The Birds (1963)

** ½ out of ****

Alfred Hitchcock movies are very hot and cold for me. Some, such as “Psycho”, “Rear Window” and “Strangers on a Train”, are ridiculously brilliant and often highly unnerving. Others - equally lauded by critics - such as “Rebecca”, “Notorious” and “To Catch a Thief”, just don't work at all for me. “The Birds” falls into a category that I would say is in between. This film, along with some other Hitchcock entries like “Rope” and “North by Northwest” are movies that I enjoy and badly want to like, but am not quite convinced that I do.

Tippi Hedron plays Melanie, a spoiled and not particularly likeable rich girl that develops a  crush on Mitch (Rod Taylor) after he plays her for a bit of a fool in a department store. She finds out where he lives only to discover that he's gone up the coast for the weekend – like any good stalker she follows him there. The coastal town is a quaint one, a place where everyone knows everyone else and the townspeople help her find her man. Even a former girlfriend of Mitch's helps her out. The former girlfriend is Annie, the schoolteacher (played by an unbelievably beautiful Suzanne Pleshette, who never looked this good before or since).

But strange things start to happen, Randomly and with no explanation, birds start acting aggressively toward the townspeople. Melanie is divebombed by a gull as she sails across the bay, more gulls attack a bunch of kids at a birthday party, and Mitch's house is invaded by sparrows that come in a huge drove down the chimney. Each attack gets a little worse until fatalities start to occur. Mitch and his family, along with Melanie, end up barricaded into his house, trying to find a safe haven against the attacking ornithoids.

Don't get me wrong – this is a very watchable film, full of tension and intrigue. The characters are interesting (if not always particularly likeable) and the situations are compelling. Maybe my issue is that there is never any explanation as to why the birds act that way. Maybe it's because, like many other Hitchcock movies, the ending offers no real resolution at all. However, in those other Hitchcock endings things have been explained to the point where no final solution works.... here the birds may just keep coming and coming forever. The lack of explanation and resolution leaves me a bit cold.

It's good movie-making and, for its time, the effects are well done. I have no issue with any of the actors or characterizations. But where some of Hitchcock's movies work on every level, this one doesn't. When it's over, though it has been an enjoyable time, you are not left with the feeling that you were really treated to a meaningful story. It doesn't fall into the melodramatic region occupied by “To Catch a Thief”, but it isn't one of Hitchcock's classics (no matter what Rotten Tomatoes might say). Worth a watch, no question, but not one of the best from one of my favorite movie-makers

The Party (1968)

*** out of ****

I was 20 years old and living in a townhouse at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario. I had three roommates, and though we didn't know each other when we were assigned to live together, we all became great friends. One of them, a teacher's college student named Jason, and I shared a love of movies. And also at that time, channel 57 out of Toronto (CITY-TV) had a nightly program called “Late Great Movies”, where they would show classic films from about midnight until 5 in the morning.

One particular night after Letterman we flipped the TV onto Late Great Movies where Peter Sellers, dressed as a “Gunga Din”-styled Indian military man, was accidentally blowing up a movie set. Jason, who was watching with me, started freaking out, “Oh my God!  It's 'The Party'!” When I told him I had never seen it he said that we were staying up to watch it and that I was in for a treat. And for the next two hours the two of us howled with laughter like hyenas watching this film unfold. Since that night I have simply loved this movie, and I bet I've seen it 20 times. Much like more modern kids with “Anchorman” (2004), this is a film that we all constantly quoted from over gales of laughter.

Peter Sellers is Hrundi V. Bakshi, an East Indian actor trying to make a career in Hollywood. After several misadventures playing a minor character in a studio movie, he accidentally blows up the entire set, costing the studio hundreds of thousands of dollars. When the studio head is informed of the incident he scrawls the actor's name down on a pad on his desk so that he can blacklist him to never work in movies again. But what he didn't notice was that he'd written the name at the bottom of the invitation list for his wife's upcoming dinner party. When his secretary takes the list, suddenly Hrundi is invited to an “A” list Hollywood soiree.

Sellers plays Hrundi as a classic movie goofball – a guy that tries to do right but can't help but create havoc everywhere he goes. From the moment he arrives at the party and realizes that he has a little mud on his shoe, the laughs are virtually non-stop. His misadventures all start so innocently, and end with such hysterically funny results, that your sides hurt. Add in an alcoholic waiter, a cowboy-movie star, an ice bowl full of caviar and some “birdie-num-nums” and it's almost beyond belief.

Now I won't lie – this is not a movie for all senses of humour. I have watched it with people who didn't crack a smile the entire film. I suppose it's more of an “era” thing – this was comedy designed for the late 60s movie audience, and viewed in that light (and when in a good mood) it couldn't be funnier. If you're looking for profane or “shock” comedy, you won't find it here. This film is all about situations – what is the worst thing that could happen?

Some of the side characters are fun to see as well. Gavin Macleod (Captain Stubing from “The Love Boat”) has a fairly large role, and there is a small part for a very young Valerie Perrine. But Sellers is the star of the show and he shines throughout.

While the film loses some of it's comedic steam in the last 20 minutes or so, overall it's still one of my favorite comedies and even after many viewings it still makes me laugh. Even though I have only given it 3 stars, as I am not suggesting it is a truly great film only a truly funny one, I still give it my highest recommendation. Hilarious.

Oh, God! (1977)

*** out of ****

In the late 70s John Denver appeared to have the Midas Touch. He'd had a handful of number one hits, he had (controversially) won Country Music's Entertainer of the Year Award (prompting Charlie Rich to set fire to the winning ballot on stage) and with “Oh, God!” he successfully threw his hat into the acting ring. Hard to believe that only 7 years later his name would be such a scourge in the music industry that when he asked to be part of the “We Are the World” chorus, he was turned down flat.....

Denver plays Jerry Landers, a grocery store assistant manager who seems pretty happy with his life. He is happily married, has two nice kids and is well thought of by the brass at his job. He isn't a church-goer, but like most of us that aren't he's still a pretty nice guy who tries to get along with everyone.

One night just before going to sleep he finds a piece of mail with no return address saying he'd been granted an audience with God and giving a time and place for said meeting. Dismissing it as a joke, he carries on with his usual day instead of going to the meeting, only to find himself drawn to the meeting's location. When he discovers that he's on a floor in the building that doesn't exist, talking to the Almighty over the intercom, suddenly he comes to doubt everything he believes. God (played in a legendary role by George Burns) tells him that all he wants him to do is to spread the word – that humanity has everything it needs to have a wonderful world, if only we would use it as he intended. So Jerry tries to do as instructed.

What happens next is pretty true-to-life. At first dismissed as a nut and ignored, his insistence eventually gets him a brief mention in the paper and then the floodgates open. Anyone who doesn't think he's utterly insane is actually insane themselves, and his life is turned into a circus. But as his simple message starts to gain a little traction, not only does he have to face resistance from the media, his employers and family, the established religious community starts to try to face him down too. It seems that such a humble man with such a simple message could be viewed as a major challenge to standard religion.

Overall the film “Oh, God!” is pretty dated, though more ins a quaint way than in a bad one. There is even some special effects in it that could make you chuckle at their inncence. But the movie itself is still very solid family entertainment. It makes no effort at all to be a religious movie – God is simply a character in it. This is perhaps what I like most about "Oh, God!" – it isn't preachy, suggesting that man needs God or vice versa, and just tells a fun story about what might happen in the modern world if someone actually suggested they had talked to (and been to back from) God.

Denver's “nice guy” quality and Burns' straight-man delivery, coupled with an utterly likeable script make an enjoyable film for the entire family. And if it makes your kids ask a few questions about God or religion, so much the better.  Anything that can make a young person think gets a thumbs-up from me......

The Sunshine Boys (1975)

** out of ****

As a lover of good theater, I really enjoy it when a stage play translates into a great movie. Excluding musicals (of which there have been as many dogs as great films) some of my favorites to make the transition are “A Few Good Men”, “Agnes of God”, “The Goodbye Girl”, and “Who's Life is it Anyway?” What those films were successful at was taking likeable characters and putting them in interesting situations. “The Sunshine Boys” does neither.

In 1975 George Burns hadn't been in a movie in 35 years and his career was on the wane. So the very least I can do is give this film some credit for reviving a worthwhile talent. Walter Matthau had been on a hot streak for several years – he'd had several Academy and Golden Globe Award nominations over the past 8 years – so Matthau was the “star” of the film. But I will take this moment to state uncategorically that I have never “got” Matthau. I could buy him as a heavy (such as Maxie in “King Creole”) but I have never found him funny, and his “mean old man” routine is so campy that I could never take it seriously.

Perhaps that's why “The Sunshine Boys” just doesn't work for me. Matthau and Burns play a former vaudeville team called “Lewis and Clark” that split up 11 years earlier upon Lewis's (Burns) retirement. Clark (Matthau) has never forgiven him, as he can't get work on his own. The film is about their attempt to reunite for a TV special where they would perform one of their classic skits. However, given the animosity between them, they can't get through any performance without arguing.

The running joke in the movie is their arguments – they're supposed to be funny. Unfortunately, they never are. There's some truth in the fights, that when someone is deeply under your skin anything they do can royally piss you off, but you never really care enough about these guys to root for either of them. Matthau's Clark is a mean old bastard, selfish almost beyond words, and with no real redeeming qualities at all. Matthau plays him as a crotchedy Yiddish guy (heavy on the accent – you expect him to ask why everyone is acting like a 'schlemiel') and he provokes confrontation at every turn. Not only do you not like him, you kind of hope someone might drop a safe on him. Burns plays Clark much straighter, and though his character is much less offensive the situation just isn't enough to make you care about his fate.

When they finally rehearse their scene at the ABC studios, we are supposed to be treated to Vaudeville magic. They actually get through 5 minutes of the sketch before it breaks down, but the hammy treatment of the material (especially by Matthau, who hollers his way through the dialogue in an overbearing German accent) makes it completely unfunny. Their ensuing argument causes Clark to have a heart attack, and the film them tries to treat us to the duo's reconciliation. But as I mentioned before, we don't really care.

I admit to watching this through jaded 2015 eyes – comedy of the mid 70s often seems terribly basic and painful compared to the cutting edge material of today. However I don't think I am being too hard on the film, as I greatly admire many films of the era (other big films of that year were “Jaws”, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest” and “Dog Day Afternoon”, all of which are 3 ½ and 4 star films to me). This one just doesn't work – Neil Simon was the writer and I find these two of the weaker characters he ever presented.

Not completely without charm, and nice to see Burns' understated “straight man” performance, I personally think this is a very overrated film. Perhaps with someone less shrill in the Clark role (which was originally to go to Red Skeleton – that might have been interesting) it could have been better, but Matthau's angry, noisy charactertization make the whole thing dull and tiresome.

One Chance (2014)

*** out of ****

I admit it – I'm a bit of a sucker for a feel good story. Way back when “Britain's Got Talent” was new and interesting, a dumpy, tubby cell-phone salesman from Wales named Paul Potts walked out on the stage to the rolled eyes of the judges and barely the concealed contempt of the audience. But when he opened his mouth he knocked everyone on their backs with a lovely version of Nessun Dorma from Puccini's "Turandot". It was easily the most “feel good” moment of the contest and Potts went on to win the show. Since then he has released several best selling “pop opera” albums.

Now I am no fan of opera, though I knew enough about it to know that Pavarotti he ain't (just compare his Nessun Dorma to Luciano's). But it was a nice story. Paul released his memoir but I never noticed it – everyone releases memoir these days and in the vast majority of cases they tell a story nobody should really care about. But when Simon Cowell decided to produce a biopic of the autobiography, I took a little notice – Cowell isn't known for wasting his time on less-than-worthwhile pursuits. So I got a copy of the film – and I'm glad I did.

Turns out that Potts actually lived the life that many of us fear we're only a step away from when we were growing up. He wasn't a good looking kid, his father was scornful about his less-than-manly interests, and he was beaten over and over again by local bullies. Worst fears realized. The poor guy barely had a chance.  Hell, even his name is nearly identical to a much maligned Cambodian dictator....

But he could sing. He never took advantage of it because he was mocked mercilessly for his interest in opera, but it was always there. Through an internet chatroom Paul (played by James Cordon) met his soulmate Julz (Alexandra Roach), who encouraged him to pursue his dreams no matter where they took him. Eventually they would take him to an opera training school owned by Pavarotti in Venice. There he learns his craft but abandoned it following a poor performance in front of “the master”. Setbacks continued – a burst appendix, followed by node removal in his throat, followed by being hit by a car on his bike..... this guy literally never caught a break.

All this leads to his “One Chance” on BGT, where he finally delivers the performance he was capable of, and which led to international stardom. All very “Hollywood-ending”, but made much more interesting because it was all true.

“One Chance” doesn't intend to be a great movie – it just wants to tell a story and make the audience feel good. Given those modest goals, the film achieves everything that it attempts to. Cordon and Roach are enjoyable in the lead roles, and Colm Meany lives up to his surname as Paul's dad. Interestingly, I thought the music and performances were the weakest part of the film (as Cordon isn't actually a singer, and never looks comfortable lip-synching to Potts voice), but it doesn't detract from the enjoyment.

If you're looking for deep and meaningful, this isn't your film. But if you saw Potts' performance on TV, and you thought his shaking-nervousness was intriguing, you'll be happy to know that his overall story is much the same. If you think you can swallow something that sweet, you'll enjoy “One Chance”. Very nicely done.

Ouija (2014)

* out of ****

Ever see “Witchboard” (1986) with Tawny Kitaen? It was a spooky little thriller about a woman who becomes possessed by a spirit when using the Ouija board alone. Not a great movie but a decent one. I wish more people had seen it. I wish the characters in “Ouija” had seen it, so they all would have known not to screw around with the board while alone, and thereby spared us this turkey.

Debbie (Shelley Hennig) uses the board alone, opens a portal to let an evil spirit in, blah blah blah. She tries to burn the board, but it reappears and she is found hanging by the neck in an apparent suicide. Her childhood best friend and a few other characters (all virtually guaranteed to meet grisly fates before long) have a séance to talk to her, and even though they think they contact her it is actually the bad spirit and the portal gets opened further.

Pretty soon teens are dying by the herd, and only the childhood best friend (Olivia Cooke) can save the day. Well actually, just save herself because almost everyone else is already pushing up daisies. Lin Shaye has a semi-interesting cameo as the daughter of the suspected evil spirit, but even that can't save this tiresome waste of celluloid. Pick your adjective..... third-rate, moronic, predictable, uninteresting.... they all fit.

Don't waste your time.

Beyond the Lights (2014)

*** out of ****

“Beyond the Lights” is a very happy surprise.  I thought this was simply going to be a decent entry into the “youth movie” set. You know, a “Footloose”, or “Step up”, or “Save the Last Dance”. What I got instead was a thoughtful drama about love, expectations and finding your own way in the world.

Noni (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) has been prepared to be a star since childhood. Her mother (Minnie Driver) has had her made up, worked out, dance-lessoned and sex-symboled to the point that her singing is almost irrelevant. As a child, after finishing as the runner-up at a talent show, she was forced to throw the second place trophy away.  It was for a loser.

Obviously, her mother is a real prize.....

Now in her early 20s, Noni is about to hit the big time. She has sung on a few records with a douchebag rapper (Machine Gun Kelly) and her first album is ready to sweep the nation. One problem – she hates her life. Hates it to the point that a local cop assigned to protect her pulls her back from a 12^th floor suicide attempt the night of her winning an MTV award. The cop is Kaz (Nate Parker), a young idealist with political aspirations drilled into him by his father (Danny Glover). But unlike Noni's pre-determined fate, Kaz is in favour of his – he wants to be a guy that makes a difference.

So Kaz saves Noni. Kaz is a chiseled hunk, so Noni (a toned babe) and he start a romance.

Yawn. “Save the Last Dance” here we come....

But it doesn't work out that way – the film actually uses a brain to find that things aren't always easy. Noni's mother doesn't like Kaz because he challenges her authority with Noni, and Kaz's dad doesn't like Noni because she is an inappropriate wife for a future politician. Despite the formulaic start, it is the parents not the children that are the movie cliches here. Kaz and Noni fight themselves and each other to find out if, for each of them, their career aspirations outweigh their feelings. Kaz wants to rescue her, and she wants to be rescued, only to find that he is in as much need of a hero as she is.

While it isn't groundbreaking in any way, and despite the banality of the first half hour of the film, this one actually spends some time developing the characters in a way that we can understand them. As the film continues there are still come trite aspects, but it has by that time created relationships that are interesting and worth exploring. Both the leads are wonderful in their roles, and Gugu Mbatha-Raw actually has a great voice when we finally get to hear what she can do with it.

One of the nicer surprises I've had at the movies recently, here is a film I expected to be knee-weakening fodder for the 14 year old girl audience. What I found instead was an enjoyable, thoughtful look at a couple of interesting kids, and I got involved in the storyline. I never expected this, but I give it a great recommendation. A very good film.

Chef (2014)

*** out of ****

Jon Favreau is a bit of an enigma to me. Immensely likeable as an actor and far from untalented, with the exception of his involvement in the “Iron Man” franchise he seems to select only projects that are intriguing but doomed to be ignored by the public. “Chef” is great example – a really enjoyable movie full of likeable and realistic characters, and I am immensely glad it managed to get made. But the fact that it made money is a shocker – this isn't the type of film you expect to draw crowds.

Favreau is Carl Casper, once an up-and-coming chef who has settled into a life of routine. He tries occasionally to break out of the routine, but by and large his creativity is completely stilted. The owner of the restaurant where he works (Dustin Hoffman) is no help, insisting that he cook only a basic menu. After a scathing review by an influential food critic (Oliver Platt), followed by a Twitter insult-fest between them, Carl is out of work and desperate. He feels unworthy of the love of his son, and swallows his pride to accept an offer from his ex-wife's first husband (Robert Downey Jr.) - to be given a food truck that he has in his junk yard.

Prior to the appearance of the food truck, the movie is simply pretty good. Once the food truck appears, things get really interesting. Working with his son and a friend (John Leguizamo), they fix up the truck and spend the summer driving across America developing a menu of various Cubanos sandwiches and side dishes. Carl's son is a social media savant, and uses Twitter to generate huge crowds wherever they go. This entire portion of the film is ridiculously fun. It isn't a straight comedy per se, but it is so enjoyable and light hearted that you just can't help but love what you're seeing on the screen.

And then there's the food. Being a bit of a glutton, it was almost torture. The food Carl made at the restaurant looked good, but his food truck creations were presented in such a way that you could almost smell and taste them. I wanted to eat everything they were making. This is truly terrific film-making, as I am certain that this is exactly the reaction Favreau's direction was intended to cause.

There is no intrigue in the plot and there are no twists and turns. This is a character-driven story about a man finding his own redemption, rediscovering his relationship with his son, and finding that subduing his creativity was the source of all his problems in the first place. As a viewer you get involved with the characters and the story, you like them and wish you could meet them. It is a success on every level. Just don't go hungry - you'll eat everything you can get your hands on just to be chewing while you look at all the wonderful food on the screen.

Pride (2014)

*** out of ****

The British Coal Miners Strike was an extremely significant event in the UK, with tens of thousands of workers across dozens of mines walking out in protest of the governments plans to restructure the industry. Many TV shows and several movies (including the Oscar nominated "Billy Elliott" - 2000) have been centered around the strike. Now there is a new entry - 2014's "Pride", a true story, and a marvelous British film about a group of gay Londoners' attempts to raise money to bolster the strikers.

The film centers around a small group of men and women shortly after the 1984 Pride Parade in London. The key character in the film is Mark (Ben Schnetzer), a rebel at heart who decides the strike is his new primary point of interest after the parade has ended. He and his small band of friends begin to collect money to give to the union, as their dislike for the Thatcher government rivals that of the strikers. They form their organization “Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners” and set about collecting money.

But lo and behold, the union leaders refuse to take the funds they raise for fear that aligning with a gay organization will cost them public support and send the “wrong message”. So instead, the group directly contact a village in Wales that is seriously suffering due to the strike, and deliver the money directly to them. Over the course of several months, as the miners and the fundraisers become more familiar with each other, their camaraderie deepens and they all realize that they aren't all that different at all.

Of course there are growing pains. The miners, perhaps the most “macho” of occupations, at first resist any contact with the group. But the need for the money makes them give it a try, and some overages are made to act friendly. At first it really is an act, as the miners and their families mostly believe they just need to be courteous and still keep "the gays" at arm's length. But a few right-minded individuals in the town insist that they show actual friendship to the group, as they're acting only in the best interests of the town with no regard or gain for themselves. As the rapport between them grow, we find that the gay men and women will do anything for their new friends, as they have proven themselves real friends, and the miners adopt the group as honorary townspeople and will do virtually anything to protect them from harm. Including from some of the other miners that never come around.

I thought this was a beautiful film. While it is about the strike, what it really explores is prejudice. Keep in mind that these events occurred some three decades ago and you find that this communal feeling that developed was a bit ahead of its time. It is often funny, more often moving, and simply great entertainment.

The performances are all pretty amazing to boot. Ben Schnetzer is wonderful as Mark, Bill Nighy is fantastic (as he always is) playing one of the leaders of the local union in Wales, and Dominic West is amazing as Johnathon. Everyone else is just as good, but those three really find the right notes to play throughout the entire film. Perhaps a bit schmalzty, but in my opinion never overly so, this is surely a great unsung movie of last year. Really wonderful – find a way to see a copy.