Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning

Man, I haven't reviewed a horror movie in ages...it's nice to be back in the saddle!  After the hilariously titled Final Chapter, where the Friday the 13th franchise was supposed to end and where they killed the hell out of Jason Voorhies' face, the movie production company behind the series waited one entire year before putting out Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning.  That sure was some finality to the last movie, eh?  But with Jason Voorhies very, very dead, where can the story go?

Just in case you're unfamiliar with my favorite horror movie series, Friday the 13th is the story of Jason Voorhies (more or less).  He's a super-strong psychopath that lives around Camp Crystal Lake; his turn-ons are hockey masks, impalings, and blunt force trauma.  His turn-offs are getting large blades stuck in his noggin.  As I mentioned before, he was definitively killed in the fourth installment of the franchise by young Tommy Jarvis (Corey Feldman).

Five years after the events of The Final Chapter, Tommy Jarvis (John Shepherd) is a pretty messed-up kid.  He has made the rounds through a variety of mental institutes until his good behavior lands him at Pinehurst, which is a more of a halfway house than anything else.  Tommy's sister, who survived the last film, is never mentioned, but he still makes cool latex masks, so he has that going for him, which is nice.  He also hallucinates seeing Jason, which is less pleasant.  At Pinehurst, Tommy's first day is spiced up by the resident fat kid getting axe murdered by another patient for being annoying.  You might think the community would think twice about letting known mental patients wander around in their neighborhood, but apparently axe murdering doesn't cause that big of a stir.  After the fat kid dies, other people start disappearing, too.  First, it's a couple of 50s-style greasers, then a drifter, then two teens after they have some sexy time, and then some cokeheads...and this is all before anyone knows that there might be a problem.  Eventually, somebody actually sees the killer --- he's huge, muscular, wears coveralls and a hockey mask...it's Jason Voorhies!  AIEE!  But...why don't we ever see Tommy and Jason in the same scene?  Hmm...

A New Beginning often gets a bum rap from casual Friday fans, and it's pretty understandable.  Now, if you actually want to watch the fifth installment of a slasher franchise and be "surprised" by the story, I'll get this out of the way...SPOILER ALERT.  FOR THE REST OF THE REVIEW.  This Friday is notorious for being the one where Jason Voorhies isn't actually in the movie.  The killer turns out to be somebody else who is trying to...I don't know...frame Jason?  Whatever, it's not important.  That little twist has gotten some well deserved ire over the years, but if you walk into the movie knowing the twist, this is actually a pretty fun movie.

The acting and directing aren't exactly good, but they serve their purpose well enough.  This was writer/director Danny Steinmann's fourth and final film, although that fact has nothing to do with this film's reception.  For further info on Steinmann, check out a rare interview he gave to a fellow blogger here.  As the creative force behind this movie, Steinmann was famously given strict guidelines for the movie.  He had to turn Tommy Jarvis into Jason, and somebody had to die every at least every eight minutes.  With that in mind, I think this movie turned out pretty well.  It's not Shakespeare, or even High School Musical, or even but it is well aware of its status as a shitty slasher film and strives to be the best shitty slasher film it can be.  The cast is not particularly talented, but you kind of know that coming in to this movie.  Let's not talk about the quality of acting, and instead point out the few actors that went on to star in other things you may or may not have seen.  Come on, it'll be fun!  Normally, having professional actors in a movie is a given, but this was a first film (or first major film) for most of the cast, and few of them ever had better roles.  Mark Venturini and Miguel A. Nunez, Jr. went on to co-star in the also hilariously bad (and kind of awesome) Return of the Living Dead, but you might recognize Nunez from his most famously bad role:

Juwanna know how bad the acting is?

You might even recognize the mother redneck character as Carol Locatell, who got beat up by Pam Grier in Coffy.  Little Reggie (Shavar Ross) went on to be Weasel in Family Matters.  The cream of the crop is definitely the guy who played the doctor at Pinehurst, Richard Young; you don't know his name, but he was the guy with the fedora in the opening scene of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.  I would also like to point out one actress who didn't go on to fame and fortune.  Debi Sue Voorhies is the super busty chick that has an extended nude scene before dying by garden shears to the face; not only is her honest to God last name really Voorhies, but she is the nudest and bustiest actress in the history of Friday the 13th, which is no small feat.  Jason Voorhies may never have actually been in this movie, but it's reassuring to know that I was watching a Voorhies anyway.

...and they didn't think to bring her back for the whole "By a Voorhies he was born, by a Voorhies he must die" bit in Jason Goes to Hell?  What a missed opportunity.

I'm not going to lie to you and say that this was a great film by any means, because it has its share of lameness.  The ending where Tommy is apparently adopting the Jason persona is kind of lame.  The whole reveal of who was actually posing as Jason throughout the movie was far, far worse (how did he bulk up when he dressed as Jason?), but pairing these scenes back-to-back was pretty hard to swallow.  Many of the deaths are unimaginative stabbings, but there are a lot of death scenes, so I'll cut them some slack.  The characters in the movie are all equally awful stereotypes, ranging from the mentally handicapped to greasers to someone who clearly snorted MTV for breakfast every morning.  I don't understand the presence or the accent of the redneck characters, but it doesn't matter, as long as they die, right?  The opening scene where Tommy dreams about stopping people from digging up Jason's remains was kind of lame, but it was nice to see Corey Feldman (on loan from The Goonies at the time), even if it was a stupid scene.  I also didn't like that they explicitly state that Jason's remains were cremated after the events in the last film; it's never mentioned again in this or any other movie, but it's weird to see just how serious they were to not have Jason in this series any more.

If this movie is so bad, why am I being so nice to it?  Because it delivers like no other bad horror movie can.  This film has the highest body count of any Friday the 13th, with a whopping twenty-two on-screen deaths.  Not all of them were great, but we get treated to a rare non-Voorhies-related killing when the mentally retarded guy gets hacked to death.  Besides, the killer belt and garden shear combo was pretty sweet.  And don't forget that Juwanna Man died in an outhouse.  That was awesome.  This film also has quite a bit of nudity, as it should, given its genre.  Is it gratuitous?  Absolutely.  What more can you ask for?

Why does Japan get all the cool movie posters?

Now, how does this fit in with the Friday the 13th series as a whole?  Not too well, actually.  After this movie, they abandoned the whole "not Jason" theme and brought him back as a zombie-ish thing; the rest of the series ignores this movie entirely.  This is the first time we see "Jason" outside of the Crystal Lake area.  It's not much of a legacy, but it's a start.  This is the second Friday with Tommy Jarvis, but he is far less likable this time around.  This is also the third consecutive movie where they kill off a fat person in a funny way.  This movie also stands out for having two mentally handicapped characters murdered; I thought killing a wheelchair-bound teen was hard core, but this movie doesn't mess around.  Oh, and if you've been following my effort at dating when these movies are supposed to take place, then you should agree that this film, made in 1985, is set in 1991.  And let me tell you, if anyone on set was taking that date into consideration, they did a shockingly poor job of predicting 90's fashion.  Does anyone care?  Of course not, it's ridiculous to track these things, but it does amuse me so.

If you approach A New Beginning from the perspective of a Friday fanatic, you're going to hate this movie for the cheap twist and Jason-free story.  Of course, if you're a true fan, the kills and nudity should balance that out.  As a film in its own right, it's not very good; it knows that, though, and does a good job entertaining despite obvious flaws.  This is, quite possibly, the stupidest Friday the 13th ever made --- and I know how daring that claim is.

However, being good and being fun to watch aren't always the same thing.  I was shocked at how much I enjoyed this ultra-violent and silly take on the Voorhies legend.  It earns a Lefty Gold rating of:

The Tourist

When The Tourist was nominated for three Golden Globe awards, including acting nods for the two leads and a Best Picture nomination, it was reported that Angelina Jolie (and members of the press) had the initial reaction of laughing.  There was a mild hubbub about this, as well as the fact that the actors and movie were categorized in the "Comedy/Musical" section, when the movie was promoted as a romantic thriller.  All of these are good reasons to not watch The Tourist.  However, I'm a pretty big Johnny Depp fan, and I'm not adverse to a movie that wants to ogle Angelina Jolie.  How bad can it be?

Elise (Angelina Jolie) has been hanging out in Paris for a while, and she is being tracked by the French police and Interpol.  They are aware of her every move and everyone she interacts with; for her part, Elise is well aware of them, too.  One morning, as she goes about her normal routine, a courier delivers a letter to her.  The letter is from Alexander Pearce, her lover that she has not seen in over two years, as well as the reason she is being tailed all day, every day.  He tells her that he has a new face and that she should board a specific train to Italy, pick someone of his approximate height and weight, and talk to this stranger on the train.  The idea is that Interpol will assume that the random Alexander-esque fellow is Alexander, creating enough confusion for the real Alexander to swoop in and take Elise away with him.

There are several men on the train that fit the general description of Pearce, but Elise eventually chooses a shy math teacher on holiday, Frank, who is apparently unaware that he looks like Johnny Depp and has no reason to be shy or self-conscious.  The plan works beautifully, Elise wows Frank because she looks like Angelina Jolie and she's paying attention to him, and Interpol is certain that Frank is their man.  Until, that is, they check his ID and figure out he's Frank.  Criminals don't have Interpol's resources, though, and Pearce stole billions from a crook; these bad guys chase after Frank because they don't know any better, and Interpol doesn't interfere because they don't want to scare off Alexander Pearce.  Poor Frank is left bewildered and endangered by his chance encounter with Elise, and his only chance of survival comes from Elise, who feels bad for using him.  Or is it something more, I wonder...?

The basics of this story are a little old school, but they're not bad.  Mistaken identities are a classic source of both drama and comedy, but it's been a while since a major film has used this theme in a dramatic film.  That said, they do the whole thing wrong.  This movie could have played out like North By Northwest, but it makes the fatal choice of making the main character, Frank, a bumbling idiot.  Well, maybe that's a bit harsh, but his character is pretty awful.  He's shy, awkward, occasionally stammers, and he is always saying the wrong thing.  That would be fine if this was a comedy, but it has only slightly better comedic chops than Schindler's List.  In other words, if you're laughing, you're a racist asshole.  The other characters are fine, I guess, but the fun of romantic thrillers comes from the main characters being romantic and/or thrilling, and Frank is neither.  I wouldn't mind Frank's character if he were funny or dramatic or cute, but he's just a lame character, any way you slice it.

So, how was the acting?  Angelina Jolie played her part pretty darn well.  She had to be the sexy spy lady with a mischievous smile, and she played the part effortlessly.  It's not a great part for her, but she looks good and got to spend time in exotic locations to film it, so I'm not going to criticize her for taking such an easy role.  I liked Paul Bettany as the Interpol inspector that is obsessed with catching Pearce; his obsession makes him both clever and myopic, and I liked the idea of the main policeman in the story having such a critical flaw.  Timothy Dalton has a small role as Bettany's superior, and he has all the charm you would expect of a former James Bond.  Steven Berkoff became famous playing villains in the 80s, and age hasn't made him any less evil.  Sure, he's a little generic as a bad guy, but he's still fun to hate.  I was a little surprised to see Rufus Sewell show up in a movie I was watching (he's not exactly a sign of quality filmmaking), but I didn't mind him at all in his small role.  Johnny Depp, though, was pretty awful.  It's not that he did a bad job with his performance --- he played an awkward amateur quite well --- it's just that every choice he made with his character was the wrong one.  I don't want to be that jerk who argues that movies should only be a certain way, but the rest of The Tourist is not a comedy or a drama, it needs someone to act sexy or suave to make the movie work.  He opted for stupidly awkward.  It didn't work.

It'll take more than a Singapore Sling to forget this mess.

With so much of the cast doing a good job, but the main character falling flat, that leaves writer/director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck with a somewhat tarnished product.  I really liked how the movie looked; the European locations made for some very pretty scenes, and von Donnersmarck clearly has an eye for wide shots.  The action scenes were done pretty well, including a boat chase scene that didn't completely suck.  And I mean that as a compliment.  I liked most of the acting, which shows that he was able to convey his concept of the film to most of the actors.  However, since he wrote Frank's character and directed Depp's performance, I can't avoid criticizing the man.  To give him credit, von Donnersmarck supposedly had less than eleven months to sign up for the movie, write the script, make the movie and have it ready for its premiere, which is hasty at any level of filmmaking, much less something that is expected to be a Hollywood blockbuster.  Now, I get why he and Depp made the choices they made with Frank's character --- it all makes sense by the end of the picture --- but I completely disagree with those choices.

Making bad movies is more tiring than it looks.

This would have just been a disappointingly mediocre movie if I was just left bewildered by Frank's character, but it gets worse.  There's a twist.  SPOILER ALERT: It turns out that Frank is really Alexander Pearce.  Yup.  It's not mistaken identity at all.  He instructed Elise to find someone that fit the same basic description as him (fit and about 6' tall) on the train, and she encountered him by chance, after considering many other options.  So, his plan could have totally failed if she chose any of the other twenty guys on the train that fit his description.  Fabulous.  But it gets better.  When he's alone, Frank acts like Frank.  He never breaks character or gives any hint that there is something beneath his clumsy facade.  I'll be honest with you, I saw the twist coming.  Unfortunately, it was the product of me thinking, "You know what would make this movie much, much worse?"  In other words, the twist negates 95% of the whole damn movie.  You expect me to accept that a master thief's master plan was to be chased by Interpol and hardened criminals until he has the chance to say "Psyche!" and run off into the sunset?  No, I can't accept that.  It's just so bad.  It ruins a perfectly mediocre movie and makes it a bad movie.

127 Hours

For many people, 127 Hours suffered from what I like to call "Titanic Syndrome."  Basically, just because you know the ending of a film based on a true story, you assume that the movie isn't worth watching.  For example, why watch Tom Cruise inevitably fail to assassinate Hitler in Valkyrie?  Where's the suspense when we all know that Hitler escaped Germany and lived out his days peacefully in the jungles of Brazil?  Even 127 Hours director Danny Boyle admitted (no spoiler alert) that everyone knows that this movie will end with the main character cutting his own arm off.  Hearing a director that I admire admit that convinced me not to watch this movie.  But then, I started hearing some reactions from people after the DVD hit stores, and they typically went something like, "I didn't think I would like it, but..."  So I decided to give it a shot, and I'm so glad I did.

The story begins with Aron Ralston (James Franco) preparing for a weekend of biking and hiking and climbing in Canyonlands National Park in Utah.  Going just about anywhere in Utah means that you're not going to see a lot of people, but this is a large park that is four hours away from Salt Lake City; if you want to get lost in Utah, there's probably not a better spot.  That's okay, though, because Aron is a hard core adventurer.  If the guide book says it should take two hours to get somewhere by the established trails, Aron's going to try and cut that time in half by trailblazing his own path.  The only thing that slows Aron down is a pair of lost, but attractive, lady hikers; he takes them where they need to go (and then convinces them to do some crazy stuff), but is soon back on track in his quest to reach Blue John Canyon.  Now, when you think of hiking, you probably imagine a person walking, except it's uphill.  Aron's version of hiking involves running and jumping off of rocks and canyon walls.  Surprisingly (to me, anyway), Aron does take some logical precautions as he hikes (he tests how much weight rocks and branches can bear, etc.), but it turns out that his forethought is not enough.  While descending a narrow chasm in the canyon, where the walls of solid rock are so close together that boulders are suspended in the air, Aron accidentally dislodges a large rock and tumbles down the chasm.  He lands safely enough, but the rock fell with him and landed on his arm.  The rock is too heavy to lift, and it's wedged in pretty tight.  With limited provisions and no rescue on the way --- he's hard core, so he didn't tell anyone where he was hiking --- Aron is left with one desperate choice.  Of course, it takes him about 127 hours to finally get around to it.

The working title for the film was "Well, shit...now what?"

Director Danny Boyle deserves major kudos for making a film where the main character is stuck in one spot for two-thirds of the entire movie.  That might sound like a recipe for a boring movie, but Boyle keeps things interesting with a lot of camera movement and styles, as well as a good use of flashbacks.  I've always been a big fan of Boyle, but the fact that he is able to make a visually interesting movie in such a claustrophobic space is nothing less than astounding to me.  And that's just the camera work!  Boyle got a genuinely great performance out of James Franco, an actor that is usually only fun to watch when he's playing a stoner, in a movie that relied entirely on his performance.  I'm impressed, Mr. Boyle.

Of course, James Franco deserves credit for his performance, too.  I'm not usually a Franco-phile, but he turns in a surprisingly good performance in an extremely difficult role.  This movie is all about his character, and he's in almost every second of the movie, and is the focal point of every scene.  I assumed that this would be one of those stereotypical Oscar-baiting roles, where an actor pretends to be handicapped, cries a lot, is Sean Penn, or all of the above.  Instead, Franco treats us to a character that, while kind of goofy, is extremely likable.  There is a supporting cast in the film, too, but they aren't around for much.  Amber Tamblyn and Kate Mara are fine as the cute girls that Aron Ralston thrills early in the film.  Clemence Poesy (who you might remember from the Harry Potter series) is okay as Aron's lover that we see in flashbacks.  I'm not entirely sure how much acting was required of Treat Williams, Kate Burton, or Lizzy Caplan as they played largely dialogue-free parts in Aron's flashbacks and hallucinations.

What makes this a special movie is its tone.  It kind of reminds me of seeing the Flaming Lips live in concert; their music is kind of melancholy and sad, but is transformed in concert into a fantastic, life-affirming experience.

Confetti = Good times?  Yes, if you're not cleaning up.

This movie works in kind of the same way.  I had heard all kinds of horror stories about people leaving theaters because the arm cutting scene was too intense for them, and the idea of watching someone saw through himself for two hours was not terribly appealing to me.  But it's not like that at all.  Yes, the dude cuts his arm off, but that's only about four out of ninety minutes.  Yes, it will probably make you squirm a little, but it's not that gory.  It's not a super-sad movie, either.  The first fifteen minutes are pretty fun, and the flashbacks keep the mood from getting too depressing.  The rest of the time focuses on the struggles Aron has as he tries a variety of ways to save his arm.  Instead of focusing on the loss of an arm, this movie focuses on the story of a man saving his own life.

My criticisms for the film are pretty small, but they mean a lot to me.  As much as I enjoyed Danny Boyle's direction, I wish he had put more purpose or meaning behind his variety of camera angles.  It's a small gripe, I know, but it can make the difference between good and masterful direction.  Boyle is at the point in his career where every movie he makes is potentially a classic (in my mind, anyway), so to see him not put the extra effort into having different camera angles imply different emotions is disappointing for me.  My other "complaint" regards the climax of the film; yes, it's emotional, but I think they could have cranked it up a few more notches and still not have come anywhere near melodrama.  Like I said, they're small gripes, but I think they're valid points.

That doesn't change the fact that this is a very good movie with a surprisingly good performance by James Franco.  You don't often spend an entire movie watching one character barely move, but this is definitely worth a watch.

Becket

They don't make movies like this any more.  Sure, with the Oscar success of The King's Speech, some might argue that the period piece drama is as strong as ever, but that film was more of an oddity than anything else.  No, I don't think any major film company would develop a movie set in the late 1100s that has no epic sword fights or battles; instead, this is a battle of wills and asks the question of where loyalty to God supersedes loyalty to man, about as intellectual of a film subject as you can get without ending up with a space baby.

"Go ahead, try to explain me."

Becket is the moderately true story (more on that later) of Thomas Becket (Richard Burton) and his relationship with King Henry II of England (Peter O'Toole).  The film takes place about a century after William the Conqueror and the Normans invaded England, dominating the native Saxons.  Henry, obviously, is a descendant of William, and he treats the Saxons as worthless peasants.  When he encounters them, he likes to refer to adults as "it" instead of "he/she."  Henry's right hand man is Thomas, who aids his highness with his eating (food fights), drinking (until far beyond drunk) and wenching (which is an excellent term that should be brought back for modern usage).  Thomas is a Saxon, but he is a refined man; he has divorced himself from petty emotions and honor, instead doing whatever practical things he can do to enjoy the finer things in life as long as he is able.  This makes him a bit of a traitor to the peasant class, but Becket doesn't care.  To reward his bestest buddy, Henry appoints him as his official counselor; this makes the supposedly worthless Saxon a powerful political figure, and it is quickly seen just how clever he is.  That cleverness pays off in unexpected ways for Becket.  Henry has been trying to pay for a war against France for a while now, but his efforts to gather money to pay his Swiss mercenaries  --- why develop an English army when the Swiss already have their knives ready? --- have failed; specifically, Henry has been trying to tax the land and holdings of the Church of England, but the stodgy old Archbishop doesn't want that to happen.  Shocking, I know.  When the Archbishop dies, Henry has the brilliant idea to put his wenching buddy in the driver's seat for the church.  However, Becket unexpectedly takes his role as Archbishop seriously, and stands firm against his king on that and other, more serious, issues.  Who will win, church or state?  Well, if you know your history, that shouldn't be a huge surprise.

Apparently, King Henry II laughed like a corpse.  And stop undressing me with your eyes, Becket!

What might be a surprise, though, is the historical accuracy of this story.  To be fair, this is simply the film adaptation of the play Becket or the Honour of God, so several inaccuracies come from the source text.  Still, there are some things that stick out like sore thumbs.  For starters, Becket wasn't a Saxon, so there was never that class division that this film places so much importance on.  The playwright actually knew that, but learned about it after the play was finished, and decided to leave it in for dramatic purposes.  I love intentional disinformation.  Another small detail that you might notice missing from this film is the French language.  As in, only a French prostitute seems to speak French, while everyone else speaks English with a British accent; that's especially funny when you consider that the Normans were from France, were Francophiles, and spoke French most of the time in court.  As for the French king in this movie...I don't exactly know why he isn't speaking French at all, even with his own advisers.  None of that really bothers me, despite being somewhat familiar with English history, but it struck me as very odd; why have some presumably French-speaking characters that have trouble with English, but not others?

The acting in this film is good, but it also has one of the shortcomings that prestigious older movies sometimes have --- overacting.  I like Richard Burton as an actor, but this role plays to some of his hammier tendencies; I would have liked to see a little more of Becket as the King's enabler, because the serious Becket is (although appropriately dramatic) kind of a drag to listen to.  Despite the movie's title, this film really belongs to Peter O'Toole.  Fresh off of Lawrence of Arabia (a role he took instead of playing King Henry in the original stage production of Becket), this is O'Toole in his prime.  Sure, his King Henry II is occasionally effeminate (find an O'Toole performance that isn't, I dare you), but that softness vanishes whenever he gets acerbic.  The most enjoyable moments of the film feature O'Toole verbally assaulting the royal family and, despite himself, admiring his frienemy, Becket.  The most powerful (and pivotal) scene in the movie is just O'Toole ranting and shouting about Becket.  For a movie called Becket, it is less about the character and more about his effect on King Henry II.  I was hoping to enjoy Burton and O'Toole on screen together, but those scenes typically played either to their weaknesses or were necessarily underacted.  And, let's be honest...these two actors are of the British old school; their performances are very much of the thee-aturr, often ignoring subtlety in their quest to broadly emote.  Fellas, relax...the camera can zoom in and the microphones can catch whispered lines; use your inside voices.  Yes, they are both very talented, but much of this film feels over-dramatized. 

The supporting cast does a decent enough job, but their parts are fairly minuscule.  John Gielgud was amusing as the French king with a British accent.  Paolo Stoppa was less convincing as Pope Alexander III, but he and his cardinals were pretty funny with their Mario-esque Italian acc-a-cents.  Pamela Brown doesn't get a chance to do much acting as Henry's wife, but she does a good job reacting to Henry's significantly awesome and degrading remarks about their sex life.

Peter Glenville does not have many film credits to his name, but the director was prolific on Broadway.  In fact, he directed Laurence Olivier and Anthony Quinn in the original theatrical run of Becket.  With his big screen version, he does a lot of things right.  The movie looks great, the cinematography is good, the sets and costumes are impressively authentic, and the supporting cast performs admirably.  I can't say that I'm surprised that Glenville, a theater director, worked with actors that performed as if they were on stage and had to be seen and heard from the back of the upper balcony.  As it stands, he directed two very talented actors into overacting.

For the most part, I enjoyed Becket.  Sure, the acting was occasionally over the top, but there are several moments --- mostly provided by O'Toole --- that are well worth the price of admission.  Unfortunately, the film shows its age in more ways than just the theatrical acting style.  The score grated on my nerves; I don't need the music to tell me when it's time to be happy, I'll take my cues from the smiling actors, thank you.  You might notice a few occasions where the sound isn't quite right, too.  For instance, I don't think a tent in France should echo like a sound stage.  Aside from that, only the subject matter feels anachronistic.  I'm not saying that religious films can't be made today, but when they are, they are typically syrupy.  This is a film that takes the concept of God and turns it into an issue of individual honor, and takes a conflict between two powerful men and transforms it into a story of political maneuvering.  In its way, Becket is a very clever story, but it is one without a modern analogue, for better or worse.

Becket enjoyed immense critical acclaim when it was first released --- twelve Oscar nominations --- but has faded somewhat over time.  Is it because we care more about historical accuracy in our movies, now that we watch them to learn history?  I don't think that's it.  Perhaps the subject matter --- a man putting his life on the line for God and honor --- doesn't hit as close to home nowadays?  That's not right, either.  I think that the combination of a talky script, overacted performances, an inappropriate score, and a subject matter that Americans don't care much about (12th century British politics) have all added up to make this a well-made, but ultimately not timeless film.

Salt

Yes, indeed, "who is Salt?"  With a question like that, you might expect Salt to be a movie of mistaken identities, or perhaps something involving multiple personalities or amnesia (a la Bourne).  Those expectations will not be met by this film.

Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is happily married to a decent-looking (and I'm being generous to August Diehl here) spider-scientist.

No, I meant a scientist that studies spiders, not the other way around.

A few years back, before they were married, Evelyn was captured in North Korea and accused of espionage.  Somehow, her hubby-to-be persuaded the powers that be to release her, and they got married in one of the least mutually attractive film marriages of all time.  Still bloodied and bruised from her interrogation, Evelyn tells her man that she is really a CIA agent, and that he will never be safe as her husband.  Fast-forward a few years, and the completely healed Evelyn Salt is back to work with the CIA, along with her superior officer, Ted Winter (Liev Schreiber).  The pair are called in to check out the validity of a supposed Russian spy that is looking to defect and, I assume, wants to live in America to drink Coca-Cola and wear blue jeans.  This defector, Vasilly Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), tells Salt, Winter, and a room full of agents that are monitoring for heart rate and fact-checking details, about Day X.  This is a long-term plan by a former Soviet spy master where he planted child assassins into America, with the intent of using them (after they grew up) as sleeper agents to one day destroy the United States.  In fact, a sleeper agent is supposed to assassinate the Russian president tomorrow.  That agent's name is...Evelyn Salt.  Wha...?!?

After such a heinous accusation, the obvious next step is to quarantine Salt, to at least make sure she isn't a Russian sleeper assassin, right?  That's what agent Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor) tries to do.  However, he makes the mistake of letting her call her bug-loving hubby first --- and he's not answering the phone!  Oh no!  The next thing you know, Salt is beating the living hell out of her fellow CIA agents and pulling some serious Mission: Impossible stunts to escape and learn her husband's fate.  But...if she's just interested in finding her husband safe and sound, why is she preparing to assassinate the Russian president at the same time?  Just who is this Salt, anyway?

If you are looking for a highly intelligent spy caper, or at least something that could have been adapted from a book, Salt is not the movie for you.

NOT the inspiration for the movie, but an excellent read.

On the other hand, if you are in the mood for an absolutely ridiculous action movie, this might be right up your alley.

What keeps this film from being a serious spy movie?  The acting, for starters.  Angelina Jolie is fine as the title character, but her role is meant to leave the audience guessing, so she plays it pretty stone-faced.  She performs her stunts very well, though, which balances that out a bit.  The only part of her performance that I didn't care for was her running scenes; I've seen people run fast, but there is no way Angelina Jolie was running fast enough to break a nine-minute-mile, much less outrun half a dozen athletic government agents that are not wearing a sexy skirt.  Liev Schreiber was similarly unemotional, but adequate in his part.  I'm not sure if I am just indifferent to the man, or if I still hold a grudge for his part in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Yeah, that's how I felt when I watched that movie, too.

I actively disliked the normally likable Chiwetel Ejiofor, if only because his character bobbed between Batman-level anticipation of Salt's moves and idiotic mistakes, like leaving her alone in an unlocked room.  The rest of the cast was not particularly noteworthy, but I would like to one bit part.  Andre Braugher, one of the great speaking voices in modern movies, had about 15-20 minutes of screen time and only two lines; has nobody seen how good he was in Homicide: Life on the Streets?  Somebody give the man a decent role!

Phillip Noyce is no stranger to directing silly action movies.  After all, he gave us The Saint and my all-time favorite blind samurai movie, Blind Fury.

Don't judge a book by its cover, but it's probably okay to judge movies by their posters.

Noyce does a very good job with the action scenes, which make up a large part of the movie.  I don't know if I completely buy a non-super-powered Jolie beating up hallways full of armed government agents, but Noyce made it look plausible, at least.  The direction falters when any emotion is supposed to be shown.  Every emotion is muted; I would be shocked if I was working with someone who was accused of being a sleeper agent, but everyone in this movie kind of takes it with a grain of, um, sand.  I understand that some scenes are meant to be misleading (this is a spy movie, dumb or not), but there is no emotional payoff to any of this.  It doesn't have to be huge (look at the Bourne series, for instance), but this movie needed more than the script supplies.

I keep mentioning that this is a silly or dumb action movie, but I haven't really gone into detail so far.  I just wanted to get the boring critiques out of the way first.  The moment when I realized that this was not going to be a realistic or gritty movie was when Angelina Jolie's character (who looks very much like her) marries August Diehl (who looks very much like Peter Doherty).  That alone set off warning lights in my brain.  The next bit of silliness involves the defecting Russian who escapes CIA headquarters because he was hiding a retractable knife in his boot.  How did that get past the already-established-in-the-film high security protocols?  Whatever.  The important thing is that the audience understands why Salt is running from the CIA.  At the 30 minute mark, the answer is...because she doesn't want to be caught.  At the 45 minute mark, that reason hasn't changed.  In fact, it isn't until the climax (or, if you're clever, the hour mark) that you know for sure why she has done anything that she has done in the movie.  And it's not like there is any suspense surrounding her motivations; it's just part of the story that the plot has conveniently left out.  There are a few other laughable moments --- Jolie disguised as a busty Ralph Maccio (my wife's description) and a military computer that uploads with the speed of dial-up --- but it was the complete lack of suspense surrounding Salt's inexplicable actions that really bothered me.

This is a very solid action flick, though.  Jolie looks good and tough in all of her stunts (except her distance running), and some of her stunts are pretty damn cool.  I liked that, for a little while anyway, the government agents (who you just know are outmatched) actually keep up with Salt for a while; her first getaway is a car chase where the CIA are right behind her, despite a series of stunts that would have been the climax in most other chase scenes.  Jolie was convincing in the rest of the fight scenes, too, beating up and exploding a few dozens godless Russians here and there.  Some of the action scenes were surprisingly inventive, too.  It's too bad we never actually see any sort of planning stages for these attacks, because I think that would have added an extra layer of awesome to a story that needed a little more of that key ingredient.

There is something to be said for the film's pace, though.  The story is definitely the weak point, but it is smart enough to have chase scene after chase scene until the movie is over.  I will give Jolie and the other actors credit for never winking at the camera, either.  Yes, this is a ludicrous action movie.  But it is an Action movie, with a capital "A."

Of course, that's more of a "is it a good movie?" sort of rating.  If I'm in the mood to laugh at the stupid plot and just bask in the gratuitous chases, I give this a Lefty Gold rating of