scant meat of the story, the laughs become more outright. Harry learns that he has an illegitimate child by Freida Feltcher (infamous from hearsay in the original film), played by a truly frightening Kathleen Turner. If she had any more collagen injected into her face they could have slammed it with a frying pan and she wouldn't have felt a thing. Instead, now she just looks like that plastic surgery cat lady. Lloyd and Harry set off to find his long lost child, a daughter who is carrying on the family intellectual legacy.

Along the way they travel with Travis, a family friend of the adoptive family, played by Rob Riggle. I understand that Riggle is a bit of a Hollywood legend for his improvisational comedy, but I have always found him about as funny as a good hard kick in the groin. He is somewhat more enjoyable in this film, delivering as good as he gets with Carrey and Daniels. The adoptive mother is played by Laurie Holden; throughout the movie I kept thinking “I know her”, and when I saw her name in the credits I realized it was because she was Andrea in “The Walking Dead”. Then I thought “Man, you're a nerd,” and moved on.

The machine-gun rapidity of the jokes doesn't stop until the last ten minutes when they try to wrap up the so-called storyline. Not all of them work, and in fact probably more of them fail than succeed. But those that do work are truly hysterical, and after one non-stop series of misadventures I was actually wiping my eyes.

It is anything but a great movie. But especially for those that laughed at the original, you will again laugh at the sequel. My official critical stance is that it is a poor effort, but my “just between us” opinion is that I will watch it again, and laugh just as hard. And with no apologies either.

Dragonfly (2002)

** ½ out of ****

I have to come out and admit it – I am a Kevin Costner fan. Only rarely has he made a movie I didn't like, and some (“Bull Durham”, “Dances With Wolves”, “For Love of the Game” and “Mr. Brooks”) I have actively loved. There is something about his performances that always leaves you rooting for him, even when he is the bad guy. So I guess it's no surprise that, even though the critical reception to “Dragonfly” was not good, I still think it was an enjoyable movie and worth recommending.

Costner is Joe Darrow, a doctor who has recently lost his wife to a bus accident in a Venezuelan rainforest, where she had traveled to render medical aid to the local natives. Darrow is stricken, but would rather bury his grief by working incessantly to keep from having to deal with it. After making some questionable calls at the hospital, he is forced to take some time off by the hospital administrator. It is then that some strange things start to occur.

Darrow discovers that some children at the hospital (his deceased wife had been the pediatric oncologist there) that have had near-death experiences claim to have seen her during their time while “flat-lined”. Items he associates with her begin to make strange appearances at his house, and a pet parrot that only spoke to her begins to speak at random times, as if believing she were present.

The film deals very little with the “is she really trying to reach him from beyond the grave” issue, and basically treats it as axiomatic. The mystery is in what she is trying to tell him. The children that claimed to have seen her all draw the same strange symbol to show him, a criss-cross of two wavy lines. He has no idea what it means, but knows that this is the key to discovering her message for him. As his desire to figure this out becomes more and more obsessive, he seems crazier and crazier to everyone in his life to the point where he knows he is on his own.

The most satisfying aspect of the entire film is the payoff – after we follow Joe through his discoveries and tribulations, the film offers a very suitable finish. Costner plays the part of the borderline insane doctor extremely well, and some nice supporting performances (particularly Kathy Bates as a neighbour and Jacob Vargas as a Venezuelan guide) round it out. There is nothing ground-breaking in this movie, but it is enjoyable just the same and worth catching on late night TV when it pops up.

8MM (1999)

*** out of ****

Some movies just leave you feeling great, happy about the world in general and confident in the innate goodness of all mankind. “8MM” is not one of those movies. It is, as much as any popular release of the past 20 years, a descent into the utter depravity of some segments humankind and the depths to which that depravity can reach.

Nicolas Cage is Tom Welles, a family man and social climber who earns a good living as a private investigator. Usually this involves the typical P.I. stuff; following philandering husbands and chasing money trails. His wife (Catharine Keener) clearly doesn't like his vocation, as it leaves her alone with their new baby a great deal of the time. And when the widow (Myra Carter) of a wealthy businessman contacts him to chase a lead, it looks like more of the same.

But it isn't – in fact it is to take a long, hard look into the disgusting legend of the “snuff flick”. In the wall safe of her deceased husband's office, she has found an 8MM film that appears to display the rape and murder of a teenage girl. She is desperate to know if it is real, and if her husband had a secret life she knew nothing about. Welles takes the case, and begins to look into the seedy world of torture porn.

I won't go into detail about what he finds, but supporting characters played by James Gandolfini, Joaquin Pheonix and Peter Stomare provide dark and compelling performances, and the director's vision of showing us just enough to make the watcher wildly uncomfortable without crossing too far over the line is equally effective. Not for the squeamish, there is brutal violence, and videotaped simulated rape and murder sequences that would make any reasonable watcher uneasy.

Tense and brutal, this is a solid mystery film with enough of a psychological edge to be worthwhile. Cage is not great in the role, but is serviceable – I can't imagine he delved into this character too far for the sake of his own sanity. Pheonix's performance is the best of the bunch, as a porn shop employee that only works there for the paycheque – underneath he is the most moral of all the characters Welles comes across.

The subject matter of this film is the really compelling thing about it. I was a 19 year old university student when I first learned the term “snuff flick” and what it meant. I found it so disturbing that I had a hard time sleeping that night – that there were people in the world that would not only want to watch such a thing but actually be sexually charged by it..... it is not a pleasant thought. And this film is not pleasant about exploring it, and if I had gone into it as that naïve 19-year-old it probably would have given me the night sweats.

In this era of internet depravity, I'm sure this one wouldn't trouble youths today the way the idea troubled me 25 years ago. But fair warning – you will not leave this one humming the theme song.

Horrible Bosses (2011)

** ½ out of ****

Since the sequel is coming out soon, and since my girlfriend had never seen the original, I figured it was time to revisit with her this comedy from 2011. I remember watching it when it first came out on video and recalled it as a nice time waster, but not much more.

But I have to admit, on second viewing I thought it was much more entertaining than that. Three high school buddies (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day) have nice careers that would be much improved if their ridiculously bad bosses were to “go away”. Bateman is an executive, in given my personal experience his boss is pretty much run-of-the-mill; corporate execs that AREN'T douchebags are the exception, not the rule. Day's job is as a dental assistant, and his female boss (Jennifer Aniston) is a sexual predator that won't leave him (a one woman man with a fiancee) alone. Horrors. Finally, the one with the greatest beef is Sudeikis, whose great boss at at a chemical company dies and leaves his cokehead son in charge.

The cokehead son is played by Colin Farrell, and it is obvious Farrell had a great time playing this idiot character. I wouldn't be surprised if Farrell himself came up with half the character's woeful flaws – he looks to me to be on the verge of breaking out laughing at any second.

Given their “desperate” situations, they decide to try to find someone to “take out” their bosses. All attempts are futile until they run into “Motherfucker” Jones (Jamie Foxx) at a bar who provides them with some consulting. Now left to kill their bosses themselves (using a “Strangers on a Train” ideology of “you kill mine, I'll kill yours”) it become basically a comedy of errors, as nothing ever goes the way they plan. Break-ins and attempts at covert information gathering basically show they can't possibly pull it off, but they push on with the plan until all hell breaks loose.

This isn't a great movie, but on second viewing it had a lot more laughs than I remember. In particular, Charlie Day (as Dale, the sexually harassed dental assistant) is hysterical. His uptight stiff-necked character (with an unintentional criminal past) has some of the most comical reactions you'll ever see. Even his dialogue, which on paper would look pretty ordinary, is delivered with such hyperactive zeal that you find yourself laughing at almost everything he says.

I guess now I'll bother to go see the sequel when it comes out, just to see if it can match the level of humour in the original. Even if it only delivers half the laughs, it should be good enough to pay the admission.

“Horrible Bosses” is well worth the watch.

Interstellar (2014)

** ½ out of ****

The wind is still out of my sails..... I walked into the theatre for “Interstellar” expecting greatness, or near greatness. After a promising beginning, it ended up a giant letdown.

That isn't to say “Interstellar” is a complete disaster – it's not. In fact, for the first two hours of its two hours forty-five minutes I was pretty thrilled by what I was watching due to the authenticity of the filmmaking, the accuracy of most of the science presented and the flow of the story. But it takes a huge left turn into “WHAT?” with about 45 minutes to go.

The actual date is never presented, but the film takes place in the near future (say a century or two from now). For reasons that are never really explored, Earth is becoming less and less habitable with persistent and violent dust storms and agriculture ravaged by disease. All remaining resources are poured into farming, as the food supply is now the world's greatest crisis. Matthew McConaughey is Cooper, a former engineer and astronaut now turned farmer who scratches a living out of the dusty earth. He has a son that loves the rural lifestyle and a daughter, Murph, who is one of those kids blessed with great curiosity and a desire to do something more.

As the film unfolds we find that NASA does still exist out of the public eye, and has secretly been exploring a wormhole near Saturn. They are trying to find a suitable planet for humanity's relocation before Earth becomes completely uninhabitable. Years earlier they sent initial explorers into the wormhole as advance teams, but the results are unknown. Now led by an old acquaintance of Cooper (Michael Caine) NASA is planning a follow up expedition to determine which explored planet will become the target for relocation.

I have to note at this point that for a secretly run and underfunded agency, NASA's new spaceships are pretty awesome.  Way more capable than they should have been given the financial constraints.... but I guess that was necessary for the expedition at hand.

One of the primary themes of the expedition is time – Cooper knows that if he participates he will miss much of his childrens' lives. The sheer time required for the space travel, coupled with the relativistic issues they will encounter will see him gone for decades, if not longer. Of course, the greater good needing to be served, and his being the best possible candidate, Cooper finds himself in the pilot seat.

The visual effects we see in this film are alternately spectacular and simple. When easiest to convey the story the filmmakers kept it as simple as possible, while other times it is visually stunning. The trip through the wormhole is particularly impressive. The exploration storyline is tense and exciting, and you find those first hours passing quickly. Clearly influenced by similarly themed films (“2001” and “Contact” are two definites), and aided greatly by a fantastic supporting cast (including Matt Damon, Wes Bentley, John Lithgow, Jessica Chastain, Casey Affleck and Topher Grace) the stage is set for a grand conclusion......

…..but it never really delivers. Exploration gives way to intrigue as baser human desires cause the entire mission (and therefore all of humankind) to be endangered in an unrealistic fashion.  Then in tying the ending to the beginning, the film loses its cohesion completely. After spending the majority of the movie being as true as possible to scientific realities, they completely throw quantum mechanics out the window to provide us with a Hollywood ending that left me shaking my head. The film “Contact” (1997) left me feeling much the same – after setting everything up beautifully, the left turn into weirdness left an empty feeling about the conclusion.

Does the weakness of the ending ruin the film? Not completely – I would still recommend it. But after such a wonderful setup it is a shame they left any remote reality at the door by the end.

“Interstellar” doe provide some very thought-provoking material throughout, but isn't in your face with "messages". The fragility of our planet as a suitable home for human life is a very real issue and even if you don't think about it much, at some point in the future of humanity we may need to look for possible alternate planets to colonize. Granted this is hundreds or probably even thousands of years away, but as someone interested in quantum theory, evolutionary biology and climate change I found the basic idea of the film to be fascinating. 

 It doesn't deliver everything it could have, but strong performances and top-of-the line production values still make it intriguing enough to pay your admission.

The Angriest Man in Brooklyn (2014)

** ½ out of ****

The last theatrical release from Robin Williams prior to his death by suicide is a real mixed bag. The storyline isn’t particularly great, the performances aren’t especially wonderful and the irony of the plot is at times painful. But it isn’t a bad movie, though I don’t know if I can go so far as to call it actually a good one.

Williams plays Henry Altman, a once happy family man made bitter and angry by the death of his eldest son two years earlier. His anger spills into every relationship and event in his life to the point of paranoia, as he feels everything and everyone is against him. Williams seems a little too likable to really pull this off, but he does have moments where he is absolutely convincing. On what he believes is a routine visit to his doctor he ends being told by an intern (Mila Kunis) that he is dying of a brain aneurism. In his raging reaction to the news he angrily demands to know how much time he has left and the terrified intern sees the words “90 minutes” on a flyer on her desk. You can guess what happens. Henry leaves the office believing he has an hour and a half to live.

The rest of the film covers two series of events: Henry's attempts to try to wrap up his life in 90 minutes and the intern's desperate chase to find him before it's too late.

“The Angriest Man in Brooklyn” tries very hard to offer us some real emotion, and whereas the popular critics felt it failed I found it often succeeds. Henry’s frenzied attempts to meet up with meaningful influences on his life fails miserably, as does his attempt to reconcile with his surviving son. Meetings with his brother and his wife go even more poorly and he ends up considering suicide on the Brooklyn Bridge. Given the way Williams’ own life ended, I found myself not liking this aspect of the film through no fault of its own. Just too sad and ironic.

Overall, I found this movie to be worth the time spent watching it, and any fan of Williams I believe will find the same. It very rightfully won’t be mentioned at the Oscars, but doesn’t deserve the critical panning it received. Some genuinely touching moments occur and meaningful words said, and there are a decent number of laughs as well. I enjoyed Robin Williams at least as much as anyone, and I think this is a worthy entry to his movie career. You may not like the subject matter but it’s still worth seeing, even if just to let Robin make you laugh one last time.

Fury (2014)

*** out of ****

Usually when I call a movie “half of a great film” I mean that is sets up well with a good first half, and then loses steam later on. Fury is the exact opposite – after a very lackluster opening hour, it comes on strong to an exciting and emotional finish.

It is the final months of the European theatre in WWII, and the allied forces are on German soil and pushing toward Berlin. "Fury" follows one particular Sherman tank crew as it proceeds through several battles, taking German towns and battling enemy infantry. With green recruit Norman (Logan Lerman) as a gunner, they end up finding themselves alone and outnumbered battling enemy forces.

In what I assume is an attempt to depict the horrors of war, the film gives us very few admirable characters. The tank commander Sgt. Collier (Brad Pitt) is alternately decent and maniacal, indiscriminate about killing Germans even to the point of murdering surrendering enemy forces. This brutality is defended with a couple of examples of what mercy will get you in wartime, where allied soldiers die when Norman hesitates to kill.

The entire tank crew are equally barbaric, particularly “Coon-Ass” Travis (Jon Bernthal) who appears to have no morality at all. After taking a German town, Collier and Norman use the home of two German girls to clean up and eat, but when the rest of the crew crash the party and treat the girls like animals, I felt the script went too far. It created a lack of empathy for “the good guys” that left you wondering if they actually were the good guys. War is hell and all that, but I really felt this disturbing and long series of scenes was way overboard for trying to display that fact.

Had the movie followed similar themes throughout, it would have been a very poor effort indeed. But luckily, at the midway point some nobility surfaces. Following a battle with a German Tiger Tank that leaves our intrepid tank crew alone behind enemy lines, their tank is crippled and immobilized by a land mine. Shortly thereafter they discover that a division of SS infantry is coming directly at them. Their options? Either hide and survive, or else face this division head on and try to prevent their passing through (which would result in flanking the Allied position). Five against 300, they decide to fight the fight despite their utter confidence they will all be killed, believing it's better to die trying than to back out of an opportunity to assist their side.

This is when we find some really great movie-making. Tense, action-packed and full of emotional impact, the preparation for and the battle itself keep you on the edge of your seat. War movies with this type of “last stand” feeling can be really well done (“Saving Private Ryan” for example) or really bad (the original “The Alamo”). This one fits squarely in the former category, despite of bit of a Hollywood cheat toward the end. This hour of film is so good you end up forgiving the terse and cold inhumanity of the first hour.

Pitt gives his usual solid performance (I find he has two gears: really, really good and really, really great), but there are no weak performances here. Shia Leboef in particular is excellent as Boyd “Bible” Swan. If you leave the theatre after the first hour you will leave deeply disturbed and unhappy with what you saw, but see it all the way through and you leave satisfied that you've seen something well worthwhile.

My Favorite Year (1982)

**** out of ****

There are some movies throughout cinematic history that, no matter how many times I’ve seen them, I still enjoy seeing them again. “My Favorite Year” is one of those. Spurred on by a tour-de-force performance by Peter O’Toole and set in the golden age of television, it is a fun, loveable and heart-warming story about being what we are instead of what anyone else wants us to be.

But don’t get me wrong; this is no pseudo-“Rudy” about toughing it out and seeing things through. It is a simple piece of story-telling done extremely well. It's 1954 and Benjie Stone (Mark Linn-Baker) is a sketch writer for the weekly “Comedy Cavalcade” on NBC. The “Comedy Cavalcade”s star is an absolute loon (but in a fun way, not a scary one) named King Kaiser (played with great glee by Joe Bologna). The film covers one specific week on the show when great and aging matinee idol Alan Swann is the guest star. Swann is played by Peter O'Toole in what I think of as the most entertaining performance of his career.

The problem? Swann (clearly modeled after Errol Flynn) is a notorious womanizer and alcoholic that can't seem to keep his antics out of the newspaper. He shows up smashed to his first meeting with the network, and Benjie is assigned the task of keeping him sober and out of trouble for the week. Hijinks ensue.

The greatness of this film is centred entirely on two things – the charm of the story and the strength of O’Toole’s performance. I won’t devalue it by saying it was the role he was born to play, but instead will suggest that I'm sure it was written with him specifically in mind – that’s how perfect he is for the role. Swann has basically given up on being a performer (his most famous line in the film is, “I’m not an actor, I’m a movie star!”) and instead makes a point of living up to his reputation of debauchery. Benjie’s attempts to rein him in are all half-hearted, as Swann is his hero and just being in the great man’s presence is enough to ensure his desire to come along for the ride.

Some secondary plot devices add greatly to the enjoyment of the film, primarily a mobster who wants King Kaiser to drop a mobster sketch from the show that he feels is based on him. Kaiser’s refusal to cooperate and the ensuing retaliations are great fun. Events like a dinner party at Benjie's mother's apartment and discovering Swann's long-lost daughter add to the heart of the film.

But make no mistake, this is O’Toole’s movie. His drunk act, the good-heartedness of his character and the bad-boy antics he is constantly up to are what makes this movie so enjoyable, and one I revisit every couple of years. If you’ve never seen it, you are missing out on a wonderful movie experience.

Festival Express (2003)

** out of ****

Don't believe the hype.

I remember seeing this film reviewed on TV some 10 years ago, where it was given reverent praise. It sounded like a can't-miss; Janis Joplin, The Band, The Grateful Dead, Buddy Guy and others all traveling across Canada on a train, moving from concert site to concert site. Along the way they party like there's no tomorrow and jam all night long for the cameras. How could this be anything less than amazing?

I'll tell you how. Use low-grade film, very poor sound recording and keep everyone drunker than Dean Martin on a binge. Mission accomplished.

Whereas most films that capture the music and attitudes of the 60s (especially amongst popular bands) saw them all higher than kites, despite the drugs they could still function and perform. Excessive boozing acts on your body differently – you become utterly disconnected from your senses, forget what you were saying as you were saying it, and generally can't make your fingers work properly on the guitar. In the movie much is made of the fact that they were drinking instead of drugging, but it made for poor music and a lot of incoherence.  People who are passed out tend to be poor musical contributors.

There are some decent performances recorded, specifically the Dead and The Band, and Janis doesn't stink the place up but isn't at her best. The final performance of the film is Janis playing the Calgary festival, which is a little sad because not only has she been drinking for a week, she is also clearly as baked as brownies. She would die only a few months later of a drug overdose, and knowing that I found it more intriguing just to see her in this condition than anything she does musically.

Quite a bit of conversation goes on about the festival itself, and the protests that were raised by it. Many of the young people of Toronto, Winnipeg and Calgary thought the concerts should be free and got violent and abusive when they couldn't get in without paying the $16 attendance fee. The film portrays these kids as greedy little buggers (I tend to agree) who think that being a musician is solely an altruistic act. That the festival organizers were losing their shirt and the bands needed to get paid seems irrelevant to them, and the borderline-riot caused by these kids trying to get in for free brutalizes the security forces. In a way, it shows why the whole hippie movement died out – communal living can only go so far before people need to get paid for what they're good at, no matter how much you'd like to enjoy it for free. The market economy at work.

But despite the financial losses, the festival continued to the end, and the musical acts (in modern interviews) say they were never deprived of a thing. Food, booze, full access to everything; one performer stated that where Woodstock had been a treat for the fans, the Festival Express train was a treat for the performers.

There are some very interesting sequences in the movie, mostly dealing with the various bands interacting on the train, but overall I was very disappointed based on how good I expected this to be. Worth seeing if you enjoy the groups and the era, but if you are looking for music you'll much prefer the Woodstock or Monteray Music Festival documentaries.

The Professionals (1966)

*** out of ****

Hollywood has made more extremely bad westerns than they have with just about any other genre of film, which is why I always place a high value on a good one when I find it. “The Professionals” isn't one of the absolute best, but it is definitely a very good one.

Set along the southern US border some time between 1915 and 1920 (during the latter part of the Mexican revolution), Ralph Bellamy (best known to my generation as Randolph, one of the villainous Duke brothers in “Trading Places”) plays Joe Grant, whose wife has been kidnapped by Mexican revolutionaries. He offers Rico Fardan (Lee Marvin) and his team $10,000 each to travel to Mexico to rescue her. Rico is the ideal man for the job as he used to be part of the revolution and knows the territory as well as knowing Jesus Raza, the kidnapper. Rico is the brains of this operation, with the team members played by Woody Strode and Robert Ryan. They add a demolition expert to the team (one of my favorite actors, Burt Lancaster) and set off to earn their fee. The leader of the Mexican revolutionaries is played, in what would today be a racially questionable piece of casting, with typical menace by Jack Palance.

Upon reaching their destination they find Maria, the damsel in distress. But there's a problem – she's not in distress. She has taken up with Raza and actively resists rescue. Played by Claudia Cardinale, Maria spends the entire movie bra-less (given Cardinale's history, I suppose she burned it). Beautiful and buxom, she would seem right at home in any Russ Meyer movie. But despite her desire to remain with Raza, the team snatches her and begins their escape back to earn their reward. Raza and his cronies follow hot on their heels.

When watching any older movie, I try not to impose any modern movie-making values on it. Most would consider the cinematography here to be brutally simple, and it occasionally leaves you wondering what part of the battle you're looking at. However, given the era it was good enough to receive an Oscar nomination. The stunts are excellent though, often involving high rock faces that a modern actor would have to be safety harnessed for, and some explosions that look like they were very close calls. I'm sure a modern version of this story would end up looking better on screen, but given the era this was a complicated shoot and it does work.

Marvin and Strode I found to be splendid in their roles but Ryan seems very out of place. Perhaps it was because he was playing a hero instead of his usual villain, but he definitely wasn't the ideal actor for the role. And Lancaster, despite his lengthy pedigree in western movies, always seemed to me to be too gentlemanly to play an effective roughneck. I always preferred him in more modern roles as a professional (a doctor or a lawyer), which he comes across as even as a gunman.

Despite those minor flaws it's the storyline that sells this film. There are twists and turns in the plot, some flipping of the villains and heroes, and overall it provides you a terrific, action-filled watch. Sidenote - I was caught off guard by an unintentionally hilarious moment – about 1 hour 40 minutes in, right after Palance calls out “Franscico!” In particular keep an eye on the horse in the middle of the screen.

Martha Marcy Mae Marlene (2011)

* ½ our of ****

Sucked in by Rotten Tomatoes again....

Okay, I get it. This movie is meant to keep you on your toes, guessing about what you are seeing (and when) and never really letting you get your feet under you. But come on now, hasn't anyone ever heard of continuity?

Martha (played by Elizabeth Olsen, sister of the Olsen twins) is a young and vulnerable girl who somehow (it is never shown how) comes to be living at a farmhouse in upstate New York with a bunch of utter weirdos. When she first arrives everything is sunshine and rainbows with the group living communally, trying to farm and live pretty much off the grid. At first there are just a handful of men and women, living happily and peacefully, but after a couple of years there are a lot more women than men. Patrick, the leader of the group (played menacingly by John Hawkes), is a master manipulator and creepy as hell; I have an idea they were really going for a Manson parallel, with his whole “death is beautiful” and “cease to exist” ideologies. But he has “his girls” systematically drug newcomers so he can rape them, and then use the group mentality to make it all seem like some great love story.

After some time, needing more than the farm can provide for sustenance, they begin breaking into local cottages and stealing food and valuables. This results in their eventually murder of a homeowner who catches them. Patrick then suggests to the frightened Martha that they did him a favour, moving him along to the next plane of existence.

Make no mistake – despite their calm and reasoned manner, these are some sick puppies.

Much of this is told to us in Martha's flashbacks, which normally I enjoy as a storytelling device but here is overused to the point of often leaving the watcher confused.  You never know if what you're seeing is real, or when it happened. Martha's damaged emotional state adds to this lack of continuity as she often hallucinates, clearly still suffering from Patrick's influence. When her sister rescues her following her escape from the cult and brings her to her husband's Connecticut lake house, we are often given the impression that the cult has followed her there, but we can never be sure.

So that's the basic background, and it sounds interesting enough to watch – I thought so too. But the film suffers from one basic problem – every character in it, with the exception of the very damaged Martha, is a complete and utter jackass. The cult members (for reasons I need not explain) are all terrible human beings, and Martha's sister and her husband (played by Sarah Paulson and Hugh Dancy) are in many ways worse. Having come from the sparse living conditions of the farm, Martha has trouble understanding their well-to-do lifestyle with an enormous house, oppulent parties and accumulated wealth. And though Martha is clearly very wounded and suffering her sister shows little compassion, hoping she'll self-correct or allow herself to be stuck in an institution. The brother-in-law is even worse, so wrapped up in his own lifestyle that he finds Martha an unneeded nuisance, and he wants to rid himself of her as soon as humanly possible.

I admit that I am a greedy movie watcher – there are certain things I need in order to really enjoy a film. One of those things is someone to root for, and I couldn't find one here. Martha is unbalanced, and everyone else is flat-out detestable. Add to that the movie's glacial pace, and you have a film that really isn't very interesting watching. I wouldn't be going out on a limb to call it a snore, and by the end I didn't particularly care if Martha will make it or not. It has nice reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and great praise for Olsen's performance, but I just can't recommend the film.

Spoiler Alert: The paragraph below discusses the ending. If you don't want to know how this ends, stop here. If you need a sleep aid this movie will definitely do the trick, so you can see what you missed below.

The ending did have a compelling feature. The sister and her husband are taking Martha “into the city” to institutionalize her. Just before leaving, Martha goes for a swim and sees a man watching her from the other side of the lake. This man looks a lot like Patrick. Did she really see him or was it another hallucination? They leave the house and out on the road a man (that we don't see) runs in front of their car, nearly being hit. Then as they drive away, we see the man from behind running to his truck (also appearing to be Patrick's truck) and coming up behind to follow them closely.  Fade to black. Was it Patrick? Is he following, or is his intention more sinister? Is the filmmaker suggesting Patrick is making his move to take her back (or possibly kill her if unsuccessful)?  A compelling ending to be sure. Too bad you had to slog through 90 minutes of tedium to get there.

John Wick (2014)

*** ½ out of ****

Now this is what I'm talking about.....

Suspension of disbelief can be extremely fun at the movies. John Wick, Keanu Reeves' return to the action flick, is exhibit A. In brilliantly choreographed shoot-em-up scenes, Reeves always comes out on top, no matter how many highly trained henchmen he has to go through. Violent beyond words and gleefully insane, the action is relentless and almost too much fun to watch.

Did you ever see “Last Action Hero” with Arnold Schwarzenegger? His character in that movie once said “They killed my second cousin. Big mistake,” as a tongue-in-cheek homage to how ridiculous some action movie character's motivation is. In “John Wick” they go even further (without a trace of irony, which is why it is so fun); he needs to avenge his pet beagle. Hee hee hee......

Reeves is John Wick, a former assassin for the Russian mob who has retired. To win his freedom he'd been forced to rub out all of the Russians' competition, and they are still riding that high years later. Wick's wife has recently passed away from natural causes, and she had arranged for a puppy to be delivered to Wick after her passing so he wouldn't be alone. Wick naturally sees this dog as his last tie to his wife.

A chance encounter at a gas station with a youthful Russian mobster gets a bit heated, as the mobster wants to buy Wick's '69 Mustang, and Wick refuses in a fairly blunt fashion. The mobster and his cronies break into Wick's house that night, beat him senseless and kill his dog for whining too loud. So silly it's laughable – how awesome is that? The mobster turns out to be the big boss's son, and once the big boss (played by Michael Nykvist) finds out who was involved, he knows that the shit is about to hit the fan. Wick is coming, and hell hath no fury like an assassin on his way back from the pet cemetery.

While the film never puts the silliness of the plot or action directly in your face, they treat it with the playfulness it deserves. It never tries to play on your emotions and never takes itself too seriously. Side characters, usually former associates of Wick, contribute great merriment to the story as both allies and villains and one of the sets, a “no assassinations allowed” hotel in New York called “The Continental”, add to the entertainment.

I won't say this is a great movie, but will insist that it is great fun, and as enjoyable a time at the movies as you could reasonably ask for. It might even be the most fun action movie I've seen since “True Lies”.  I have never been a big fan of Reeves (I enjoyed him more in the "Bill and Ted" movies than in any of his action films), and he is his usual wooden self here, but luckily that is what this role calls for - an unemotional robot taking out the trash.  If you love a good "guy movie" this the surest bet in years.

Runaway Train (1985)

½ out of ****

I love it when I sit down to watch a movie that I know almost nothing about, and end up riveted by the story that unfolds. It is a really magical experience. Sitting to watch “Runaway Train” all I knew about it was that it starred Jon Voight, Eric Roberts and Rebecca Demornay (three actors I usually enjoy), it has a good Rotten Tomatoes score and that it was a prison break movie. Let the magic begin!

Unfortunately, this was not one of those magic moments....

Voight plays Manny Manheim, a career criminal with a history of prison escapes, and Roberts is one of his many prison-yard admirers. When Voight escapes from the prison (set deep in Alaska, and run by a sadistic warden), Roberts is drawn along for the ride. They make their way to a freight train station where they stow away, but the engineer, after engaging the engine, dies of a heart attack leaving them on a runaway. The only remaining questions are will they survive and will they be caught.

Now I love a good “suspension of disbelief” film as much as the next guy, but this movie takes it beyond the extreme. Voight's performance is a ridiculous caricature of a long-time prison inmate. He has shown in the past he can be astoundingly bad (see “Anaconda”) but this was something any rookie actor could have improved on. Similarly Roberts's smarmy performance makes his turn in “Star 80” look like the best of Brando. They are both awful, just horrendous. Almost as bad is John P. Ryan as the warden, though the biggest problem I have with his character is his plain and in-your-face evil. His crazier-than-crazy risk of his life toward in the end in an effort to catch the escapees will leave you holding your head. NOBODY would ever do anything so stupid.  But clearly having characters that act in any way like real people was not the filmmaker's objective here.

I am not sure why this movie has such a good rating among critics – it is absolutely awful. The production values aren't bad, the direction and cinematography are acceptable, but the plot and acting are so outlandishly bad that it ends up a complete waste of time. Avoid at all costs.

At The Death House Door (2008)

*** out of ****

Carroll Pickett seems like a pretty incredible human being. As a pastor in Huntsville, Texas he built a ministry through the 60s and early 70s that he gave up to try to save his marriage. To that end he took the position of pastor at the Huntsville prison where he ministered to the inmates and clearly changed many lives. "At the Death House Door" chronicles his ministry there, with particular focus on his participation in 95 executions.

Torn about being part of the lethal injections, he explains how it was his job to spend the last 18 hours with each condemned inmate, provide support to them, but more importantly keep them calm so they could be killed with minimal incident. Pickett would perform his tasks and then, so as not to burden his wife or children with the pain it caused him, he would record his feelings into his tape recorder. The recordings become a key element in the film. And he was so stoic about it, during the film they tell his (now adult) children about these tapes, and they weren't even aware of their existence.

Now an anti-death-penalty advocate, Pickett discusses at length the case of Carlos Deluna. By the time he saw Carlos to the death chamber, Pickett was convinced that Deluna could not be guilty of the crime he was about to die for. And throughout the film we see much compelling evidence that he was executed for a crime he didn't commit. It is a painful truth for the viewer, and clearly it haunts Pickett to this day.

“At the Death House Door” isn't a film that is trying to accomplish anything. It just tells a story, and it does it well. Carroll Pickett is in many ways a man to admire, and in many other ways a man nobody should aspire to be like. But he is always interesting, and you walk away hoping that he finds some peace and makes some sense out of the work he did at Huntsville prison.

Elvis: That's The Way It Is (1970)

*** ½ out of ****

Elvis Presley had several careers. When he first came along he was the very definition of the rock'n roll rebel. Sexual, suggestive and unapologetic, he scared the hell out of the establishment and he was called everything short of the Anti-Christ.

Then he went in the army. Suddenly those that had such vitriol for him a few years earlier started to change their minds – PFC Presley now seemed, despite his animalistic music, to be a good kid at heart. This change followed him through the 60s and his ridiculous and milketoast movie career, and by 1968 he was desperate to break out of the mold the movies had put him in.

The last phase of his career is the sad one – the drug-addled caricature of the rock'n roll icon, singing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic”. A friend once told me that when Elvis came along he was anti-establishment, then he became part of the establishment, then he WAS the establishment.

“Elvis – That's The Way it Is” caught Presley at just the right time. Still breaking out of the movies era, but before he became a musical punchline, he still wanted to do something meaningful musically. Clear eyed and without a hint of the slurred speech we would see in him only a couple of years later until his death, at this moment in time he was still.... Elvis. And it is a joy to see such a gifted performer doing what he seemed to be born to do.

The first part of the movie follows him through rehearsals for a series of shows at the Las Vegas International Hotel in 1970. Clearly playing it up a bit for the camera, Elvis's likeability and sense of humour comes through as he prepares with the band and backing singers for the show. There is a brief part dealing with the turnout (large, and full of celebrities – Elvis had barely performed for over a decade) then the actual show starts. Despite some “Las Vegas-stylizing” of some of his hits, he showed he still had the voice, the moves and the punch to knock the audience out.

And while it is a great concert film, I think it is even more interesting as a historical study. Elvis is still the ultimate rock'n roll icon. At this time he was still trying to reinvent himself – no longer the rebellious youth or the movie star, but not yet the cape-flashing sad case he would eventually become. This is a performer that has ultimate confidence, at 35 was right in the prime of ability and who appeared to know it. Knowing where he came from, and where he would soon go is what makes this so interesting. It was the perfect time to shoot a concert film – he would never again be as great as he was at that moment in time.

Whether you like Elvis's music or not, this is a really terrific film. The music is good, but the history of the subject makes for even more compelling viewing.

The Unbelievers (2013)

* ½ out of ****

Being a great admirer of both Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, I had very high expectations for this documentary about their efforts to educate the public on the value of a scientific approach to life and the universe. To say I am disappointed would be a great understatement.

First, let me state that I am a fairly devout agnostic. I believe there is probably some kind of higher power, but am also extremely confident that none of the world's religions represent whatever that power is. I have truly adored Mr. Dawkins' books on evolutionary biology and find it impossible to believe that anyone that would read a tome such as “The Selfish Gene” could come away doubting that natural selection is easily the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. His anti-theism is much stronger than mine, but that doesn't detract to me his provocative contributions to science. Krauss, whose theories I am not as familiar with but who I always find compelling and thought provoking, is also strongly anti-religion.

The film follows the two as they discuss and debate science and religion with each other and with some religious leaders (most prominently the Archbishop of Australia), which to me sounded like a real opportunity to create compelling viewing. Unfortunately, the film-makers decided to make it a one-way conversation, and almost a deliberate insult-fest directed at the religious. Points are rarely counter-pointed, which would be okay if the science behind their arguments was presented, but it never is.

I am all for the scientific approach, doubting everything and taking a “reason” approach to the world. A good friend of mine who is devoutly religious has described me (accurately, I think) as a “functional athiest”. I don't know if he meant it as a compliment, but I took it as one, as it suggests to me that I don't let anything but logic and reason affect my conclusions – pre-existing bias does not come into play. Unfortunately, that is not the case here – the film clearly is counting on a pre-existing bias. It is (pardon the pun) preaching to the choir. Nobody who isn't already leaning toward the reasoned approach will ever get anything worthwhile out of this film, much to my great disappointment.

Dawkins has made some truly wonderful TV documentaries for the BBC – unfortunately this one simply does not measure up. Poorly presented and lacking in the very subject matter it exalts, this is a documentary of lost opportunity. It could have been great. It's not.