1984

"Who controls the past controls the future.  Who controls the present controls the past."  Man, that is such a good line!  Even Zach de la Rocha rap-rocking can't dilute that quote's cynical analysis of power and education.  That line provides the introduction to 1984, the timely (it was made in the year of the title) film adaptation of George Orwell's classic dystopian novel.

If you somehow managed to miss out on reading 1984 in high school, here's the basics.  In the far-flung future of 1984, England is a great big crap hole.  The Americas, Australia and England have merged into one supernation, Oceania.  We are forever battling our fellow supernations, Eurasia and Eastasia for dominion over Northern Africa and the Middle East.  Wait...constant war in 1984...America merging with soccer-loving nations...does that mean that the 1985 Bears will never happen?  What a nightmarish future/past!  In Oceania, freedom of expression is forbidden, and independent thought is a crime (creatively titled "thoughtcrime").  The government's needs come first and foremost, and civilians that do not capitulate are not just killed, but erased from history.  Winston Smith (John Hurt), part of the upper-middle class, works for the government's Ministry of Truth, where he spends every day amending previously published books and newspapers to fit with the government's current take on what history should be.  That changes from day to day, so Winston is always busy.  Like everyone else, Winston is under the constant supervision of the government, shown in omnipresent monitor screens as a glaring face.  Big Brother, the leader of the government, is watching everyone at all times.

Winston isn't happy with his situation, but what can he do to fight against the way the world works?  So, he spends a little time every day in a corner of his home that is in Big Brother's blind spot and he writes in a journal.  One day, he meets Julia (Suzanna Hamilton), and they begin an affair; since independent thought is a crime, you shouldn't be surprised to find that sex is, too.  Through Julia and Winston's relationship, we begin to see just how controlled their lives are, and just how different life can be without a few key liberties.  But how do you fight Big Brother?

There are only a few important characters in this movie, so much of the acting burden falls on John Hurt because he plays the point of view character.  I thought he did a pretty solid job; Winston Smith is basically an intellectual, and that is a trait that Hurt can show in his sleep.  When you give him lines like "I hate purity.  I want everyone to be corrupt" --- in a bedroom scene, no less --- and have the lines spoken in his fairly uptight British cadence, you have yourself a disenchanted academic.  Basically, Hurt fits the role to a tee.  Suzanna Hamilton fit her role well, too, but her character is pretty unemotional, so it's hard to judge just how good of a job she did.  This movie also had Richard Burton in his final role; I usually like Burton, even though he has a tendency to be melodramatic.  Here, he takes a more subtle (for him) approach, and has several scenes where his nonchalance is chilling.

This was the first film Michael Radford directed that got much attention, and part of that is because it is a good adaptation of a well-known novel.  The film had a rusty, dilapidated feel to it, which fits the post-nuclear England where the film is set.  Honestly, I thought all the production values were true to the novel, from the Big Brother monitoring screens to the disgusting food, to the Victory brand gin --- it all looked good and, more importantly, it all looked like things that existed in the 1984 of our reality.  After all, this would not be an adequate warning against nationalism and totalitarianism if it didn't have a sense of immediacy.  Since the characters in the story have deadened emotions, for the most part, I'm not sure how good Radford is with the actors, but he told the story well and the movie looked pretty much how I imagined it in high school English class.

While this is probably the best adaptation of 1984 that we're going to see made (after January 1, 1985, this story became historical fiction instead of a warning to the future), the film isn't great.  The draw of this story is not based on the main characters so much as it is about the world they live in.  Figuring out what really happened in the past, whether Big Brother is real or fake, alive or dead --- those are the parts that mess with your head when reading the book.  Here, the plot moves at the speed of film, so some of the more important (but subtle) plot twists are lost to the film's pace.  Yes, the director does point out several instances where Winston knowingly alters past documents that he knows, from first-hand experience, are the truth, so we get the gist of what's going on, but there is so much more that we're missing.  There is almost no discussion of Newspeak, and the numerous but socially inferior Prole class is barely mentioned.  Granted, those are gripes coming from someone who has read the book and knows they are missing from the film.  Still, I think this film fails to show just how deep Big Brother's control goes.  Aside from a mention of scientifically eliminating the orgasm, this film focuses on the obvious and somewhat superficial government tactics.

Perhaps it is inevitable that this film adaptation would be missing the detail of the source material.  The overall message is conveyed, though, and --- wait, what was that about the orgasm?  Man, you can tell this movie was not made in Hollywood, because that little idea, casually mentioned, would have had at least five minutes of exposition to explain it. 

"Yes, you see my naked butt in this movie.  No, I was never young."

Heck, it could have gotten an entire screenplay based on it!  Just imagine...Orgasm Killer: "If you thought 1984 was tough, look out for '85!"  Yes, it would be a horrible bastardization of the original concept that takes all the bite from the book.  But what would be more Orwellian than that?

Alien vs. Predator (Extended Cut)

I like it when I can turn my brain off and enjoy a stupid action movie for exactly what it is: big, dumb and fun.  It's even better when the title tells me exactly what to expect --- Alien vs. Predator?  Awesome, I don't even have to wonder what the movie is going to be about.  The only thing better than a "vs." title would be a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie called I Slow-Motion Roundhouse Kick Many Men in the Face.  I happen to be a pretty big fan of both the Predator and Alien franchises, so this movie could (theoretically) be better than a dumb action movie; Alien is a smart thriller, while Predator and Aliens are awesome action movies.  Really, as long as AVP didn't take its cues from Alien: Resurrection, it could stand a chance of actually being good.

...And then the movie begins, and all hope is lost.  Alexa Woods (Sanaa Lathan) is ice picking her way up a remote frozen mountain when she gets a phone call.  My first reaction was, "You get reception there?  Who is your carrier?"  The caller is Maxwell Stafford (Colin Salmon), and he has a job offer for Alexa.  As she struggles to get to the top of the mountain, Alexa politely refuses the job because she is days away from civilization.  Just then, she reaches the top and Stafford is already there, with a helicopter.  Right there is the first inkling of how dumb this movie will be.  What, you can't wait two minutes for her to get to the top of the ice mountain, you have to call her immediately, Mr. Stafford?  And maybe you shouldn't startle someone on the edge of a cliff covered in ice.  Just a thought.  Jerk.  And wouldn't she have been somewhat aware of a helicopter landing near her?  It's not like she was going to be distracted by the noises of traffic surrounding her.  Whatever.

Stafford works for billionaire Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen), who has assembled a diverse team of experts to investigate something unusual.  Alexa is the survival guide, Sebastian (Raoul Bova) is an expert in ancient Egyptians and hieroglyphs, and Graeme (Ewen Bremner) is a mineralogist.  There are some drilling experts and some mercenary soldiers (Tommy Flanagan, Agathe de La Boulaye, and a few others) in the group, as well.  The day before, a heat signature was picked up by one of Weyland's satellites that covers Antarctica; from the satellite images, he has determined that the heat comes from a vast pyramid structure several hundred yards beneath the ice on an island just off the coast of the frozen continent.  Obviously, rich guy wants more toys, so the expedition intends to find the heated object and claim it for himself, humanity, and his multinational communications company.  And, thanks to the expert knowledge of Sebastian, we now know that this pyramid has aspects of all known pyramids --- Egyptian, Peruvian, etc. --- so this could be the world's very first pyramid.  Because an educated archaeologist is willing to make ridiculous claims like that after glancing at some extrapolated images.  Are we sure this isn't based on a true story?

What is taking so long for us to get to the title subject matter?  Aliens?  Predators?  Either would be awesome right about now.  Well, the stupid humans enter the pyramid, only to find that it is all a trap; once they have entered, the pyramid changes the shape of its interior rooms every ten minutes (or whenever it is convenient for the plot).  Why?  Well, we can discuss that later.  The point is that some humans get stuck in a room where they are incapacitated long enough to be impregnated with baby Aliens in their chest.  Then Predators show up and kill all the Aliens as part of their training to become bigger, better Predators.  So, there you have it: Aliens vs. Predators.  And both against humans.

Perhaps the most surprising thing about this film is the fact that the basic plot mechanism behind it is based on a scientific theory.  Granted, it's not a widely accepted theory, but it's not something that writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson just pulled out of his butt, either.  The idea is loosely based on Erich von Däniken's book, Chariots of the Gods?, which postulates that ancient pyramids and religions were brought to the Earth by extraterrestrials, who were seen as gods by the primitive humans.  Personally, I find such sloppy pseduo-archaeology offensive to my intelligence, but it's not a bad idea for science fiction.  The movie tweaks it a little bit by making the pyramids a training ground for fledgling Predators as they fought the universe's ultimate prey, Aliens.  It's more complicated that I like in my action movie plots, and it will require a human to learn all this and be in awe, but it's not fundamentally terrible.  Besides, it sets up my favorite line in the whole film; at one point, Sebastian says "This is starting to make sense."  That cracks me up every time, because it must have taken that actor at least a dozen takes to say that with a straight face.

How do you screw up an idea like Aliens being hunted by Predators?  By focusing on the humans.  I'm sorry, Alexa and Sebastian (the film's only vaguely sympathetic characters), but I don't care if you live or die --- as long as your death is awesome, it's all good in my opinion.  "But we need a point of view character that is experiencing these scary monsters for the first time, like the audience."  No, we don't.  There were six other movies with these creatures; I think the movie-going public is pretty well-acquainted with these things.  But that is just a conceptual misstep.  It hurts the movie, yes, but you can still make a decent action flick with this basic story.

But then again, the specifics of the story are ridiculous.  Where to begin...?  If the Predators use Earth as a training ground, why haven't we seen them fighting Aliens on pyramids in the past (let's be generous) 100 years?  The flashback clips show the Predators fighting on some pyramids in what appeared to be Central America, which was heavily populated in pyramid-building times, so it's not like they were relegated to the Antarctic.  And even if they were, why do they need to lure humans there?  Why not kidnap them?  When all you're looking for is a warm body to incubate Alien babies, you don't need to be picky.  Let's just say that the reason humans have not witnessed Predators fighting Aliens in modern times is because they've been doing it under the tundra; why would they even have a pyramid there?  They weren't shy about building pyramids all around the globe.  Why are they bashful now?  And if humans are just walking nurseries for the Aliens, why do the Predators kill some of the humans before they even enter the pyramid?  I don't really care how stupid the core premise of an action movie is, but at least try to be consistent.

Man, analyzing this movie just ticks me off.  While this could have been a genuinely cool movie, it chose to be a dumb action movie.  Okay, I can live with that.  If you're going to gauge this flick by horror movie standards, there are over a dozen kills in this movie, not counting Predators or Aliens.  That's not a bad body count.  The final Predator has some pretty sweet kills, too, so at least one of the bad-ass hunters got a chance to be bad-ass.  And hollowing out an Alien skull to use as a shield?  That was awesome.  And how about the Predator spaceship?  The front of it was shaped like their masks.  I nearly spit all over myself when I first saw that.  It's like Jason Voorhies driving around Crystal Lake in a van with a giant hockey mask on the grill.  Actually, it's better than that --- it's like the Predators are ghetto fabulous winners of "Pimp My Spaceship."

But by focusing on the insignificant humans, who are (by the story's own admission) just cannon fodder, this movie truly fails.  Do you want to see a Rambo movie, told from the point of view of one of the three hundred henchmen Stallone blows the hell out of?  Of course not.  Unless it was a two minute short film, in which case, it could be pretty funny.  The same principle applies here.  I am more than okay with some brainless Alien and Predator kills; this movie has a couple that were pretty good, but the PG-13 rating definitely limits the quality of the its senseless violence.  And by taking the point of view away from the Predators (because, really, I don't think you can tell a story from an Alien POV), the filmmakers guaranteed that this movie would suck.  On the bright side, this movie did fulfill its promise of having Aliens and Predators fight each other.  So, let's review: ridiculous story, acting so inconsequential that I haven't even mentioned it until now, underwhelming action, and the wrong approach to a can't miss idea.  Yep.  That's a bad movie.  Even if it does, technically, live up to its title.

Alice In Wonderland (2010)

Tim Burton is one of my favorite directors, because he makes odd little films that somehow manage to become big hits.  I tend to prefer his more intimate work (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Big Fish) over his obvious blockbusters (Batman, Planet of the Apes), but I always find his work interesting.  When you add my favorite actor and Burton collaborator, Johnny Depp, to the mix, you definitely have my attention.  Add those two oddballs to the fictional world of Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland, and you have a guaranteed formula for weirdness.

It should be pointed out that, despite the title, this actually isn't an adaptation or re-imagining of the source material, or even of the Disney animated classic.  Instead, it serves as a sequel of sorts.  This time around, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is a teenager instead of a child.  Like all Wonderland stories, this one begins in the real world.  Alice is attending a party when she fields an unexpected (and unwanted) proposal for marriage; she is at the marrying age for Victorian England, and the match is sensible and proper.  And, in typical Tim Burton style, "sensible and proper" seem positively horrid, with madness being a preferable alternative.  Almost as if she is signaling for a rodeo clown to distract the bull away from her, Alice notices a white rabbit wearing a waistcoat.  Since her options are follow the rabbit or definitively choose a life path, the nineteen year-old Alice opts to follow the rabbit.  From here, things begin to get a little deja vu; Alice visits all the same places and meets all the same characters that she did in the original stories --- she eats stuff and grows/shrinks, she chases the White Rabbit (voiced by Michael Sheen), she goes to the Mad Hatter's (Johnny Depp) tea party, and gets confused by the Cheshire Cat (voiced by Stephen Fry) and the Caterpillar (voiced by Alan Rickman).  Alice seems to be going through these experiences for the first time, but something seems...different about everything.  The only clue we have that this is a new tale is the fact that all the the inhabitants of Underland (not Wonderland) remember an Alice from years ago.  It has even been prophesied that Alice will be the one to kill the Red Queen's (Helena Bonham Carter) fearsome dragon, the Jabberwocky (voiced by Christopher Lee).  Alice is supposed to kill a creature of Wonderland?  Well, that's different.  And, as this film insists, this really isn't Wonderland, but Underland.  What's the difference?  While both are filled with imaginative landscapes and characters, Underland is the nightmarish twin to the world of Wonderland; apparently, things were once shiny and happy, when the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) ruled, but things have gotten darker and more serious under the Red Queen's reign.  But is this Alice the Alice of the prophesy?  Or is this all something else, something darker?

Not too long ago, I read Lewis Carroll's works for the first time.  Frankly, I was underwhelmed.  I will admit to an unusual joy of language present in these stories, and some pretty interesting imagery, but I wasn't impressed on the whole.  In all honesty, I think that these stories are excellent launching points for adventures, but I am happy to see that most adaptations to the stories aren't slavishly devoted to the source material.  Obviously, then, I have no problem with Burton's Underland.  I do have a problem with the title, though.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I think that film titles are important indicators of the film's content; if I pop in a DVD titled Bambi, it had better be an animated deer story, and not a live-action bestiality flick.  Titling this Alice in Wonderland seems disingenuous to me, because the films goes to great lengths to differentiate itself from previous movie incarnations and the source material.  Alice in Underland would have been more appropriate, I think, and still drawn the connection to Wonderland.

The first thing that struck me about this film was its appearance.  Visually, this is a fantastic piece of moviemaking.  The environment, even though it is almost a post-apocalyptic version of Wonderland, is still full of color and detail.  The character designs were astounding, so different from the classic versions of the characters, and yet they all had something iconic that made them seem somehow familiar.  The use of CGI in the film was some of the best I have seen utilized in any motion picture.  Obviously, the environment was largely CGI, but most of the characters had something altered in post-production, some in subtle ways; Crispin Glover, who plays the Red Knave, had everything except his head replaced by CGI.  Tim Burton has always been a visual filmmaker, but this was really a step above anything else I've seen of his.

This film was chock full of recognizable actors, each of whom did a good job.  Many of them stuck to the classic interpretation of their characters, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.  Matt Lucas (Tweedledee and Tweedledum), Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, and Alan Rickman were the principal actors who followed that practice.  There were several bit parts where I recognized the actor, but not the character.  Timothy Spall played a bloodhound, Michael Gough voiced a dodo bird, Crispin Glover was awkward as ever as the Knave, and Imelda Staunton was one of the talking flowers --- none of these were huge roles, but I found it interesting that such small parts were played by actors I have seen in so many other films.

Now let's talk about the departures from the norm.  For starters, Paul Whitehouse's March Hare had a dangerous edge to him that bordered on sociopathic.  While Christopher Lee's lines as the Jabberwocky fell in line with Carroll's poem, I'm not so sure about the use of this character as a fearsome enemy.  Anne Hathaway was okay as the White Queen, showing a few hints at bizarre character traits, but I don't think she had enough screen time to develop her character much.  Helena Bonham Carter had more screen time, but most of it was spent emphasizing how odd her character was and was, I think, supposed to generate more laughs than I gave it.  I felt that Mia Wasikowska did a pretty good job as Alice, making her one of the stronger heroines I've seen in a children's movie; I'm not entirely convinced that her "roll with the weirdness" attitude was the right one for a character entering Underland, but it was a choice and she stuck to it.  And then there's Johnny Depp.  The Mad Hatter isn't a character that is usually given depth, but here he has a back story and plays a critical role in the film.  To do that, Burton and Depp had to change the character significantly, and not just cosmetically (although his CGI/makeup was some of the most interesting in the film); this Hatter seems to have almost a split personality, with the harmless goofball character that is well known and a Scottish (I think) warrior character that is brand new.  I think Depp captured the mercurial nature of his character well, but his character is one of the aspects of this film that I found disappointing.

I have heard that Alice in Wonderland is not so much a children's story, so much as it is an acid trip told in nonsense rhymes.  Yes, this is a story that is typically aimed at children, and yes, this story does has some surreal nightmare qualities to it.  I think that balance lends itself nicely to Tim Burton's guiding hand; much of his work appears dark, but has a childlike quality at its core.  On the surface, this is a can't-miss concept.  In practice, though, all the visual effects in the world can't disguise the fact that the story in Alice in Wonderland is lacking.  There isn't a strong narrative, which shouldn't be a problem, since this is a story that should be about the wonders of this Underland.  But the whole movie builds toward a final battle that fails to do anything imaginative and ends up as a surprisingly dull action sequence.  Because this movie has that climax and they foreshadow it from the beginning, the rest of the story feels like an unstructured jumble that rambles on without much purpose.  Personally, I would have preferred a story where there was more rambling and a less typical climax.

With that story structure in place, though, Alice must be given motivation for trying to thwart the Red Queen's rule.  Since Alice is a stranger, that motivation has to come from the supporting cast, which ends up being the most prominent Underland inhabitant, The Mad Hatter.  I love me some Johnny Depp, and he is occasionally very charming in this role, but the militant edge to his character is left largely unexplained and his shifts into that persona are abrupt and unexplained.  This could have been circumvented if Alice had a personal stake in Underland, but she does not, and remains fairly dispassionate about the bizarre events surrounding her.

This movie just feels like ninety percent of the creative process focused on how the film would look, and maybe ten percent was spent on the story itself.  There are so many pieces of this film that work.  I liked all the voice acting and I didn't see a poor performance in the whole film.  I don't particularly like Depp or Mia Wasikowska's characters, but I think they both played their parts well.  There are all sorts of high concept issues brought up in this film (Colonialism, feminism, etc.), but I was happy to see these topics left without any explicit conclusions.  And let's not forget just how gorgeous this movie is.  Just looking at promotional posters for this movie makes me want to watch it again.  No, that's not right...they make me want my own production stills, framed and mounted on my wall.  I really liked a lot about this movie.  I just didn't like...well, the movie part of it.  With such a surprisingly limp emotional core, I was left unsatisfied with the film and extremely disappointed in Johnny Depp and Tim Burton.  The gorgeous peculiarity that is Alice in Wonderland is certainly worth viewing, but the story is inconsequential at best. 

Far Cry

Well, I did it again.  Despite the fact that Uwe Boll has made some of my least favorite movies of all time, I once again chose to watch another of Boll's directorial efforts.  This one, Far Cry, like so many of his movies, is an adaptation of a video game.  So, right off the bat, this movie has two strikes going against it: an awful filmmaker and a video game pedigree.  On the bright side, I didn't see this movie listed as one of the worst of 2008, so maybe the man has progressed a bit.  Or maybe it never had widespread theatrical release.

The film opens with the camera serving as a point of view for an unknown attacker; the screen looks somewhat digitized, but that will actually make sense later.  The fact that I can make that assurance already makes this far better than the last Boll movie I reviewed.  The attacker is going after some soldiers in a jungle area; the attacker is strong, beyond fast, well-camouflaged, and extremely deadly.  What's going on with all this?  Well, it seems that a mad scientist, Dr. Krieger (Udo Kier), is experimenting on humans in an attempt to create a genetically enhanced soldier.  Oh, those mad scientists...those rascals sure do love to make affronts to God, don't they?  Kreiger has succeeded in making a deadly and nigh-indestructible creature that is bulletproof (except for the eyes and mouth) and super-strong, but these former men are now uncontrollable homicidal beasts.  "Uncontrollable" and "homicidal" are two adjectives that the military doesn't like to hear when applied to their soldiers, so Krieger's funding is halted until he can figure out how to make these things follow orders.  Creating desperate mad scientists by withholding funding is usually a sure-fire way to have consequence-free scientific advances, so this can't possibly go wrong.

Meanwhile, Valerie (Emmanuelle Vaugier), a reporter, is on her way to Dr. Krieger's island; her uncle Max (Ralf Moller) is going to leak her some information so they can blow the lid off Krieger's inhumane experiments.  To get to the island, she charters a boat from Jack Carver (Til Schweiger), an ex-military bad-ass who now spends his time drinking and chartering his boat for tourist whale watching sessions.  It seems that Krieger knew of Max's treachery, though, and was ready for Valerie's arrival; they try to kill her and somebody has the wise idea of firing a missile at Jack's boat.  Bad idea; they have, unsurprisingly, messed with the wrong temporarily retired bad-ass.  Now, Jack has to search the island for Valerie, because...um...she's on the way to another boat?  I'm not sure on that one.  When Krieger discovers that Valerie is still alive, he sets his super soldier monsters after her, which has the unintended side effect of having the uncontrollable homicidal creatures killing everyone they come across.

I will give credit where it is due; this is by far the best Uwe Boll movie I have ever seen.  The action sequences are almost decent and some of the special effects shown (like the close up of the super soldier's bulletproof skin) actually looked good.  The action scenes, while pretty generic, are competent, I can actually tell where characters are in relation to each other, and I can even get the gist of what is going on in the plot.  Of course, these are pretty basic filmmaking skills, but Uwe Boll is arguably a less competent version of Ed Wood (no offense to the late Mr. Wood).  So, consider my support for his work here in the same way you would applaud the efforts of a child who no longer has to wear protective goggles when using a fork.  

Aside from the almost mediocre action sequences, Far Cry does a halfway decent job with its cast.  Til Schweiger (who you may have seen in Inglourious Basterds) has the potential to be a pretty good action hero.  That isn't too surprising, since he has drawn more audiences to German theaters than any other German actor; take that with a grain of salt, though, since there are still over one hundred American and British actors that are bigger stars in Germany.  Still, Schweiger is believable as a tough guy, and that is what his role demands.  Udo Krier, while not a great actor, always makes a pretty decent villain; that's probably because his hollow eyes show the emptiness of his soul.

Eat all you want, Udo.  Nothing will fill the void where your heart should be.

Of course, those are only two of the film's actors.  There are many bit parts in the film, and they are all played by amateurs (I assume).  Emmanuelle Vaugier doesn't have that excuse.  Her job in this film is to be the predictably sassy reporter, or a damsel in distress at the very least.  As far as her "distress" goes, her "I'm scared" face is suspiciously similar to my "is this cheese moldy?" face; she often looks somewhat inquisitive, while frowning slightly.  As for her sass...well, it's not her fault that the dialogue is terrible, but she has zero comedic timing and couldn't hit a punchline with a big, red wiffle ball bat.  And what was going on with her face?  Vaugier is normally a reasonably attractive woman, but she has some unflattering swollen lips, Vulcan-style eyebrows, and what I can only assume is clown mascara.  Gross.

The biggest problem with this film is its tone.  Sure, you can argue that the lackluster direction and acting makes this a bad movie, but the tone is what sets it apart as truly awful.  I don't know how familiar you are with German humor.  It supposedly exists, although I imagine that it is often paired with the punchline "YOU LAUGH NOW!"  Well, this movie, like all Boll films, is largely a German production.  Unfortunately, this film tries to be a funny action movie.  It doesn't work out well.  To give you an idea of the "humor" in this film, I don't think it is a spoiler to announce that the hero has sex with his female lead.  After the dirty deed, though,  Jack asks her how he rates, on a scale of 1 to 10; she gives him a 2.  Hilarious, right?  Well, they go back to that joke at least six more times and, eventually, Jack explains the joke out loud.  Even worse, this guy is a supporting character:

He's the guy who supplies this island with sandwiches.  But guess what?  He loves to eat his own sandwiches more than he likes to work!  Because he's fat!  And he talks to his sandwiches like he's seducing them.  BWA-HA-HA!  And his catch phrase seems to be "Oww...my back!"  Get it?  He's fat!  And somehow, despite dozens of armed soldiers and some nigh-indestructible super soldiers, this character survives.  These attempts at humor are not sporadic; the script is filled with them.  Not a single actor in this film makes any of these lines work, either.  If you, like me, cannot stand comedic failures in cinema, be warned that this film might cause you to vomit through your eye sockets.

Sure, there's more wrong with the movie than just the humor, but that is certainly the worst of it.  Oh, you want to hear more?  Fine, here are the low-lights.  The super soldiers are far deadlier in the opening scene (when you don't see them) than in any other scene; he evil doctor gives the plucky reporter the dime tour of his highly illegal operation before trying to kill her; the super soldiers look like buff versions of Powder; the super soldiers are unkillable, except when you shoot them in the eyes or mouth...unless the plot decides that some soldiers can survive being shot in the eye.  This is a terrible movie, so none of this should be surprising.  Still, some of the movie is almost watchable, so kudos to Uwe Boll for his first not completely unwatchable film.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

My first knowledge of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington came from an episode of The Simpsons, which had Homer helping Mel Gibson spice up the ending to Mel's remake of this classic.  If you're unfamiliar with the episode, check it out here.  I took a few tidbits away from that show.  First, never dismiss the power of shifty eyes.  Second, there is apparently very little vigilante justice in the original Mr. Smith.  Years went by, and I never got around to seeing the movie.  One day, I got curious and researched it a little and was impressed by what I found.  It was directed by Frank Capra, who also directed It's a Wonderful Life and Arsenic and Old Lace, two of my favorite movies from Hollywood's Golden Age.  It was nominated for eleven Academy Awards, (including Best Actor for James Stewart, Director for Capra, and Best Picture) but won only one because it had the misfortune of being released in the same year as Gone With the Wind, Stagecoach, and The Wizard of Oz.  It is also ranked right around #100 on IMDB's Top 250 rated films, of which I have seen about 180.  Pitiful, I know.  So, with high expectations and a desire to slowly chip away at my IMDB 250 checklist, I rented Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

So...many...paper cuts...!

After one of his state's US Senators dies in office, the corrupt Governor "Happy" Hopper (Guy Kibbee) is faced with a pickle of a problem (to use the parlance of the times).  You see, Happy's string-pulling political boss, Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold), wants Happy to appoint one of his stooges, a yes man that will do whatever Taylor tells him to.  However, the people of Happy's unnamed state are quite vocal with their displeasure for that idea; they want to see a reform-minded man in office.  Happy's children suggest Jefferson Smith (James Stewart), the head of the Boy Scouts Rangers.  Happy knows that he can't cross Taylor and win his next re-election, but he also can't antagonize his constituents further with his obvious ties to the political boss.  So, thanks to a pretty unlikely coin flip, he chooses Jefferson Smith to be the junior Senator for Monfornirado (that's just my logical guess as to his state).  So, if you've ever wondered how politicians can make some of their choices, now you know: they listen to their children.

Mr. Smith is just flattered at the invitation and the chance to do Senator things with his state's senior Senator, Joe Paine (Claude Rains), a dear friend of Smith's late father.  All's well in Washington, right?  Not so fast.  Senator Paine might seem sincere, but he is secretly a stooge of Jim Taylor.  "No, not Senator Paine!?!"  I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but it's true.  The Taylor political machine has a scam in the works to skim money off a publicly funded dam; Senator Paine is in on the deal and is the primary supporter of the bill needed to put the scam in motion.  Jefferson Smith starts out, essentially, like a tourist in a new city; everyone knows that he was appointed to be a seat-filler and not accomplish anything, so nobody takes him seriously.  To keep Smith busy, Paine suggests that he write and propose a bill to the Senate.  Being the head Boy Ranger, Smith wants to create a national boy's camp in his home state...exactly where the proposed dam is supposed to be built.  When he proposes his bill, Jefferson Smith, the country wolf to Paine's city wolf, suddenly becomes an unwitting enemy of the Taylor machine.

Like you wouldn't pay to see Jimmy "Aww Shucks" Stewart as a sex-crazed wolf.

Normally, any opponent of Taylor finds himself ground to dust in a matter of hours; Taylor has politicians and newspapermen (remember those?) in every pocket, and he likes to destroy his enemy and salt the earth so they can never grow again.  But Taylor has never faced Jefferson Smith, a man willing to fight back because he believes in the god-blessed U. S. of A.

For being made 30+ years before Watergate, this movie has a pretty modern view on how politics work.  I imagine that, at the time, this was a pretty controversial take on the political body; more importantly, this cynicism prevents Mr. Smith Goes to Washington from feeling like a movie made in 1939.  And yet, despite this cynicism, the underlying tone is unabashedly idealistic.  You just don't see movies that are this earnest any more. 

Okay, so the tone of the movie is both in step and out of step with our times.  How does the acting hold up?  Well, let me put it to you like this: I love me some Jimmy Stewart.  Personally, I'm fonder of his later performances, but the young James Stewart was no slouch, either.

Jimmy, about to make a very racist joke.

It is very difficult to play an earnest character without making him a comic character or overly melodramatic, but Stewart plays the part perfectly.  Really, the Jefferson Smith character is perhaps the personification of the American ideal (hard-working, optimistic, can-do, honest, etc.), and it's hard to take a character that goodie-goodie and make him...well, not annoying.  Stewart infuses his role with charm, wit, genuine emotions, and a childlike innocence, so that when he goes on about how great America is, I somehow get something stuck in my eye every time.  He doesn't fight his battle on his own, though; Jean Arthur does a good job as the jaded Washington insider that falls for Smith and his dreams, despite her better judgment.  Really, the entire cast is pretty special.  Thomas Mitchell (who won an Oscar for Stagecoach that same year) was also fun as a drunken reporter.  This film also has two actors that were nominated for Best Supporting Actor for their work, Claude Rains and Harry Carey.

"Holy cow!  I got nominated for an Oscar?  Let me put my pants on..."  No, I said Carey, not Caray.

Rains' character is a little melodramatic for my taste, but he plays the part well enough.  Carey has a very small part in the film and it is mostly nonverbal, but I really liked his portrayal of the Vice President/President of the Senate.  I think it's cool that a bit part full of smirks and sideways glances could get an Oscar nomination, and this was a fun role.  The rest of the cast is okay, but these were the standouts.

Frank Capra really knew how to make movies that were appealing to everyone.  I wouldn't normally think of a story of political disenchantment as something I would enjoy, but Capra is able to blend humor and drama together to great effect.  While I don't think the camera work in this film is particularly outstanding, the scenes were framed well (lots of pretty pictures) and the Capra is a master craftsman when it comes to telling a story.  As the three acting Oscar nominations suggest, Capra worked well with the cast as a whole and Stewart in particular, which is one reason why this was Jimmy's breakout performance.

Capra's dramas tend to be morality tales, with all the good and bad that implies.  Yes, he creates likable everyman characters that overcome fantastic odds, but there are rarely shades of gray with his characters; you are either on the side of angels, or you're a bad, bad man.  With Mr. Smith, we have a extremely likable everyman that believes in the principles of our government; that earnest innocence is appealing, but also sometimes a tad corny.  Of course, that corniness is part of James Stewart's charm, so it doesn't detract from the film.  However, Capra has some tendencies toward "wah-wah" moments that add more corniness to the film than I would like.  The early scene where Governor Hopper flips a coin to decide who to appoint is a good example of this; heads, he appoints a Taylor stooge, tails he appoints a reformer --- but the coin lands on its side?!?  Wah-wah!  I also rolled my eyes when Smith begins his famous filibuster scene, which caused all the newsmen to be super excited; one even called the filibuster the most exciting moment in politics.  All I can say to that is "wow."  Those are small complaints, though.  This is still a great movie that has aged remarkably well in the past seventy years.  If you haven't seen it yet, it will give you a smile and a warm, fuzzy feeling.